The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Notthecurtains on July 04, 2022, 03:58:32 AM
-
Here's a thought experiment based on the difference in density between the object and the medium being the reason for why things fall.
Imagine an airtight glass box with a ball inside suspended from the top. The box is pressurized to exactly 1ATM. The ball is then dropped and falls at a certain speed.
The experiment is then repeated exactly the same, except the box is now pressurized to 0.5ATM. Does the ball fall faster or slower than 1ATM? By how much is it slowed or sped up?
Then do the experiment again but at 2ATM. Does the ball fall faster or slower than 1ATM and by how much?
-
Depends a lot on the density of the ball.
A solid iron ball, would pretty much fall at the same rate with very minor speed changes due to increased air friction.
A balloon with just air would fall a bit slower in higher ATM due to the same this, air friction.
The downwards force would still be the same, just the resistance to movement due to friction from the increased air particles resulting in increased friction.
-
Depends a lot on the density of the ball.
A solid iron ball, would pretty much fall at the same rate with very minor speed changes due to increased air friction.
A balloon with just air would fall a bit slower in higher ATM due to the same this, air friction.
The downwards force would still be the same, just the resistance to movement due to friction from the increased air particles resulting in increased friction.
So if air density doesn't seem to significantly affect how fast objects fall (except for air resistance) then why do flat earthers always explain objects falling with the density/buoyancy explanation? You say the downwards force would still be the same, what is the downwards force?
-
why do flat earthers always explain objects falling with the density/buoyancy explanation?
I can spend 5 seconds looking at this very site to arrive at the conclusion that Flat Earthers don't always explain objects falling in the manner you described. You could do that, too, if you wanted. Check out Jane's FE compendium thread, it's a great place to start.
The answer to your question is that your question is based on a false premise.
-
why do flat earthers always explain objects falling with the density/buoyancy explanation?
I can spend 5 seconds looking at this very site to arrive at the conclusion that Flat Earthers don't always explain objects falling in the manner you described. You could do that, too, if you wanted. Check out Jane's FE compendium thread, it's a great place to start.
The answer to your question is that your question is based on a false premise.
I've had a look at your flat earth FAQ thread and seen that your explanation is that the earth is accelerating up at 9.8m/s squared.
Other flat earth forums I've been on disagree and say that's wrong and its due to density and buoyancy.
Its hard to debate with flat earthers (and to take your theory seriously) when none of you agree on explanations for everyday phenomena.
-
Depends a lot on the density of the ball.
A solid iron ball, would pretty much fall at the same rate with very minor speed changes due to increased air friction.
A balloon with just air would fall a bit slower in higher ATM due to the same this, air friction.
The downwards force would still be the same, just the resistance to movement due to friction from the increased air particles resulting in increased friction.
So if air density doesn't seem to significantly affect how fast objects fall (except for air resistance) then why do flat earthers always explain objects falling with the density/buoyancy explanation? You say the downwards force would still be the same, what is the downwards force?
The downwards force is gravity.
Buoyancy has gravity as part of how you derive it. More dense displaces less dense.
There are many theories for FE. Some do not address things falling downwards, many do.
-
Its hard to debate with flat earthers (and to take your theory seriously) when none of you agree on explanations for everyday phenomena.
Lots of people believe in God, yet have wildly different theories/perspectives regarding the worship and rules of doing so. Belief in God is an everyday phenomena for many, yet many can't agree. Since they can't agree, does that mean God doesn't exist?
-
Its hard to debate with flat earthers (and to take your theory seriously) when none of you agree on explanations for everyday phenomena.
Lots of people believe in God, yet have wildly different theories/perspectives regarding the worship and rules of doing so. Belief in God is an everyday phenomena for many, yet many can't agree. Since they can't agree, does that mean God doesn't exist?
Not necessarily, but the lack of a consensus makes it far less convincing.
If all flat earthers agreed exactly how X, Y and Z works and the theory matches observation then far more people would take it seriously.
I saw an interview with Mark Sargent, he said something along the lines of this "flat earthers only agree on a single thing, the earth is not round".
What science does is make observations, do tests and gather evidence and sees where it all leads.
While on the other hand it seems like flat earthers have jumped the gun and all decided that they want the earth to be flat, but can't agree on how to get to that conclusion they've preemptively chosen.
-
Its hard to debate with flat earthers (and to take your theory seriously) when none of you agree on explanations for everyday phenomena.
Lots of people believe in God, yet have wildly different theories/perspectives regarding the worship and rules of doing so. Belief in God is an everyday phenomena for many, yet many can't agree. Since they can't agree, does that mean God doesn't exist?
Not necessarily, but the lack of a consensus makes it far less convincing.
If all flat earthers agreed exactly how X, Y and Z works and the theory matches observation then far more people would take it seriously.
I saw an interview with Mark Sargent, he said something along the lines of this "flat earthers only agree on a single thing, the earth is not round".
What science does is make observations, do tests and gather evidence and sees where it all leads.
While on the other hand it seems like flat earthers have jumped the gun and all decided that they want the earth to be flat, but can't agree on how to get to that conclusion they've preemptively chosen.
There is a reason there are multiple FE types. If you ask the FE community its because they have no support and are fighting against indoctrination.
While the non support portion is relatively true, there are some who have the resources, I find the indoctrination claim to be very much incorrect. The problem is that not a single FE concept can explain several things we observe in reality. Therefore there is multiple contradictory things in pretty much every FE concept which drives people to have to come up with different ideas and what ifs. Just watch the globebusters try to debunk Professor Dave. Every point they made contradicted a previous point they made. No model, no math, nothing beyond strawman arguments, etc. Some think math can be twisted, almost all believe in a huge conspiracy, almost all have no real concept of basic physics.
-
I've had a look at your flat earth FAQ thread and seen that your explanation is that the earth is accelerating up at 9.8m/s squared.
Other flat earth forums I've been on disagree and say that's wrong and its due to density and buoyancy.
Its hard to debate with flat earthers (and to take your theory seriously) when none of you agree on explanations for everyday phenomena.
You keep saying "you" to me, and yet there's no way you can actually be intending this to be directed at me personally. If I'm mistaken, you're very misguided and it would be a good idea to maybe step back from the initial shock of discovering the Flat Earth Society and the accompanying knee-jerk reaction to lash out at anyone you think isn't on your team.
There's a reason I pointed you toward the thread I mentioned, and not the wiki or FAQ. We have several different FE models/concepts that people discuss here, and it seems silly to take a different stance other than embracing that and instead alienate people that do not conform to one "chosen model."
You'd clearly like to debate something here, so that's a plus. It seems like your focus is on density/buoyancy as an alternative to Gravity. You're in luck! Sceptimatic has written quite a bit about that. Check out his denpressure ideas to get some background, I think Jane has some in the compendium and you can also look at Sceptimatic's post history.
-
The idea that density is a proper replacement for gravity is quite the laugh. I'd say its the only thing more ludicrous than the earth accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s/s. At least that works out mathematically and observationally. Perhaps the youtube crowd should have read some books before jumping into a discussion nearly 200 years old.
-
The idea that density is a proper replacement for gravity is quite the laugh. I'd say its the only thing more ludicrous than the earth accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s/s. At least that works out mathematically and observationally. Perhaps the youtube crowd should have read some books before jumping into a discussion nearly 200 years old.
Well, differences in the force measurements at different locations and different altitudes makes the accelerating upwards argument invalid also. This is due to a few things, density of the materials below your feet, inverse square law of gravity matching altitude, and centrifugal acceleration from Earth's spin. All measureable, albeit very tiny amounts of changes, still measureable and in accordance with what is predicted by the theory of gravity(aka how gravity works matches what we observe).
Most FE ideas don't get to the point of actual analysis of measurements though. Many dismiss math, measurements, photos, common sense, etc. Sine those absolutely destroy all FE notions.
-
I've had a look at your flat earth FAQ thread and seen that your explanation is that the earth is accelerating up at 9.8m/s squared.
Other flat earth forums I've been on disagree and say that's wrong and its due to density and buoyancy.
Its hard to debate with flat earthers (and to take your theory seriously) when none of you agree on explanations for everyday phenomena.
You keep saying "you" to me, and yet there's no way you can actually be intending this to be directed at me personally. If I'm mistaken, you're very misguided and it would be a good idea to maybe step back from the initial shock of discovering the Flat Earth Society and the accompanying knee-jerk reaction to lash out at anyone you think isn't on your team.
There's a reason I pointed you toward the thread I mentioned, and not the wiki or FAQ. We have several different FE models/concepts that people discuss here, and it seems silly to take a different stance other than embracing that and instead alienate people that do not conform to one "chosen model."
You'd clearly like to debate something here, so that's a plus. It seems like your focus is on density/buoyancy as an alternative to Gravity. You're in luck! Sceptimatic has written quite a bit about that. Check out his denpressure ideas to get some background, I think Jane has some in the compendium and you can also look at Sceptimatic's post history.
Correct, I'm using a more general definition of "You". And I'm not shocked that flat earthers and the FES exist.
The problem with having multiple models is that only one can be correct. There is absolute truth about how gravity works, how large the earth is etc. These are not matters of opinion.
Do flat earthers actually come up with a hypothesis and test it so they can rule out different ideas and find which one is correct? The thought experiment I've proposed could be done practically, has no flat earther actually done a test to check if gravity actually works like that?
The biggest problem by far with flat earth theories is there's so many conflicting ones.
On the globe model, everybody agrees how fast the earth rotates, how long a year is, exactly how the sun, earth and moon interact etc. All the explanations for how these different things work match observation exactly and are consistent with each other so all fit into a single model.
Why is there no single model to explain these phenomenon on a flat earth?
Take days and seasons for example. The explanation I see most is that the sun moves in a circle above the earth which causes the day/night cycle. Seasons are caused by the sun moving closer to the northern tropic in northern hemisphere/hemiplane summer and closer to the southern tropic in winter. But these phenomena have to be shown on two different models because the explanations cause conflict with reality if you try to have both at once.
On a flat earth map the circle the sun completes once per day in winter is longer than the circle it completes in summer.
There are only two options:
1. The sun moves at a constant speed. This isn't correct because then a full day/night cycle would be shorter in summer than in winter because the sun travels a shorter distance.
2. The sun doesn't move at a constant speed. The sun speeds up in winter and slows down in summer to travel different distances in the same amount of time, so day/night cycle length is the same throughout the year. This isn't correct because nobody has ever observed the sun moving faster or slower based on time of year.
There are only two possible explanations and neither matches observation, therefore the flat earth theory is DOA before you even get on to things like how gravity works
-
The idea that density is a proper replacement for gravity is quite the laugh. I'd say its the only thing more ludicrous than the earth accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s/s. At least that works out mathematically and observationally. Perhaps the youtube crowd should have read some books before jumping into a discussion nearly 200 years old.
Well, differences in the force measurements at different locations and different altitudes makes the accelerating upwards argument invalid also. This is due to a few things, density of the materials below your feet, inverse square law of gravity matching altitude, and centrifugal acceleration from Earth's spin. All measureable, albeit very tiny amounts of changes, still measureable and in accordance with what is predicted by the theory of gravity(aka how gravity works matches what we observe).
Most FE ideas don't get to the point of actual analysis of measurements though. Many dismiss math, measurements, photos, common sense, etc. Sine those absolutely destroy all FE notions.
Except those questions have already been answered through the normal science that eventually discounted the acceleration hypothesis. Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall. The density arguments may provide fruit, but it's unlikely as they have several flaws out of the box. Either way, we'll have to wait until they have matured enough to at least answer the questions that the silly accelerating earth already has.
-
The idea that density is a proper replacement for gravity is quite the laugh. I'd say its the only thing more ludicrous than the earth accelerating upwards at 9.81m/s/s. At least that works out mathematically and observationally. Perhaps the youtube crowd should have read some books before jumping into a discussion nearly 200 years old.
Well, differences in the force measurements at different locations and different altitudes makes the accelerating upwards argument invalid also. This is due to a few things, density of the materials below your feet, inverse square law of gravity matching altitude, and centrifugal acceleration from Earth's spin. All measureable, albeit very tiny amounts of changes, still measureable and in accordance with what is predicted by the theory of gravity(aka how gravity works matches what we observe).
Most FE ideas don't get to the point of actual analysis of measurements though. Many dismiss math, measurements, photos, common sense, etc. Sine those absolutely destroy all FE notions.
Except those questions have already been answered through the normal science that eventually discounted the acceleration hypothesis. Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall. The density arguments may provide fruit, but it's unlikely as they have several flaws out of the box. Either way, we'll have to wait until they have matured enough to at least answer the questions that the silly accelerating earth already has.
That's a bit disingenuous, gravity has been tested. And yes the movements of the celestial bodies is faster than what we expected from what we can actually see. Something is causing it, we have a theory, that is unproven, yes. But if proven, which they may in fact have been able to detect the dark matter recently, then it is still gravity, just we have to account for the dark matter. Interesting that the math for the observable matter doesn't work, yet they haven't "twisted" math to fit. It is an unknown that many people are trying to solve. If what was recently detected as dark matter is verified and we come up with a way to detect it easier, then what will you say? We aren't going to simply throw out everything we have discovered concerning gravity, we aren't going to claim that math can be twisted, we predict, observe, confirm or deny, then try to find out where our predictions were wrong. So far, math isn't the failure. Assumptions based on emotional needs are the biggest problems. Much like FE notions, it isn't anything other than people needing to feel better about themselves, they want to feel like they know something other people don't. You all need to realize that you are good enough without trying so desperately to be special. Nothing backs up your claims, there isn't a massive conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth. Your feelings don't invalidate the math.
The accelerating Earth hasn't answered any questions, it has been thoroughly disproven. What I mentioned is just a few of the ways it doesn't work, there are more. Much like the idea of massively curved space making things that are flat appear to be curved. I'll give you an A for originality, but a F for your understanding of physics. It is hard to disprove, but impossible to prove. And it doesn't actually work with the math, which is why you need to claim math can be twisted somehow.
-
Your feelings don't invalidate the math.
Well at least you got one sentence right.
Yeah, its been disproven. That's what I said:
that eventually discounted the acceleration hypothesis
Again mate, what are you trying to say here.
-
Also do you havew any actual non-emotional points to put forward, or just a rant about stuff that makes you feel bad? If my physics is so poor, or my mathematics (hey look they are two different things!) - what explicit issue do you bring. Why am I wrong?
At the very least, you can bring that - one would hope.
-
Also do you havew any actual non-emotional points to put forward, or just a rant about stuff that makes you feel bad? If my physics is so poor, or my mathematics (hey look they are two different things!) - what explicit issue do you bring. Why am I wrong?
Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall.
Your arguments are just as emotional, as this example shows. You are simply stating that gravity is wrong without providing any sources or any math. I've asked you for sources in many previous discussions and never got any, and have to assume you won't give any here either.
But I will ask anyway, what is your source, evidence, math or measurements that the measured gravitational pull is less than estimated? Estimated by who? Measured where?
-
In our Dear Leaders defence, is anyone out there saying that 'gravity is correct'? It seems to me it's more like a placeholder until will learn more about it. Like Dark Matter and Dark Energy. They are placeholders to our ignorance.
I'd be wary in asserting that we have the answers already
-
In our Dear Leaders defence, is anyone out there saying that 'gravity is correct'? It seems to me it's more like a placeholder until will learn more about it. Like Dark Matter and Dark Energy. They are placeholders to our ignorance.
I'd be wary in asserting that we have the answers already
Everything is a placeholder, that's how science works. No matter how much we learn you can't prove there are not more fundamentals underneath. That's no reason to claim that we know nothing at all. We don't have all the answers and never will, but the answers we do have work. Science built the world we live in and works pretty damn well, including the math of how gravity behaves.
But if he wants to claim that gravity doesn't work as predicted on Earth, he is going to have to show his evidence. I'm not holding my breath.
-
Also do you havew any actual non-emotional points to put forward, or just a rant about stuff that makes you feel bad? If my physics is so poor, or my mathematics (hey look they are two different things!) - what explicit issue do you bring. Why am I wrong?
Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall.
Your arguments are just as emotional, as this example shows. You are simply stating that gravity is wrong without providing any sources or any math. I've asked you for sources in many previous discussions and never got any, and have to assume you won't give any here either.
But I will ask anyway, what is your source, evidence, math or measurements that the measured gravitational pull is less than estimated? Estimated by who? Measured where?
Again, I disagree with the theory you are trying to have me defend. If you want to know about that theory, you can use the search.
-
Except those questions have already been answered through the normal science that eventually discounted the acceleration hypothesis. Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall. The density arguments may provide fruit, but it's unlikely as they have several flaws out of the box. Either way, we'll have to wait until they have matured enough to at least answer the questions that the silly accelerating earth already has.
So what is the leading flat earth hypothesis at the moment?
I haven’t noticed much progress on the question.
-
Except those questions have already been answered through the normal science that eventually discounted the acceleration hypothesis. Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall. The density arguments may provide fruit, but it's unlikely as they have several flaws out of the box. Either way, we'll have to wait until they have matured enough to at least answer the questions that the silly accelerating earth already has.
So what is the leading flat earth hypothesis at the moment?
I haven’t noticed much progress on the question.
Infinite Plane?
-
Infinite plane is probably the most popular of the theories over the wider community that have come out of The Flat Earth Society. That said, I think the relativistic model answers far more questions.
-
Infinite plane is probably the most popular of the theories over the wider community that have come out of The Flat Earth Society. That said, I think the relativistic model answers far more questions.
Interesting you say that, because I was assulted by a mob when I said the infinite plane makes more sense to me at a FE discord forum. Suppose its pretty hard to have consensus on a topic when there is never supporitng evidence.
-
Also do you havew any actual non-emotional points to put forward, or just a rant about stuff that makes you feel bad? If my physics is so poor, or my mathematics (hey look they are two different things!) - what explicit issue do you bring. Why am I wrong?
Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall.
Your arguments are just as emotional, as this example shows. You are simply stating that gravity is wrong without providing any sources or any math. I've asked you for sources in many previous discussions and never got any, and have to assume you won't give any here either.
But I will ask anyway, what is your source, evidence, math or measurements that the measured gravitational pull is less than estimated? Estimated by who? Measured where?
Again, I disagree with the theory you are trying to have me defend. If you want to know about that theory, you can use the search.
You disagree with what theory? The endlessly accelerating Earth? Or the theory of gravity which causes the Earth to form into a sphere? Both?
You still stated that local gravitational discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model. Can you explain where you got the data to support this? Or your evidence that the force that makes this move in the heavens is NOT the same as the force that makes things fall? These are pretty strong claims to make without backing them up.
-
Also do you havew any actual non-emotional points to put forward, or just a rant about stuff that makes you feel bad? If my physics is so poor, or my mathematics (hey look they are two different things!) - what explicit issue do you bring. Why am I wrong?
Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall.
Your arguments are just as emotional, as this example shows. You are simply stating that gravity is wrong without providing any sources or any math. I've asked you for sources in many previous discussions and never got any, and have to assume you won't give any here either.
But I will ask anyway, what is your source, evidence, math or measurements that the measured gravitational pull is less than estimated? Estimated by who? Measured where?
Again, I disagree with the theory you are trying to have me defend. If you want to know about that theory, you can use the search.
You disagree with what theory? The endlessly accelerating Earth? Or the theory of gravity which causes the Earth to form into a sphere? Both?
Yes, both.
You still stated that local gravitational discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model. Can you explain where you got the data to support this? Or your evidence that the force that makes this move in the heavens is NOT the same as the force that makes things fall? These are pretty strong claims to make without backing them up.
I stated that in reference to question being asked. Read the sentence before it. That said, iirc we got the data from GRACE and similar sources.
https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/47/gravity-anomaly-map-using-grace-data/
-
Infinite plane is probably the most popular of the theories over the wider community that have come out of The Flat Earth Society. That said, I think the relativistic model answers far more questions.
Interesting you say that, because I was assulted by a mob when I said the infinite plane makes more sense to me at a FE discord forum. Suppose its pretty hard to have consensus on a topic when there is never supporitng evidence.
It certainly depends on the specific group.
-
I stated that in reference to question being asked. Read the sentence before it. That said, iirc we got the data from GRACE and similar sources.
https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/47/gravity-anomaly-map-using-grace-data/
You do realise that those anomolies exist because earth does not have a perfectly uniform surface density? Eg, Mountains have higher mass than vallies. Its not because gravity is doing something unexpected.
-
Also do you havew any actual non-emotional points to put forward, or just a rant about stuff that makes you feel bad? If my physics is so poor, or my mathematics (hey look they are two different things!) - what explicit issue do you bring. Why am I wrong?
Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall.
Your arguments are just as emotional, as this example shows. You are simply stating that gravity is wrong without providing any sources or any math. I've asked you for sources in many previous discussions and never got any, and have to assume you won't give any here either.
But I will ask anyway, what is your source, evidence, math or measurements that the measured gravitational pull is less than estimated? Estimated by who? Measured where?
Again, I disagree with the theory you are trying to have me defend. If you want to know about that theory, you can use the search.
You disagree with what theory? The endlessly accelerating Earth? Or the theory of gravity which causes the Earth to form into a sphere? Both?
Yes, both.
You still stated that local gravitational discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model. Can you explain where you got the data to support this? Or your evidence that the force that makes this move in the heavens is NOT the same as the force that makes things fall? These are pretty strong claims to make without backing them up.
I stated that in reference to question being asked. Read the sentence before it. That said, iirc we got the data from GRACE and similar sources.
https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/47/gravity-anomaly-map-using-grace-data/
Do you mean this GRACE data (from your link):
(https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBZdz09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--98857864ecb6f2fe13ce8a76f57bd58c2ea2b4a1/12_gravity_map_700x800_2x.jpg?disposition=attachment)
-
You still stated that local gravitational discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model. Can you explain where you got the data to support this? Or your evidence that the force that makes this move in the heavens is NOT the same as the force that makes things fall? These are pretty strong claims to make without backing them up.
I stated that in reference to question being asked. Read the sentence before it. That said, iirc we got the data from GRACE and similar sources.
https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/47/gravity-anomaly-map-using-grace-data/
Where in that link does it back up your claim that these discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model?
Nothing in that link shows any evidence for disputing the theory of gravity, or the shape of the earth not being round.
-
The issue is what is the relationship between density and how quickly things accelerate.
Those claiming that things fall due to buoyancy don't typically claim the rate is proportional to the difference in density.
The more fundamental issue is why density should make things fall in the first place.
Lots of people believe in God, yet have wildly different theories/perspectives regarding the worship and rules of doing so. Belief in God is an everyday phenomena for many, yet many can't agree. Since they can't agree, does that mean God doesn't exist?
Many different people believe in a different god.
These gods are often mutually exclusive.
They can't all be correct.
So the vast majority are wrong, and the vast majority (if not all gods) don't exist.
Likewise, the vast majority of FE models are wrong, and those Flat Earths don't exist.
-
Also do you havew any actual non-emotional points to put forward, or just a rant about stuff that makes you feel bad? If my physics is so poor, or my mathematics (hey look they are two different things!) - what explicit issue do you bring. Why am I wrong?
Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall.
Your arguments are just as emotional, as this example shows. You are simply stating that gravity is wrong without providing any sources or any math. I've asked you for sources in many previous discussions and never got any, and have to assume you won't give any here either.
But I will ask anyway, what is your source, evidence, math or measurements that the measured gravitational pull is less than estimated? Estimated by who? Measured where?
Again, I disagree with the theory you are trying to have me defend. If you want to know about that theory, you can use the search.
You disagree with what theory? The endlessly accelerating Earth? Or the theory of gravity which causes the Earth to form into a sphere? Both?
Yes, both.
You still stated that local gravitational discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model. Can you explain where you got the data to support this? Or your evidence that the force that makes this move in the heavens is NOT the same as the force that makes things fall? These are pretty strong claims to make without backing them up.
I stated that in reference to question being asked. Read the sentence before it. That said, iirc we got the data from GRACE and similar sources.
https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/47/gravity-anomaly-map-using-grace-data/
Do you mean this GRACE data (from your link):
(https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBZdz09IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--98857864ecb6f2fe13ce8a76f57bd58c2ea2b4a1/12_gravity_map_700x800_2x.jpg?disposition=attachment)
Among other sources, yes.
-
You still stated that local gravitational discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model. Can you explain where you got the data to support this? Or your evidence that the force that makes this move in the heavens is NOT the same as the force that makes things fall? These are pretty strong claims to make without backing them up.
I stated that in reference to question being asked. Read the sentence before it. That said, iirc we got the data from GRACE and similar sources.
https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/47/gravity-anomaly-map-using-grace-data/
Where in that link does it back up your claim that these discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model?
Nothing in that link shows any evidence for disputing the theory of gravity, or the shape of the earth not being round.
You asked for where we got the data. I provided one of the sources. I'm confused as to why you were expecting NASA to prove the earth flat.
-
The more fundamental issue is why density should make things fall in the first place.
Both density and mass make things fall, because they weren't IN air in the first pace, they were on the surface, and THEN were put up into air, by some sort of FORCE applied to propel them upward off the ground, because they DO have mass and density, which keeps them ON the ground to begin with. Air has less mass and density than objects do, so when objects are forced up into air, their greater mass and density makes them fall down through the air, back to the ground, which has more mass and density than the objects have. That's why they stop when they hit the ground from above it, in the air.
All so very simple, and it all works beautifully. No made up forces are needed to explain all of this. Unless you believe Earth is a ball speeding through an endless space, THEN you have to make up a magical force that HOLDS everything down to Earth's surface, and make up what it can do, which is almost ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, and STILL have to invent so much more beyond that, it's endless, and it always fails to hold up, anyway.
-
Both density and mass make things fall
Didn't you say things magically go back to their origin, if so, that means it isn't density.
Regardless, you can go back to the prior thread and answer the trivial questions which shows that line of reasoning of yours is pure garbage.
The simple fact is density alone provides no directionality.
All so very simple, and it all works beautifully.
Except it has been shown to be pure garbage which doesn't work at all.
Pretty much every part of what you have said has been shown to be wrong.
Like I said, if you want to discuss it, go back to the prior thread, and deal with water and overhanging rock.
Otherwise, there is no need to drag your nonsense into here as it wont help you.
-
Didn't you say things magically go back to their origin, if so, that means it isn't density.
Regardless, you can go back to the prior thread and answer the trivial questions which shows that line of reasoning of yours is pure garbage.
The simple fact is density alone provides no directionality.
There's no need for density to provide any directionality when in air, objects simply fall straight down through air to the ground, because it is the only direction they ever COULD go, when falling through the air. How could any OTHER direction be possible when in the air? THAT is where something ELSE would have to provide directionality to them, otherwise, they simply fall through air, which directs them down through the air, not sideways, or upwards, or at an angle, which WOULD require them to be directed within air.
Again, this is so simple.
-
There's no need for density to provide any directionality when in air
Which is simply a way of saying density is not the reason objects fall.
Which is exactly the point I made.
it is the only direction they ever COULD go, when falling through the air.
That is just saying that the only way down is down.
It provides no justification for why they go down.
The question is why they fall in the first place.
Density can't do it, and neither can your BS.
How could any OTHER direction be possible when in the air
Quite easily, as already established in the other thread you fled from after being refuted repeatedly and repeatedly failed to answer a trivial question.
Why should every other direction be impossible?
Again, this is so simple.
Yet you seem completely incapable of understanding it.
Without gravity you have no reason for things to fall.
-
That is just saying that the only way down is down.
It provides no justification for why they go down.
The question is why they fall in the first place.
Density can't do it, and neither can your BS.
Without gravity you have no reason for things to fall.
When you throw a ball up into air, it is only being put up into air, because your arm was used a force, acting on the ball, to cause it to move up in air, right? When in air, the ball slows down, stops, and falls down through the air, without any force acting on it, nor any force NEEDED to act on it, when in air. The ball's mass and density are greater than that of the air, right? So why would there need to be a 'force' to have it fall through air, when it's mass and density MAKE it fall through air? Do you think it would suspend itself in air, when it has MORE mass and density than the air, unless it was 'pulled down from below', by some force? The only reason you COULD throw it up into air, is because it has more mass and density than the air, and that's why you had to apply FORCE to make it go upward. Once it IS in air, no force is needed to make it fall down through the air, it's mass and density alone do that, being greater than the mass and density of the air, the same reason you could throw it up INTO air, is the reason it falls down through it.
No force is needed to keep things on the surface, our mass and density do that for us. The air ABOVE the surface is where nothing is, unless put up there first. You don't need to make up magical forces to explain any of this, it's only mass and density that are needed, and nothing else.
Imagine you were able to create a world, and put life and objects ON that world. You create the entire environment FOR that world. And if you wish to have all things on it's surface, and breathe air above that surface, you'd need no magical 'pulling down' force to make everything STAY on the surface, would you? No, because it is a CONTAINED, CONTROLLED world you'd create, and that's about as SIMPLE a way to create it, for sure.
-
But why down. What makes it go down. What makes it move, aka where does that force come from and why that vector.
-
You still stated that local gravitational discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model. Can you explain where you got the data to support this? Or your evidence that the force that makes this move in the heavens is NOT the same as the force that makes things fall? These are pretty strong claims to make without backing them up.
I stated that in reference to question being asked. Read the sentence before it. That said, iirc we got the data from GRACE and similar sources.
https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/47/gravity-anomaly-map-using-grace-data/
Where in that link does it back up your claim that these discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model?
Nothing in that link shows any evidence for disputing the theory of gravity, or the shape of the earth not being round.
You asked for where we got the data. I provided one of the sources. I'm confused as to why you were expecting NASA to prove the earth flat.
Sigh. I asked you to back up your claim that the discrepancies are "less than estimated in the round earth model" multiple times now.
Your exact quote for reference in case you forgot: "Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall."
I'm asking how you determined this. What are the discrepancies? Can you point one out?
-
That is just saying that the only way down is down.
It provides no justification for why they go down.
The question is why they fall in the first place.
Density can't do it, and neither can your BS.
Without gravity you have no reason for things to fall.
When you throw a ball up into air, it is only being put up into air, because your arm was used a force, acting on the ball, to cause it to move up in air, right? When in air, the ball slows down, stops, and falls down through the air, without any force acting on it, nor any force NEEDED to act on it, when in air. The ball's mass and density are greater than that of the air, right? So why would there need to be a 'force' to have it fall through air, when it's mass and density MAKE it fall through air? Do you think it would suspend itself in air, when it has MORE mass and density than the air, unless it was 'pulled down from below', by some force? The only reason you COULD throw it up into air, is because it has more mass and density than the air, and that's why you had to apply FORCE to make it go upward. Once it IS in air, no force is needed to make it fall down through the air, it's mass and density alone do that, being greater than the mass and density of the air, the same reason you could throw it up INTO air, is the reason it falls down through it.
No force is needed to keep things on the surface, our mass and density do that for us. The air ABOVE the surface is where nothing is, unless put up there first. You don't need to make up magical forces to explain any of this, it's only mass and density that are needed, and nothing else.
Imagine you were able to create a world, and put life and objects ON that world. You create the entire environment FOR that world. And if you wish to have all things on it's surface, and breathe air above that surface, you'd need no magical 'pulling down' force to make everything STAY on the surface, would you? No, because it is a CONTAINED, CONTROLLED world you'd create, and that's about as SIMPLE a way to create it, for sure.
Turbonium you're so close to understanding it. You're just describing gravity but have a fear of saying the G word.
You're correct that throwing a ball in the air requires force, it's then common sense that a second force is needed to bring it back down again.
How do flat earthers explain weighing scales? Imagine you've got a set of glass kitchen scales like this
https://azcd.harveynorman.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/21/image/992x558/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/k/s/ks34-beurer-ks34-glass-digital-kitchen-scale.jpg
Then you put an apple on top of it, it'll show you the weight of the apple.
The apple is at rest, according to your logic there is no force acting on it because you've said there is no downwards force. The density of an apple is less than glass, so the arrangement of the relative densities is correct, the lower density object is already above the higher density one.
So we can rule out density as the cause, as the two objects are already in the correct arrangement as per their densities. We're just left with mass, but according to you there is no downwards force, so there should be nothing pushing or pulling the apple downwards to make it trigger the scales and show the apple's weight. So by your logic, the scales should read 0.
Obviously when anyone does this basic test the scales do not read 0. The scientific explanation is that gravity acts on the mass of the apple and therefore displays the apple's weight on the scale.
With density ruled out as the cause, and no downwards force, how do flat earthers explain this turbonium?
-
When you throw a ball up into air, it is only being put up into air
You have tried and failed with this BS in the other thread.
This thread is not about it.
This thread is about the idea that density is what causes things to fall. Not some BS idea of where the object originated.
If you want to keep pedaling that failed BS of yours, go back to the prior thread and address the simple question you fled from because it destroyed your claim.
Here is a link to the post you refused to respond to:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90083.msg2361527#msg2361527
So go back there and respond.
Your nonsense has no place here.
-
We are partially buoyant whilst walking the ground which is why we can actually walk, run and jump.
We are held down by a stacked atmosphere like I said many times before.
Our bodies have a lot of gases within, in various configurations. It allows us minor buoyancy but not enough to allow our dense mass to overcome the mass of the atmosphere above and around us unless we use our own force to move it out of the way which will allow us to gain a height based on the applied energy for as long as that energy can be maintained.
If we jump into a deep pool or sea we can become much more buoyant if we hold the air inside of us. If we push that air out into the atmosphere that very same air we push out will also act back onto us, meaning we get crushed down into the water a little bit more, and the more gases we let out the more crushed we become, and the less buoyant we become.
If we could survive like a seabed creature we could do exactly the same as we do on land, which would be to walk and jump but be crushed back, yet resist the crush with enough dense mass to allow movement, even when crushed back down after an energising push-up.
If we were likened to a minimally inflated balloon on the land as we see ourselves, we can see how hard it would be to jump up to any reasonable height to overcome atmospheric pressure upon us, yet if we were to be inflated and live we could be pushed up and overcome atmospheric pressure but then see how the atmospheric pressure below us actually resists out descent much more due to the actual area of the dense mass being much greater.
To sit and think about it it all comes down to dense mass versus gas configuration both inside the mass and outside of it.
Denpressure.
Shock horror.
-
atmospheric pressure
Which, as has been repeatedly established, pushes us up, not down.
-
atmospheric pressure
Which, as has been repeatedly established, pushes us up, not down.
It actually does both.
-
If we jump into a deep pool or sea we can become much more buoyant if we hold the air inside of us. If we push that air out into the atmosphere that very same air we push out will also act back onto us, meaning we get crushed down into the water a little bit more, and the more gases we let out the more crushed we become, and the less buoyant we become.
How does the very same air I push out then push down on just me? If there are five people closely circling me in the water as we float, are you saying that my exhale of air then pushes down all 6 of us?
Or are you saying that somehow, the exhaled air 'knows' to only push down on me, leaving the other 5 un-pushed? If so, how does the exhaled air 'know' to only push on me and npot the other 5 people a foot away?
-
atmospheric pressure
Which, as has been repeatedly established, pushes us up, not down.
It actually does both.
With the net effect being pushing objects upwards.
This is because the pressure is greater below the object.
-
If we jump into a deep pool or sea we can become much more buoyant if we hold the air inside of us. If we push that air out into the atmosphere that very same air we push out will also act back onto us, meaning we get crushed down into the water a little bit more, and the more gases we let out the more crushed we become, and the less buoyant we become.
How does the very same air I push out then push down on just me? If there are five people closely circling me in the water as we float, are you saying that my exhale of air then pushes down all 6 of us?
Or are you saying that somehow, the exhaled air 'knows' to only push down on me, leaving the other 5 un-pushed? If so, how does the exhaled air 'know' to only push on me and not the other 5 people a foot away?
It becomes part of the atmosphere and will have minimal effect on anything other than you.
Why?
Because you created that by allowing the water and air to crush back onto you by releasing what was inside you.
-
atmospheric pressure
Which, as has been repeatedly established, pushes us up, not down.
It actually does both.
With the net effect being pushing objects upwards.
This is because the pressure is greater below the object.
The pressure is greater below until you (dense mass) are in that equation, then the push from above alters that by your displacement of it.
-
atmospheric pressure
Which, as has been repeatedly established, pushes us up, not down.
It actually does both.
With the net effect being pushing objects upwards.
This is because the pressure is greater below the object.
The pressure is greater below until you (dense mass) are in that equation, then the push from above alters that by your displacement of it.
1. An object moving without a force to cause the movement is not possible
2. Density and mass are just properties of matter, they cannot cause things to move on their own as they are not forces
Flat earthers continue to refuse to understand these two basic things and therefore invent pseudoscience to try to explain gravity without saying "gravity"
-
The pressure is greater below until you (dense mass) are in that equation
Nope, even with the dense mass in the equation, the pressure is still greater below you, with the air pushing you up and reducing your weight.
-
If we jump into a deep pool or sea we can become much more buoyant if we hold the air inside of us. If we push that air out into the atmosphere that very same air we push out will also act back onto us, meaning we get crushed down into the water a little bit more, and the more gases we let out the more crushed we become, and the less buoyant we become.
How does the very same air I push out then push down on just me? If there are five people closely circling me in the water as we float, are you saying that my exhale of air then pushes down all 6 of us?
Or are you saying that somehow, the exhaled air 'knows' to only push down on me, leaving the other 5 un-pushed? If so, how does the exhaled air 'know' to only push on me and not the other 5 people a foot away?
It becomes part of the atmosphere and will have minimal effect on anything other than you.
Why?
Because you created that by allowing the water and air to crush back onto you by releasing what was inside you.
The the air and water 'know' to only crush back on me because it came from me? Interesting. I wasn't aware that air & water were sentient.
And what about the people around me a foot away? What if I blow my air in the face of the person next to me, will that person then be targeted by the air and water and rise up instead of me?
-
atmospheric pressure
Which, as has been repeatedly established, pushes us up, not down.
It actually does both.
With the net effect being pushing objects upwards.
This is because the pressure is greater below the object.
The pressure is greater below until you (dense mass) are in that equation, then the push from above alters that by your displacement of it.
1. An object moving without a force to cause the movement is not possible
2. Density and mass are just properties of matter, they cannot cause things to move on their own as they are not forces
Flat earthers continue to refuse to understand these two basic things and therefore invent pseudoscience to try to explain gravity without saying "gravity"
Nothing moves without applied energy/force.
And gravity is the pseudo-science.
-
The pressure is greater below until you (dense mass) are in that equation
Nope, even with the dense mass in the equation, the pressure is still greater below you, with the air pushing you up and reducing your weight.
I agree the pressure of the matter is greater below because everything is stacked above.
But to see it from both points you have to see it as pressure from all angles when a dense mass is placed within it.
-
The the air and water 'know' to only crush back on me because it came from me? Interesting. I wasn't aware that air & water were sentient.
When you displace something it's going to crush back onto you by the same amount of pressure as you displaced.
And what about the people around me a foot away? What if I blow my air in the face of the person next to me, will that person then be targeted by the air and water and rise up instead of me?
Have a think about it.
Let's make this simpler for you.
Imagine you are in a small pool alone and the water is one inch from the brim. The water you are in is also under pressure from above by air that takes up that inch from the brim and all of above into the sky.
You are already displacing the water to get to one inch from the brim but before you got in it was 2 inches from the brim.
Your inch of water has been pushed into the air by the very same amount as you took up before you entered the pool.
If I step into the pool I then displace another inch of water (assuming the same dense mass) and the air my dense mass has displaced outside by my body shape alone is now dispersed by the pool itself. The entirety of my body displacing its own dense mass of the water it is in.
As much as you think none of that affects you you can now understand that it does but it's negligent to you because your own dense mass is doing the same as mine so we naturally don't think anything affects us in those scenarios but minimally they actually do.
Basically, you were in water one inch from the brim. You're now in water to the brim because of me, so obviously it affects you minimally.
Nothing to do with arguing sentient stuff.
-
The the air and water 'know' to only crush back on me because it came from me? Interesting. I wasn't aware that air & water were sentient.
When you displace something it's going to crush back onto you by the same amount of pressure as you displaced.
And what about the people around me a foot away? What if I blow my air in the face of the person next to me, will that person then be targeted by the air and water and rise up instead of me?
Have a think about it.
Let's make this simpler for you.
Imagine you are in a small pool alone and the water is one inch from the brim. The water you are in is also under pressure from above by air that takes up that inch from the brim and all of above into the sky.
You are already displacing the water to get to one inch from the brim but before you got in it was 2 inches from the brim.
Your inch of water has been pushed into the air by the very same amount as you took up before you entered the pool.
If I step into the pool I then displace another inch of water (assuming the same dense mass) and the air my dense mass has displaced outside by my body shape alone is now dispersed by the pool itself. The entirety of my body displacing its own dense mass of the water it is in.
As much as you think none of that affects you you can now understand that it does but it's negligent to you because your own dense mass is doing the same as mine so we naturally don't think anything affects us in those scenarios but minimally they actually do.
Basically, you were in water one inch from the brim. You're now in water to the brim because of me, so obviously it affects you minimally.
Nothing to do with arguing sentient stuff.
I and the others around me are not in a kiddie pool. We're in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. How does my displacement work there?
I thought we weren't talking about displacement, but how me exhaling only impacts me and not the other people very near to me when my exhale has somehow caused a pressure push across the entire earth. How does the air know to only impact me out in the middle of the ocean circled by my 5 very close friends?
-
Nothing moves without applied energy/force.
And we know the air applies a net force upwards, and thus isn't causing the force/isn't the force.
We also know that something has to be pushing the air down to keep it pressurised.
And gravity is the pseudo-science.
Are you sure about that?
If it is the pseudo-science, why is it capable of producing a coherent model to explain observations, and why is backed up by mountains of evidence?
I agree the pressure of the matter is greater below because everything is stacked above.
But to see it from both points you have to see it as pressure from all angles when a dense mass is placed within it.
I understand that it is pressure from all angles.
And I understand the effect of that pressure.
But the pressure is not equal from all angles.
The pressure is greater the lower down it is.
It can also be made greater by air currents, especially those that are blocked, such as wind which blows objects.
The simple fact the pressure from calm air is greatest below an object which results in a net upwards force.
The air cannot push things down, as it is trying to push it up.
We see this with objects weighing less when they have the air inside evacuated, and them weighing less when submerged (even partly) into a fluid more dense than air.
When you displace something it's going to crush back onto you by the same amount of pressure as you displaced.
Why?
Why does it only crash back on you? Why doesn't it crash back on everything?
Why you push air into a balloon, why does it push on the balloon and cause the balloon to be pushed out?
Why doesn't it only push back on my mouth or me?
As much as you think none of that affects you you can now understand that it does
You were the one claiming it only affects the person breathing out.
But now you contradict yourself and claim it should affect everyone?
-
You still stated that local gravitational discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model. Can you explain where you got the data to support this? Or your evidence that the force that makes this move in the heavens is NOT the same as the force that makes things fall? These are pretty strong claims to make without backing them up.
I stated that in reference to question being asked. Read the sentence before it. That said, iirc we got the data from GRACE and similar sources.
https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/47/gravity-anomaly-map-using-grace-data/
Where in that link does it back up your claim that these discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model?
Nothing in that link shows any evidence for disputing the theory of gravity, or the shape of the earth not being round.
You asked for where we got the data. I provided one of the sources. I'm confused as to why you were expecting NASA to prove the earth flat.
Sigh. I asked you to back up your claim that the discrepancies are "less than estimated in the round earth model" multiple times now.
And I've told you again and again that I'm not going to spend my time defending a model I don't hold is true.
Your exact quote for reference in case you forgot: "Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall."
Yes, in reference to the model being discussed. Which I don't hold is true. I can't count the number of times I've said this and I'm just going to stop responding now.
I'm asking how you determined this. What are the discrepancies? Can you point one out?
The discrepancies are the ones you yourself pointed out that had to do with why it isn't a constant 9.8m/s/s everywhere. We determined this by cross referencing GRACe and other data with local geography.
As I said earlier, I'm sure you can find information about this within these forums.
AGAIN: I find both the air density theories and the accelerating earth to be ridiculous. The only benefit to the accelerating earth is that it has an answer to this question where as density theories do not. No, I don't care to defend this statement - I am simply relating one of the theories to you. They are indeed both ridiculous.
Jesus fucking christ man. Read the thread.
-
You still stated that local gravitational discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model. Can you explain where you got the data to support this? Or your evidence that the force that makes this move in the heavens is NOT the same as the force that makes things fall? These are pretty strong claims to make without backing them up.
I stated that in reference to question being asked. Read the sentence before it. That said, iirc we got the data from GRACE and similar sources.
https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/47/gravity-anomaly-map-using-grace-data/
Where in that link does it back up your claim that these discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model?
Nothing in that link shows any evidence for disputing the theory of gravity, or the shape of the earth not being round.
You asked for where we got the data. I provided one of the sources. I'm confused as to why you were expecting NASA to prove the earth flat.
Sigh. I asked you to back up your claim that the discrepancies are "less than estimated in the round earth model" multiple times now.
And I've told you again and again that I'm not going to spend my time defending a model I don't hold is true.
If you make a claim, you can't get upset when people ask you to back it up or clarify it.
Your exact quote for reference in case you forgot: "Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall."
Yes, in reference to the model being discussed. Which I don't hold is true. I can't count the number of times I've said this and I'm just going to stop responding now.
If you make a claim, you can't get upset when people ask you to back it up or clarify it.
I'm asking how you determined this. What are the discrepancies? Can you point one out?
The discrepancies are the ones you yourself pointed out that had to do with why it isn't a constant 9.8m/s/s everywhere. We determined this by cross referencing GRACe and other data with local geography.
Yes, the Earth's gravity varies based on the density of the underlying material. This is entirely expected and normal. You were saying these variations are less than expected... and I keep asking less than expected by who? Flat earthers? Scientists? Jesus Christ? Gandhi?
If you make vague statements you are going to get asked questions about them. This isn't even a debate, I'm simply asking just what the heck you are talking about.
I swear 99% of flat earth posts on this site is giving people the runaround when being asked for details. Normally people just explain what they were saying. Not spend days deflecting.
As I said earlier, I'm sure you can find information about this within these forums.
AGAIN: I find both the air density theories and the accelerating earth to be ridiculous. The only benefit to the accelerating earth is that it has an answer to this question where as density theories do not. No, I don't care to defend this statement - I am simply relating one of the theories to you. They are indeed both ridiculous.
Jesus fucking christ man. Read the thread.
I am reading the thread, and you mentioned "the round earth model" having "less than expected" discrepancies. YOu have yet to show any or even slightly clarify what you are trying to say there.
It's such a simple question. I don't understand all the angst.
-
You still stated that local gravitational discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model. Can you explain where you got the data to support this? Or your evidence that the force that makes this move in the heavens is NOT the same as the force that makes things fall? These are pretty strong claims to make without backing them up.
I stated that in reference to question being asked. Read the sentence before it. That said, iirc we got the data from GRACE and similar sources.
https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/47/gravity-anomaly-map-using-grace-data/
Where in that link does it back up your claim that these discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model?
Nothing in that link shows any evidence for disputing the theory of gravity, or the shape of the earth not being round.
You asked for where we got the data. I provided one of the sources. I'm confused as to why you were expecting NASA to prove the earth flat.
Sigh. I asked you to back up your claim that the discrepancies are "less than estimated in the round earth model" multiple times now.
And I've told you again and again that I'm not going to spend my time defending a model I don't hold is true.
If you make a claim, you can't get upset when people ask you to back it up or clarify it.
Your exact quote for reference in case you forgot: "Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall."
Yes, in reference to the model being discussed. Which I don't hold is true. I can't count the number of times I've said this and I'm just going to stop responding now.
If you make a claim, you can't get upset when people ask you to back it up or clarify it.
I'm asking how you determined this. What are the discrepancies? Can you point one out?
The discrepancies are the ones you yourself pointed out that had to do with why it isn't a constant 9.8m/s/s everywhere. We determined this by cross referencing GRACe and other data with local geography.
Yes, the Earth's gravity varies based on the density of the underlying material. This is entirely expected and normal. You were saying these variations are less than expected... and I keep asking less than expected by who? Flat earthers? Scientists? Jesus Christ? Gandhi?
If you make vague statements you are going to get asked questions about them. This isn't even a debate, I'm simply asking just what the heck you are talking about.
I swear 99% of flat earth posts on this site is giving people the runaround when being asked for details. Normally people just explain what they were saying. Not spend days deflecting.
As I said earlier, I'm sure you can find information about this within these forums.
AGAIN: I find both the air density theories and the accelerating earth to be ridiculous. The only benefit to the accelerating earth is that it has an answer to this question where as density theories do not. No, I don't care to defend this statement - I am simply relating one of the theories to you. They are indeed both ridiculous.
Jesus fucking christ man. Read the thread.
I am reading the thread, and you mentioned "the round earth model" having "less than expected" discrepancies. YOu have yet to show any or even slightly clarify what you are trying to say there.
It's such a simple question. I don't understand all the angst.
Except those questions have already been answered through the normal science that eventually discounted the acceleration hypothesis. Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall. The density arguments may provide fruit, but it's unlikely as they have several flaws out of the box. Either way, we'll have to wait until they have matured enough to at least answer the questions that the silly accelerating earth already has.
Sure looks like I have no intent on defending claims the accelerating earth model makes. I was asked for what data was used for that assessment. I provided one of the sources.
Your entitlement does not warrant my effort to educate you on something you can find by reading.
-
You still stated that local gravitational discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model. Can you explain where you got the data to support this? Or your evidence that the force that makes this move in the heavens is NOT the same as the force that makes things fall? These are pretty strong claims to make without backing them up.
I stated that in reference to question being asked. Read the sentence before it. That said, iirc we got the data from GRACE and similar sources.
https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/47/gravity-anomaly-map-using-grace-data/
Where in that link does it back up your claim that these discrepancies are less than estimated in the round earth model?
Nothing in that link shows any evidence for disputing the theory of gravity, or the shape of the earth not being round.
You asked for where we got the data. I provided one of the sources. I'm confused as to why you were expecting NASA to prove the earth flat.
Sigh. I asked you to back up your claim that the discrepancies are "less than estimated in the round earth model" multiple times now.
And I've told you again and again that I'm not going to spend my time defending a model I don't hold is true.
If you make a claim, you can't get upset when people ask you to back it up or clarify it.
Your exact quote for reference in case you forgot: "Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall."
Yes, in reference to the model being discussed. Which I don't hold is true. I can't count the number of times I've said this and I'm just going to stop responding now.
If you make a claim, you can't get upset when people ask you to back it up or clarify it.
I'm asking how you determined this. What are the discrepancies? Can you point one out?
The discrepancies are the ones you yourself pointed out that had to do with why it isn't a constant 9.8m/s/s everywhere. We determined this by cross referencing GRACe and other data with local geography.
Yes, the Earth's gravity varies based on the density of the underlying material. This is entirely expected and normal. You were saying these variations are less than expected... and I keep asking less than expected by who? Flat earthers? Scientists? Jesus Christ? Gandhi?
If you make vague statements you are going to get asked questions about them. This isn't even a debate, I'm simply asking just what the heck you are talking about.
I swear 99% of flat earth posts on this site is giving people the runaround when being asked for details. Normally people just explain what they were saying. Not spend days deflecting.
As I said earlier, I'm sure you can find information about this within these forums.
AGAIN: I find both the air density theories and the accelerating earth to be ridiculous. The only benefit to the accelerating earth is that it has an answer to this question where as density theories do not. No, I don't care to defend this statement - I am simply relating one of the theories to you. They are indeed both ridiculous.
Jesus fucking christ man. Read the thread.
I am reading the thread, and you mentioned "the round earth model" having "less than expected" discrepancies. YOu have yet to show any or even slightly clarify what you are trying to say there.
It's such a simple question. I don't understand all the angst.
Except those questions have already been answered through the normal science that eventually discounted the acceleration hypothesis. Local discrepancies are due to mass indeed having a gravitational pull. Unfortunately, its less than estimated in the round earth model due to it assuming the movements of the heavens are the same thing that makes things fall. The density arguments may provide fruit, but it's unlikely as they have several flaws out of the box. Either way, we'll have to wait until they have matured enough to at least answer the questions that the silly accelerating earth already has.
Sure looks like I have no intent on defending claims the accelerating earth model makes. I was asked for what data was used for that assessment. I provided one of the sources.
Your entitlement does not warrant my effort to educate you on something you can find by reading.
All righty. That was an amazing journey to avoid clarifying a simple comment. At this point I don't really expect anything less.
-
Yeah I did a lot of clarification by reposting the original comment I told you to read.
-
Yeah I did a lot of clarification by reposting the original comment I told you to read.
If we can't agree about the shape of the planet we live on I doubt we are going to agree about this. I'll add it to the pile.
-
That sounds like more of a you thing. I agree with most people on here I disagree with on the shape of the earth on a great many things. But fair enough.
-
I and the others around me are not in a kiddie pool. We're in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. How does my displacement work there?
Whether it's a kids pool or an Olympic swimming pool or an ocean....etc, it's all the same displacement of your dense body mass of that water.
I thought we weren't talking about displacement, but how me exhaling only impacts me and not the other people very near to me when my exhale has somehow caused a pressure push across the entire earth.
No matter what you do you are always displacing whatever you are immersed in.
Your pressure push is not felt across the entire Earth. You're already immersed within the atmosphere or even the water if you are in a pool or sea...etc.
Your displacement of that cushioned just as it would be if you were dropped onto a huge sea of sponge balls.
Basically, the balls would be compressed in different configurations over a small expanse until your dense mass has been absorbed throughout that area.
Anyone close by would feel any impact you had if your dense mass was thrown into that area.
How does the air know to only impact me out in the middle of the ocean circled by my 5 very close friends?
It doesn't. It would impact your friends but minimally, just as they would impact you in the same way.
-
Nothing moves without applied energy/force.
And we know the air applies a net force upwards, and thus isn't causing the force/isn't the force.
It applies resistance to above and only applies a force to above if energy is applied by a dense mass within it.
We also know that something has to be pushing the air down to keep it pressurised.
-
It applies resistance to above and only applies a force to above if energy is applied by a dense mass within it.
We also know that something has to be pushing the air down to keep it pressurised.
It applies resistance and force in all directions. It is just that the force pushing an object up is slightly greater than the force pushing it down.
And yes, we know something has to be forcing the air down. But it isn't just to keep it pressurised, it is also to create the pressure gradient which is observed and measured.
And that means it can't just be something pushing down from the top.
Gravity solves that issue quite well.
I am yet to hear of a viable alternative.
-
I and the others around me are not in a kiddie pool. We're in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. How does my displacement work there?
Whether it's a kids pool or an Olympic swimming pool or an ocean....etc, it's all the same displacement of your dense body mass of that water.
I thought we weren't talking about displacement, but how me exhaling only impacts me and not the other people very near to me when my exhale has somehow caused a pressure push across the entire earth.
No matter what you do you are always displacing whatever you are immersed in.
Your pressure push is not felt across the entire Earth. You're already immersed within the atmosphere or even the water if you are in a pool or sea...etc.
Your displacement of that cushioned just as it would be if you were dropped onto a huge sea of sponge balls.
Basically, the balls would be compressed in different configurations over a small expanse until your dense mass has been absorbed throughout that area.
Anyone close by would feel any impact you had if your dense mass was thrown into that area.
How does the air know to only impact me out in the middle of the ocean circled by my 5 very close friends?
It doesn't. It would impact your friends but minimally, just as they would impact you in the same way.
So in this ocean with nearby friends scenario, if I exhale, the world is so pressurized that my friends around me would be impacted? They would actually sink a bit because I added air to the atmosphere?
What's weird too, is when we breathe, we're not adding or subtracting air from the atmosphere because we inhale it then put it back as we exhale it. It's a net zero.
More people are born than die. So as population has grown, why hasn't the pressure in the atmosphere changed by the magnitude of ever increasing amounts of mouthbreathers?
Have you done any measurements on how close-by individuals are impacted by a nearby person's exhalation?
-
he was asked years ago to produce a drawing shwoing how the air pushes down on a brick located inside a box.
how the air goes through the top fo the box to push the air in the box to push the brick.
-
It applies resistance to above and only applies a force to above if energy is applied by a dense mass within it.
We also know that something has to be pushing the air down to keep it pressurised.
It applies resistance and force in all directions. It is just that the force pushing an object up is slightly greater than the force pushing it down.
And yes, we know something has to be forcing the air down. But it isn't just to keep it pressurised, it is also to create the pressure gradient which is observed and measured.
And that means it can't just be something pushing down from the top.
Gravity solves that issue quite well.
I am yet to hear of a viable alternative.
Gravity solves nothing. It can never be explained as a force. We've been over this so many times and gravity still cannot be explained in terms of how it works.
Merely saying it explains it well is a simple adherence to mainstream ideals.
-
So in this ocean with nearby friends scenario, if I exhale, the world is so pressurized that my friends around me would be impacted?
The inhale/exhale scenario is a force that affects the surroundings just like you blowing into the face of your friend from 5 feet away will change the air effect until it dissipates.
They would actually sink a bit because I added air to the atmosphere?
Nope.
What's weird too, is when we breathe, we're not adding or subtracting air from the atmosphere because we inhale it then put it back as we exhale it. It's a net zero.
It's a net zero after dissipation of the force applied.
More people are born than die. So as population has grown, why hasn't the pressure in the atmosphere changed by the magnitude of ever increasing amounts of mouthbreathers?
It's already part of the system. No gains were made in terms of dense mass, just a change of dense mass that equates to the same end result.
Have you done any measurements on how close-by individuals are impacted by a nearby person's exhalation?
The simple ones are there for you as in the movements in close quarters whether in a pool or blowing in the air and so on.
A bigger scale naturally sees little to no visual or feel effect on a small-scale force.
-
he was asked years ago to produce a drawing shwoing how the air pushes down on a brick located inside a box.
how the air goes through the top fo the box to push the air in the box to push the brick.
I provided it but you chose to act all silly.
-
So in this ocean with nearby friends scenario, if I exhale, the world is so pressurized that my friends around me would be impacted?
The inhale/exhale scenario is a force that affects the surroundings just like you blowing into the face of your friend from 5 feet away will change the air effect until it dissipates.
I still don’t get it. If my friend and I are right up against each other, back to back, I massively exhale, why am I only impacted and not my friend? How does the air know to only push me down?
They would actually sink a bit because I added air to the atmosphere?
Nope.
Why not? they’re right next to me
What's weird too, is when we breathe, we're not adding or subtracting air from the atmosphere because we inhale it then put it back as we exhale it. It's a net zero.
It's a net zero after dissipation of the force applied.
More people are born than die. So as population has grown, why hasn't the pressure in the atmosphere changed by the magnitude of ever increasing amounts of mouthbreathers?
It's already part of the system. No gains were made in terms of dense mass, just a change of dense mass that equates to the same end result.
How can no gains be made when world population is approximately 8 billion people today and it was about 2 billion people 100 yrs ago?
That’s like 6 billion people of additional dense mass.
-
Gravity solves nothing. It can never be explained as a force. We've been over this so many times
You are right, we have been over this so many times.
Gravity is just like the other fundamental forces, you have no rational objection to it, and it does explain things, which you are unable to show a fault with.
And of course, rather than try to defend your nonsense alternative, you just attack gravity.
How about you try to explain why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere in the first place, and then address the fact that this pressure gradient pushes things upwards.
-
he was asked years ago to produce a drawing shwoing how the air pushes down on a brick located inside a box.
how the air goes through the top fo the box to push the air in the box to push the brick.
I provided it but you chose to act all silly.
You drew an arbitrary arrow.
Just like gravity
Aribrtatyly down through everything.
Except gravity is a pull.
Yours is a push, using air.
So your air has to push through and through and thorugh.
Yet there are physical barriers
The roof
The floor
You didnt account for any or provide a mechanism.
-
So in this ocean with nearby friends scenario, if I exhale, the world is so pressurized that my friends around me would be impacted?
The inhale/exhale scenario is a force that affects the surroundings just like you blowing into the face of your friend from 5 feet away will change the air effect until it dissipates.
I still don’t get it. If my friend and I are right up against each other, back to back, I massively exhale, why am I only impacted and not my friend? How does the air know to only push me down?
Your friend would be impacted. Your energy expanding your body will in turn push him a little but him noticing this will be minimal to nothing in terms of his mindset.
And also the air doesn't know anything about pushing you down.
It's your actions that determine the crush back onto you by you pushing into the atmosphere or water.
They would actually sink a bit because I added air to the atmosphere?
Nope.
Why not? they’re right next to me
Because, as above. It comes down to you causing your own floatation or sinking by your own body energy you apply and your friend also.
What's weird too, is when we breathe, we're not adding or subtracting air from the atmosphere because we inhale it then put it back as we exhale it. It's a net zero.
It's a net zero after dissipation of the force applied.
More people are born than die. So as population has grown, why hasn't the pressure in the atmosphere changed by the magnitude of ever increasing amounts of mouthbreathers?
It's already part of the system. No gains were made in terms of dense mass, just a change of dense mass that equates to the same end result.
How can no gains be made when world population is approximately 8 billion people today and it was about 2 billion people 100 yrs ago?
That’s like 6 billion people of additional dense mass.
[/quote]Let's put this into better perspective.
Imagine being in a swimming pool that magically caters to a cycle of life, meaning 100 people are in that pool, and in that pool, there is a set amount of other organisms that consume bodily excretions from you but also organisms you can eat.
Outside of that pool, there is just a cover we will call atmosphere. A sealed unit and everything inside of it is all that there is at that time.
Ok now let's assume each people eat something from the pool.
The pool is 100 organisms less but those same organisms are now part of the people. Any gain on dense mass?
The answer is no.
When you excrete the organisms out they get ingested by other but still not gain.
Everything is still there
-
Your friend would be impacted. Your energy expanding your body will in turn push him a little but him noticing this will be minimal to nothing in terms of his mindset.
Why is the friend impacted insignificantly, while the person breathing out impacted significantly?
Why the massive difference?
It comes down to you causing your own floatation or sinking by your own body energy you apply and your friend also.
How?
If it is the air pushing us down, it shouldn't matter.
Imagine being in a swimming pool that magically caters to a cycle of life, meaning 100 people are in that pool, and in that pool, there is a set amount of other organisms that consume bodily excretions from you but also organisms you can eat.
Outside of that pool, there is just a cover we will call atmosphere. A sealed unit and everything inside of it is all that there is at that time.
Ok now let's assume each people eat something from the pool.
The pool is 100 organisms less but those same organisms are now part of the people. Any gain on dense mass?
The answer is no.
When you excrete the organisms out they get ingested by other but still not gain.
Everything is still there
So why should breathing out cause a difference?
All that does is transfer it from inside you to outside you.
It is all still there. You haven't magically added air.
-
Imagine being in a swimming pool that magically caters to a cycle of life, meaning 100 people are in that pool, and in that pool, there is a set amount of other organisms that consume bodily excretions from you but also organisms you can eat.
Outside of that pool, there is just a cover we will call atmosphere. A sealed unit and everything inside of it is all that there is at that time.
Ok now let's assume each people eat something from the pool.
The pool is 100 organisms less but those same organisms are now part of the people. Any gain on dense mass?
The answer is no.
When you excrete the organisms out they get ingested by other but still not gain.
Everything is still there
So why should breathing out cause a difference?
All that does is transfer it from inside you to outside you.
It is all still there. You haven't magically added air.
Because like I said it's energy transfer but it does to alter the overall dense mass of the entirety.
-
Because like I said it's energy transfer but it does to alter the overall dense mass of the entirety.
Having the air magically push down on you isn't energy transfer, and there is no reason for it to affect the people nearby.
Just what energy is being transferred and why should it push you down?
And perhaps more importantly, when you do this to a solid glass vessel, why does it push it up?
-
Because like I said it's energy transfer but it does to alter the overall dense mass of the entirety.
Having the air magically push down on you isn't energy transfer, and there is no reason for it to affect the people nearby.
Just what energy is being transferred and why should it push you down?
And perhaps more importantly, when you do this to a solid glass vessel, why does it push it up?
If you breathe you transfer your expansion of body back into the atmosphere by crushing back what you took from it.
It's no net gain but it is a transferrable energy.
-
but air pushes in all directions.
updownleftrightfrontback.
so why DOWN?
if the dome is firm enough to push against then the push would happen in all direction.
-
Because like I said it's energy transfer but it does to alter the overall dense mass of the entirety.
Having the air magically push down on you isn't energy transfer, and there is no reason for it to affect the people nearby.
Just what energy is being transferred and why should it push you down?
And perhaps more importantly, when you do this to a solid glass vessel, why does it push it up?
If you breathe you transfer your expansion of body back into the atmosphere by crushing back what you took from it.
It's no net gain but it is a transferrable energy.
Which still fails to address the question.
There is no change in the atmosphere. All that has happened is the air has left you and gone out of you.
Why should this cause the atmosphere to magically push you down, and why should it cause the atmosphere to magically push down those around you?
-
ok let's try and clear something up
air is air
we can measure it
weigh it
do experiments on it
change its composition.
then we have the aether.
the magical thing that you claim pushes people down.
is aether and air the same?
oxygne floating around the same thing that pushes people down?
-
So this weekend I tried something in my pool. I blew a balloon up while trying to float. It was hilarious as my coordination isn't what it used to be. But since that exhaled air/energy was trapped by the balloon, why did I sink, yet my son didn't? Granted there was alot of laughing at the absurdity of the thought experiment and my unintentional attemps to drown myself were rather funny, but we did try to be serious a few times.
Pool was filled with fresh water and chlorine, standard party Ballon, in the 10 ft deep section of the pool, as minimal movement used as necessary to remain stationary. My son was 2 ft from me, we tried all 4 cardinal directions from me being the center point. We both took a deep breath at the same time. My son held his breath, while I exhaled into the balloon. I sank, he did not. We also tried without the balloon with the same results. Then had a big laugh at how stupid the concept was.
-
Balloon was above water above you?
Or underwater and under you?
It has to displace
Also
How black you are is also a factor
Hahaha
-
Above, and yes I realize black people tend to sink lol.
I didn't want the buoyancy of the air filled balloon in the water to affect my ability to float.
-
but air pushes in all directions.
updownleftrightfrontback.
so why DOWN?
if the dome is firm enough to push against then the push would happen in all directions.
The down is subject to the dense mass within it from the most pressurised part of the stack which to us, is always at the bottom.
-
Because like I said it's energy transfer but it does to alter the overall dense mass of the entirety.
Having the air magically push down on you isn't energy transfer, and there is no reason for it to affect the people nearby.
Just what energy is being transferred and why should it push you down?
And perhaps more importantly, when you do this to a solid glass vessel, why does it push it up?
If you breathe you transfer your expansion of body back into the atmosphere by crushing back what you took from it.
It's no net gain but it is a transferrable energy.
Which still fails to address the question.
There is no change in the atmosphere. All that has happened is the air has left you and gone out of you.
Why should this cause the atmosphere to magically push you down, and why should it cause the atmosphere to magically push down those around you?
I explained this many many times to you and you refused to address it and came back with this exact same scenario.
-
ok let's try and clear something up
air is air
we can measure it
weigh it
do experiments on it
change its composition.
then we have the aether.
the magical thing that you claim pushes people down.
is aether and air the same?
oxygne floating around the same thing that pushes people down?
I've never said air pushes you down.
It has to take a dense mass to push up and use below leverage in order for that push back to happen.
Understand stacking and you'll understand what I mean.
I have explained it many many times but you refuse to understand it, for whatever reason.
-
Above, and yes I realize black people tend to sink lol.
I didn't want the buoyancy of the air filled balloon in the water to affect my ability to float.
You transferred the air inside your body into the balloon and in doing so the water crushed you further down because you added that air above against the atmosphere which created that extra push back to your push and seeing as you had no foundation to arrest that push, you start to be squeezed down but in your favour is the balloon which will arrest that further sinking as it displaces the water on the push back.
Your son holding his breath has also displaced the water and taken it from the atmosphere, meaning less push back above and more crush up from below.
-
The down is subject to the dense mass within it from the most pressurised part of the stack which to us, is always at the bottom.
So you are saying the dense mass of air below an object somehow causes the air to push the object down?
That doesn't make much sense.
I explained this many many times to you and you refused to address it and came back with this exact same scenario.
No, I kept on explaining how you haven't actually addressed it, pointing out how your "explanation" doesn't work, or contradicts something else you have said.
It is quite simple, exhaling only moves air from inside your lungs to outside.
This doesn't change the pressure of the air outside by any significant amount, so it shouldn't magically cause the air to push you into the surface of the water.
And as pointed out, when done to a rigid container, using a pump, the container becomes more buoyant, not less.
So this shows it isn't removing the air that causes it.
Instead, what actually causes it is the change in volume.
When you exhale, you reduce your volume, which reduces the buoyant force acting on you.
I've never said air pushes you down.
You have said it repeatedly, and it is the fundamental basis of your model.
If it doesn't push us down, what does?
I have explained it many many times but you refuse to understand it, for whatever reason.
No, you haven't.
If you had actually explained it you wouldn't have so many people asking about it.
Instead, you deflect, or come up with vague BS which doesn't explain anything, or just assert that you have already explained it.
You transferred the air inside your body into the balloon and in doing so the water crushed you further down because you added that air above against the atmosphere which created that extra push back to your push and seeing as you had no foundation to arrest that push, you start to be squeezed down but in your favour is the balloon which will arrest that further sinking as it displaces the water on the push back.
But why does that only push back on the person breathing out?
If it is actually adding to the atmosphere, then it should push everyone.
And why is it the water crushing further down, rather than the atmosphere?
If it is the atmosphere pushing the water which then pushes us, shouldn't everyone in the water be pushed down?
Your son holding his breath has also displaced the water and taken it from the atmosphere, meaning less push back above and more crush up from below.
Why?
Why shouldn't them holding their breath mean less push back and more crush up?
Why is it magically "crushing up" for them, but "crushing down" for us?
Crushing requires applying force from multiple sides to reduce the volume of the object. It isn't pushing them down or up.
-
So you are saying the dense mass of air below an object somehow causes the air to push the object down?
That doesn't make much sense.
No.
-
Crushing requires applying force from multiple sides to reduce the volume of the object. It isn't pushing them down or up.
It requires force from everywhere around the object and also the resistance of the object to that crushing force.
That crushing force can be up or down depending on the dense mass make up of the object.
-
Above, and yes I realize black people tend to sink lol.
I didn't want the buoyancy of the air filled balloon in the water to affect my ability to float.
Haha
Also
The bouancy of just the edge of th balloon probably wasnt subemrged enough so it wasnt lifting you up.
Your kid assumably is much smaller so the edge displaced was enough.
-
Above, and yes I realize black people tend to sink lol.
I didn't want the buoyancy of the air filled balloon in the water to affect my ability to float.
You transferred the air inside your body into the balloon and in doing so the water crushed you further down because you added that air above against the atmosphere which created that extra push back to your push and seeing as you had no foundation to arrest that push, you start to be squeezed down but in your favour is the balloon which will arrest that further sinking as it displaces the water on the push back.
So if i held the balloon with my air in it over the head of someone treading water right next to me they would sink?
Putting air into a balloon has that amount of a displacement effect within the entire atmosphere? If so, why doesn't everyone on the planet who happens to be in water sink? Seems like 1 balloon's worth of air impacts the whole planet.
-
So you are saying the dense mass of air below an object somehow causes the air to push the object down?
That doesn't make much sense.
No.
Then what are you saying?
Crushing requires applying force from multiple sides to reduce the volume of the object. It isn't pushing them down or up.
It requires force from everywhere around the object and also the resistance of the object to that crushing force.
That crushing force can be up or down depending on the dense mass make up of the object.
Why should the direction of the crushing force depend on the object?
How is the air/water sentient to know to "crush" dense things down and light things up?
And why is this crushing force seeming to be much more like a pushing force?
And you still fail to address several key issues.
Again, exhaling the air doesn't have a net effect on the atmosphere. It just reduces your volume.
So why should this cause the atmosphere to push you down more?
And when we do it to a rigid container, why does it to the opposite and get pushed up?
-
Above, and yes I realize black people tend to sink lol.
I didn't want the buoyancy of the air filled balloon in the water to affect my ability to float.
Haha
Also
The bouancy of just the edge of th balloon probably wasnt subemrged enough so it wasnt lifting you up.
Your kid assumably is much smaller so the edge displaced was enough.
Well, my son is a bit larger than I am. He is 22, 6 ft 5, 285 lbs and I refer to him as my personal giant. Me being 6 ft zero and about 210 lbs. But still, I tried my best to keep the balloon dry.
Since the balloon would compress the air and trap it in a way that it would not affect the surrounding atmosphere as much, I would have assumed a different result to how much I sank. No such difference was observed. I think the whole air crushing me down is rather thouroughly debunked at this point, misuse of the word stacking or not.
But who am I to decide... oh wait, I actually performed an experiment to test the claim, unlike the progenitor of the claim.
-
The dense mass pushes the stack up which in turn pushes back down.
But the stack is air.
Is your air eather?
Because my air is air that only knows surfaces.
It doesnt know the internal dense mass