Most of flat earthers think buoyancy is responsable for gravityNot on this site, from what I've seen. It's mostly UA and infinite plane here.
It's mostly UA and infinite plane here.
The main buoyancy-esque model would be denpressure, but that functions with a different model of how molecules work.Please elaborate.
UA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921458#msg1921458It's mostly UA and infinite plane here.
Please elaborate.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921462#msg1921462The main buoyancy-esque model would be denpressure, but that functions with a different model of how molecules work.Please elaborate.
I can see how UA and the Infinite plane hypothesis do explain it, but how many models of the flat earth do we need?UA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921458#msg1921458It's mostly UA and infinite plane here.
Please elaborate.
Infinite plane: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921468#msg1921468
But, please tell us how "denpressure" explains why a feather and a chunk of metal fall at different rates in air, but the same rates in a near vacuum.Quotehttps://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921462#msg1921462The main buoyancy-esque model would be denpressure, but that functions with a different model of how molecules work.Please elaborate.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921476#msg1921476
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1935684#msg1935684
(in that order)
I can see how UA and the Infinite plane hypothesis do explain it, but how many models of the flat earth do we need?I'd suggest taking a look back at scientific history, everything started with multiple potential explanations.
But, please tell us how "denpressure" explains why a feather and a chunk of metal fall at different rates in air, but the same rates in a near vacuum.Lack of air resistance, not a total lack of air pressure.
I can't see how they can fall at all in the near vacuum - no air pressure, no falling?
Not quite "a total lack of air pressure", so close hat it can hardly matter!I can see how UA and the Infinite plane hypothesis do explain it, but how many models of the flat earth do we need?I'd suggest taking a look back at scientific history, everything started with multiple potential explanations.QuoteBut, please tell us how "denpressure" explains why a feather and a chunk of metal fall at different rates in air, but the same rates in a near vacuum.Lack of air resistance, not a total lack of air pressure.
I can't see how they can fall at all in the near vacuum - no air pressure, no falling?
What is an Ultra-High Vacuum? [1]Things still fall down just the same in even the best quality vacuum. So exactly what causes this force when there is near enough to no air.
Practical high vacuum levels (Table 1) range down to approximately 1.33 x 10-4 Pa (1 x 10-6 torr) while ultra-high vacuum (UHV) levels are in the vacuum range characterized by pressures of about 10-7 Pa (7.5 x 10-10 torr) and greater.(https://vacaero.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/vacuum_ranges_lg-1.gif)Notes:
Table 1 - Classification of Vacuum Ranges [2]
[a] The SI unit of pressure is the Pascal (1 Pa = 1 N m-2)
[b] Normal atmospheric pressure of 1 atmosphere is 101,325 Pa or 1013 mbar (1 bar =105 Pa)
[c] Normal atmospheric pressure of 1 atmosphere is 760 Torr (1 Torr = 133.3 Pa)
[d] Ultrahigh vacuum is defined as the pressure range between 10-6 Pa (Europe) and/or 10-7 Pa (USA) to 10-10 Pa.
Things still fall down just the same in even the best quality vacuum. So exactly what causes this force when there is near enough to no air.We'd have to be here all day going over the properties of air in the denpressure model, what happens when a vacuum is created, what a 'best quality vacuum' even is with this model of molecules...
You may well regret that.The main buoyancy-esque model would be denpressure, but that functions with a different model of how molecules work.Please elaborate.
That's what happens when the force is inherent to the molecules themselves rather than a consequence of a force acting on them. Less pressure? Sure, but also less resistance.What "force is inherent to the molecules"? Stop being utterly ridiculous!
Physical Chemistry Laboratory, School of Chemistry
Theoretical background
1. Introduction
The term vacuum refers to the condition of an enclosed space that is devoid of all gases or other material content. It is not experimentally feasible to achieve a “perfect” vacuum, although one can approach this condition extremely closely. It is possible routinely to obtain a vacuum of 10-6 Torr and with more sophisticated techniques 10-10 Torr (1.3 x 10-13 bar or 1.3 x 10-8 Pa); it is even possible by special techniques to obtain a vacuum of 10-15 Torr, or about 30 molecules per cubic centimeter.
One Torr, the conventional unit of pressure in vacuum work, is the pressure equivalent of a manometer reading of 1 mm of liquid mercury; 1 Torr = 1/760 atm = 1.333 x 10-3 bar = 133.3 Pa.
From: Physical Chemistry Laboratory, School of Chemistry, Vacuum Techniques (https://www.tau.ac.il/~phchlab/experiments_new/SemB02_Vacuum/02TheoreticalBackground.html)
I honestly can't work out why you try to prop up denpressure.And, as ever, I don't. I just tend to prefer when people make honest, informed arguments. But as you've ignored it the countless times I've explained that to you, I expect you'll ignore it this time too, just like you ignore anything related to FET.
I expect explanations to have some connection with reality - denpressure doesn't - end of story.I honestly can't work out why you try to prop up denpressure.And, as ever, I don't. I just tend to prefer when people make honest, informed arguments. But as you've ignored it the countless times I've explained that to you, I expect you'll ignore it this time too, just like you ignore anything related to FET.
You have absolutely no understanding of anything any FEer says, and you apparently have a religious objection to gaining any degree of understanding.That is completely untrue, but when it comes to denpressure or DET I can never get an answer, so what am I to do?
All you are doing is making REers look like morons with how often you have to resort to such idiocy.No, that would be you!
You don't make yourself look smart when you go off on those little tirades against denpressure and the like,I'm not trying to "make myself look smart"! But where are these tirades?
you make anyone that knows the modelJust who "knows the model" except Sceppy and possibly you.
ignore every word you have to say, because you are acting like an expert when you apparently don't grasp the simplest concept.Well, YOU TELL me how you calculate the weight of an object using denpressure under various conditions of pressure, etc.Quote from: JaneI have seen no "simplest concept" when it comes to denpressure - at least nothing that makes sense, or isn't that required?(eg: treating denpressure, the explanation for gravity, as equivalent to the pressure per unit area caused by gravity).
Just who "knows the model" except Sceppy and possibly you.I've linked an explanation to the underlying theory of denpressure already in this thread, and I'm pretty sure you've seen it explained several times before. the problem is not with FEers, the problem is with you not willing to put in the effort to understand the thing you're making all these grand claims about.
And if pressure does not cause weight why on earth did Sceppy call it denpressure?
I do understand that you might be busy, so explain to me how to do this sort of calcilation.
It's always som evasive crap about our man-made scales unable to make such measurements.Density times volume times d, where d basically depends on pressure, but generally at sea level it'd be 9.8.
So to clarify things I ask for simple numerical answers, at which point he raves on about being indoctrinated.
I don't know how many ways this needs explaining, but one last try.Has he ever given meaningful observations about the effect of low pressure on scales?
When Scepti talked about scales, he explains observations.
he points out that, due to the effect of the lower pressure on the scales, an object will exert the same basic effect on them as it would in higher pressure, because the pressure affects the sensitivity of the scale.But suitable scales are not affected by pressure. Tests like this have been shown many times on YouTube.
Thus the weight as measured by a scale would be similar. This is not inherently the same as the effect of pressure on the object; instruments don't give objective truths about their reality, they're as affected by environment as anything.Do know anything at all about measurement or do you guess everything?
This is a direct answer to the question of what would happen if you way something at sea level, and weigh it up a mountain.No, that's a cop out because denpressure does not work.
So when you press the question, rather than acknowledging this, you are demanding he explain something that he does not believe can be measured. That is fundamentally illogical, and you absolutely deserve whatever you got for that.QuoteNo, I expect that if denpressure is a valid hypothesis, it can explain these things, if it can't it can't be a valid hypothesis.Quote from: JaneYou don't respond, you don't refute, you don't try to understand, you assume he is evading and continue doing a disservice to RET.QuoteWhat do you mean by, "You don't respond, you don't refute, you don't try to understand"? There is a limit to what can be debated with Sceppy, because he literally dies no speak the same language.
All the usual terms used in describing dynamics, etc have totally different meanings, I have presented a few.
But, yes, I assume he is evading, because because his hypothesis cannot explain simple occurrences in real life.
His next response is to call anyone that won't empty their mind and swallow what he says indoctrinated!
I might be wrong, but I do not believe that Sceppy has ever given a numerical result and a hypothesis incapable of making predictions is totally useless.
There is a limit to what can be debated with Sceppy, because he literally dies no speak the same language.So pay attention and figure it out, rather than complaining about semantics. he's using a fundamentally different model of even molecules, it's just silly to expect the exact same definitions to transfer across.
All the usual terms used in describing dynamics, etc have totally different meanings, I have presented a few.
Do know anything at all about measurement or do you guess everything?It's not a matter of guessing, I'm talking about the model.
In reality, good instruments are little affected by the environment and any residual effects will be defined in the specification.
I tried to engage Scepi about denpressure once. He was explaining that there is no gravity, that air pressure pushes down on things. I asked what I consider the very reasonable question, "Why is there a downward bias in where the air pushes?" His response was basically because if you stack something it pushes toward the bottom. That's not an answer. We went round in circles a few times before I explained that his model denies the existence of gravity, and then subsequently utilizes the phenomenon of gravity to function. I was then dismissed as indoctrinated.There is a limit to what can be debated with Sceppy, because he literally dies no speak the same language.So pay attention and figure it out, rather than complaining about semantics. he's using a fundamentally different model of even molecules, it's just silly to expect the exact same definitions to transfer across.
All the usual terms used in describing dynamics, etc have totally different meanings, I have presented a few.
It's really not that hard if you just pay attention, and try to understand before you try to refute. Any other conversation and that would be the bare minimum.
If it's too complicated for you, fine, then shut up about it. Easy answer. If you don't understand it, don't make claims about it until you do. Another bit of bare minimum standards that you completely ignore.
I tried to engage Scepi about denpressure once. He was explaining that there is no gravity, that air pressure pushes down on things. I asked what I consider the very reasonable question, "Why is there a downward bias in where the air pushes?" His response was basically because if you stack something it pushes toward the bottom. That's not an answer. We went round in circles a few times before I explained that his model denies the existence of gravity, and then subsequently utilizes the phenomenon of gravity to function. I was then dismissed as indoctrinated.Yep, I did that a few times. The problem being that you looked for the argument against it, before you looked for how it could work. You began by looking for a way to say it relies on gravity; I did the same, before. Instead, look for what makes the 'down' direction special; in this case it's the Earth, a solid surface pressure can actually be directed against. The reason behind that is more involved (linked to an outline of denpressure already in this thread), the question of where the pressure comes from etc, but he doesn't appeal to gravity at any stage.
I paid attention to what he wrote. I considered the ramifications of his hypothesis. I asked questions about the mechanics of the system. I believe that satisfies your requirements of paying attention and trying to figure it out. His inability to provide mechanical explanation for how the model works and the inability of the model to accurately explain observable situations without contradicting itself is not because I didn't try to understand. Sometimes things are wrong, and all the trying to understand in the world won't make them right. There's nothing inappropriate about identifying that something is wrong after examining it in detail.
That's just not accurate. I read his explanations without looking for any arguments, for or against it. What I observed in his explanation was a downward bias that was not explained. I asked for an explanation and didn't receive one that didn't just leave it as an assumption.I tried to engage Scepi about denpressure once. He was explaining that there is no gravity, that air pressure pushes down on things. I asked what I consider the very reasonable question, "Why is there a downward bias in where the air pushes?" His response was basically because if you stack something it pushes toward the bottom. That's not an answer. We went round in circles a few times before I explained that his model denies the existence of gravity, and then subsequently utilizes the phenomenon of gravity to function. I was then dismissed as indoctrinated.Yep, I did that a few times. The problem being that you looked for the argument against it, before you looked for how it could work. You began by looking for a way to say it relies on gravity;
I paid attention to what he wrote. I considered the ramifications of his hypothesis. I asked questions about the mechanics of the system. I believe that satisfies your requirements of paying attention and trying to figure it out. His inability to provide mechanical explanation for how the model works and the inability of the model to accurately explain observable situations without contradicting itself is not because I didn't try to understand. Sometimes things are wrong, and all the trying to understand in the world won't make them right. There's nothing inappropriate about identifying that something is wrong after examining it in detail.
That's just not accurate. I read his explanations without looking for any arguments, for or against it. What I observed in his explanation was a downward bias that was not explained. I asked for an explanation and didn't receive one that didn't just leave it as an assumption.Linked it already and already given the gist as to what makes below us special. Again, instead of looking for why it wouldn't work, start by seeing how it could. You are just not doing that; that's not a matter of opinion, you just outright ignored any potential explanation in order to insist it wouldn't work.
I read the links. The first one uses a jar analogy that depends on gravity to work, but at least acknowledges that it is incomplete and the answer will come later. The second one is just describing the nature of the Earth and the Sun.That's just not accurate. I read his explanations without looking for any arguments, for or against it. What I observed in his explanation was a downward bias that was not explained. I asked for an explanation and didn't receive one that didn't just leave it as an assumption.Linked it already and already given the gist as to what makes below us special. Again, instead of looking for why it wouldn't work, start by seeing how it could. You are just not doing that; that's not a matter of opinion, you just outright ignored any potential explanation in order to insist it wouldn't work.
The third one is the only one that attempts to explain the directionality. There is an analogy about inflating a chamber and things inside being pinned to the metal disc at the bottom, but that's only when gravity has an object on the bottom to start. Without gravity, there is no reason an object couldn't be pinned to any part of the membrane rather than the metal disc.Details aside, so? The force'd still keep that object pinned to the metal disc, irrespective of what'd happen if it were at a different location.
I'm not at all looking for a way to insert gravity. I'm looking to remove the assumption of gravity from the analogy, which is necessary for denpressure to survive as an alternative to gravity.The third one is the only one that attempts to explain the directionality. There is an analogy about inflating a chamber and things inside being pinned to the metal disc at the bottom, but that's only when gravity has an object on the bottom to start. Without gravity, there is no reason an object couldn't be pinned to any part of the membrane rather than the metal disc.Details aside, so? The force'd still keep that object pinned to the metal disc, irrespective of what'd happen if it were at a different location.
This is the problem with your approach. You are looking for a way to insert gravity; but remove it from the equation, run the exact same thought experiment, the force still exists, the force would still keep an object against the disc. Notice that at no point did I specify the orientation of the disc; you're the one saying gravity would push towards it. It doesn't need to. It could act in the exact opposite direction, the force would still exist. Or, to make it more relevant to denpressure, gravity could just not be a factor. Force is still exerted by inflation. For all objects in the vicinity of the metal disc, there is a force. How does this not expain the downwards bias?
If the disc is not oriented on the bottom or there is no gravity initially holding things to it, then the force exerted by the inflation would not necessarily press an object to the disc. It is just as likely to push an object into the membrane.It's not random though, where objects would be pushed is based on specific factors, such as where in the environment they are. If they're near the disc, they wouldn't be flung over to the opposite side to hit the membrane.
Or I could think about it objectively without trying to force a conclusion one way or the other, like I do with absolutely everything. And when I do that, I find that it is missing an explanation for down. I give an equal chance to every model. The models that are internally consistent and have evidence to support them are the ones that I find appealing.If the disc is not oriented on the bottom or there is no gravity initially holding things to it, then the force exerted by the inflation would not necessarily press an object to the disc. It is just as likely to push an object into the membrane.It's not random though, where objects would be pushed is based on specific factors, such as where in the environment they are. If they're near the disc, they wouldn't be flung over to the opposite side to hit the membrane.
Again, you need to think about how it could work rather than go in looking for all the interpretations where it wouldn't. The only model it is worth refuting is the one you have given every chance to.
Or I could think about it objectively without trying to force a conclusion one way or the other, like I do with absolutely everything. And when I do that, I find that it is missing an explanation for down. I give an equal chance to every model. The models that are internally consistent and have evidence to support them are the ones that I find appealing....What?
Maybe you should consider denpressure without overemphasizing how it could work and see if it still holds up if you let it try to stand on its own.
Just no. By your explanation, things could be pushed down sometimes. But we observe things being pushed down always. Also, if something got far enough from the disc, the inflation effect you describe should reverse and push things into the membrane. That effect is never seen, so again, something is wrong in the model.Or I could think about it objectively without trying to force a conclusion one way or the other, like I do with absolutely everything. And when I do that, I find that it is missing an explanation for down. I give an equal chance to every model. The models that are internally consistent and have evidence to support them are the ones that I find appealing....What?
Maybe you should consider denpressure without overemphasizing how it could work and see if it still holds up if you let it try to stand on its own.
You are openly ignoring the ways it could work to insist it couldn't. That achieves nothing except convincing FEers that REers have to be indoctrinated.
Just no. By your explanation, things could be pushed down sometimes. But we observe things being pushed down always. Also, if something got far enough from the disc, the inflation effect you describe should reverse and push things into the membrane. That effect is never seen, so again, something is wrong in the model.You'd have to get away far enough first. Kinda a pretty crucial part of that whole objection, even if you want to ignore a few other details of the model but it's not worth getting onto those complexities when you're objecting to something this simple.
major factors: the place the air enters, the pressure of the entering air, the coefficient of friction of the disk, the shape of the object and the mass of the object.Just no. By your explanation, things could be pushed down sometimes. But we observe things being pushed down always. Also, if something got far enough from the disc, the inflation effect you describe should reverse and push things into the membrane. That effect is never seen, so again, something is wrong in the model.You'd have to get away far enough first. Kinda a pretty crucial part of that whole objection, even if you want to ignore a few other details of the model but it's not worth getting onto those complexities when you're objecting to something this simple.
As for the rest, again. It is not random.
Let's break this down. Imagine the whole set-up, metal disc, rubber hemisphere being inflated etc. An object is in roughly the middle of the disc, and relatively close to it. That symbolises basically anything on the world map, and a fair altitude above.
What factors govern where it will be pushed during the inflation?
major factors: the place the air enters, the pressure of the entering air, the coefficient of friction of the disk, the shape of the object and the mass of the object.The place the air enters from, and the pressure it exerts, are basically fixed under denpressure.
Micro-factors that may introduce chaotic components: imperfections in the disk, object and hemisphere, particulates in the air and vibrations transferred from outside the structure.
major factors: the place the air enters, the pressure of the entering air, the coefficient of friction of the disk, the shape of the object and the mass of the object.The place the air enters from, and the pressure it exerts, are basically fixed under denpressure.
Micro-factors that may introduce chaotic components: imperfections in the disk, object and hemisphere, particulates in the air and vibrations transferred from outside the structure.
The friction of the disc acts horizontally, the shape and mass of the object affect the degree of movement but away from the boundary will not alter vertical direction. The same can be said for those micro-factors; they might affect magnitude, but not direction save in an extreme boundary case.
Most important here is the first statement: "The place the air enters from, and the pressure it exerts, are basically fixed under denpressure." So simply create a set-up where they are designed to a) not be directly beneath the object, b) sufficient to actually impart force, you can adjust to create a distant border for the extreme boundary case, and you're done.
There is no randomness here, the factors are specific, predictable, and basically fixed. There is no situation where objects in that vicinity would go up sometimes and down others.
major factors: the place the air enters, the pressure of the entering air, the coefficient of friction of the disk, the shape of the object and the mass of the object.The place the air enters from, and the pressure it exerts, are basically fixed under denpressure.
Micro-factors that may introduce chaotic components: imperfections in the disk, object and hemisphere, particulates in the air and vibrations transferred from outside the structure.
The friction of the disc acts horizontally, the shape and mass of the object affect the degree of movement but away from the boundary will not alter vertical direction. The same can be said for those micro-factors; they might affect magnitude, but not direction save in an extreme boundary case.
Most important here is the first statement: "The place the air enters from, and the pressure it exerts, are basically fixed under denpressure." So simply create a set-up where they are designed to a) not be directly beneath the object, b) sufficient to actually impart force, you can adjust to create a distant border for the extreme boundary case, and you're done.
There is no randomness here, the factors are specific, predictable, and basically fixed. There is no situation where objects in that vicinity would go up sometimes and down others.
Answer, in the first case, Helium would float due to buoyancy, where as in the second one they would sink due to gravity. Thus buoyancy forces are stronger than gravity forces.
In a vacuum, everything would fall down at the same rate, because GOD made it that way!!!
Simple question, in sealed box, filled with pure oxygen, would 10 Helium atoms float or sink?How big a box? And yes it matters because even in enclosures metres high, diffusion completely overrides buoyancy.
Same box, take out all the oxygen so it would be a pure vacuum, and them add the 10 Helium atoms, would they float or sink?Again they neither float or sink. At all temperatures gas molecules (here helium atoms) are in continual motion, with velocitits defined by the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution. For helium at 20°C the mean velocity is about 1245 m/s.
Answer, in the first case, Helium would float due to buoyancy, where as in the second one they would sink due to gravity. Thus buoyancy forces are stronger than gravity forces.No, both incorrect. In both cases the helium is distributed over the whole box.
In a vacuum, everything would fall down at the same rate, because GOD made it that way!!!Solid objects or liquids would "would fall down at the same rate" But, not for gases!
If not, then please explain why the buoyancy forces are stronger than the gravitational forces!!!Nothing to explain. You initial premises were quite incorrect, so you need to learn about the kinetic theory of gases.
Air molecules are heavier than helium molecules . . .
Air molecules are heavier than helium molecules . . .
What the hell is an 'air molecule'?
Lets make it this way.
You have a clear plastic container that has an inner volume of 2 liters. You place 1 liter of cooking oil in the container and then you place 1 liter of H2O. You take a mixer and you mix the liquids for 30 minutes. You let it sit overnight. The next morning you find that the oil is on the top and the water is on the bottom.
The buoyancy between the H2O and the Oil, created the separation and thus the Buoyancy forces are stronger than the gravitational forces.
Or am I wrong with this???
Buoyancy forces are difference between weights of materials with different density.
Lets make it this way.
You have a clear plastic container that has an inner volume of 2 liters. You place 1 liter of cooking oil in the container and then you place 1 liter of H2O. You take a mixer and you mix the liquids for 30 minutes. You let it sit overnight. The next morning you find that the oil is on the top and the water is on the bottom.
The buoyancy between the H2O and the Oil, created the separation and thus the Buoyancy forces are stronger than the gravitational forces.
Or am I wrong with this???
Archimedes' principle states that the upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces and acts in the upward direction at the center of mass of the displaced fluid.
QuoteBuoyancy forces are difference between weights of materials with different density.
Yes, and these buoyancy forces can overcome gravity, thus are stronger than gravity. Thus gravity is a week force when compared to buoyancy forces.
So how can these weak forces hold thing to the planet????
No matter what you state, you can't overcome the fact that buoyancy forces are stronger than gravitational forces. It is a fact. So my question is this, since they are stronger, then why is it impossible to state that the buoyancy forces is what keeps up on a Flat Earth, instead of Gravity. heavier items fall, lighter items rise do to buoyancy, gravity not needed.
The same is true with flog.
It is denser and heavier and thus is on the bottom of the atmosphere, where lighter gasses rise up.
Buoyancy forces dictate if something sinks or rises.
...
depends what your media is, are in in air, water or ground
I recommend fluids 101
In physics, buoyancy or upthrust, is an upward force exerted by a fluid that opposes the weight of an immersed object.(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy))
In a column of fluid, pressure increases with depth as a result of the weight of the overlying fluid.
No matter what you state, you can't overcome the fact that buoyancy forces are stronger than gravitational forces. It is a fact.No, it is not a fact!
So my question is this, since they are stronger, then why is it impossible to state that the buoyancy forces is what keeps up on a Flat Earth, instead of Gravity. heavier items fall, lighter items rise do to buoyancy, gravity not needed.But, why do your "heavier items fall" if not for gravity?
Buoyancy forces dictate if something sinks or rises.Not just buoyancy forces.
The same thing holds true for the ground. If the force down is greater than the force up, then it sinks. If the bond of the ground is stronger and can withstand the stress, then nothing happens, but if they are weaker, then the ground gives way and the object sinks.No buoyancy has nothing to do with shear stress. Solids can withstand shear forces, but fluids (gases and liquids) cannot withstand any static shear forces.
It all has to do with shear stress, which is what buoyancy forces depend on. It's all the same, air, water and ground
Buoyancy forces dictate if something sinks or rises. The same thing holds true for the ground. If the force down is greater than the force up, then it sinks. If the bond of the ground is stronger and can withstand the stress, then nothing happens, but if they are weaker, then the ground gives way and the object sinks.
It all has to do with shear stress, which is what buoyancy forces depend on. It's all the same, air, water and ground
No matter what you state, you can't overcome the fact that buoyancy forces are stronger than gravitational forces. It is a fact. So my question is this, since they are stronger, then why is it impossible to state that the buoyancy forces is what keeps up on a Flat Earth, instead of Gravity. heavier items fall, lighter items rise do to buoyancy, gravity not needed.
No matter what you state, you can't overcome the fact that buoyancy forces are stronger than gravitational forces. It is a fact.No, it is not a fact!
Take a small weather balloon (described as a 350 g weather balloon) and inflate it with 1 m3 of helium.
It will have a buoyancy of about 630 grams greater than the weight of the balloon plus the helium.
If you like, you can say that in this case "buoyancy forces are stronger than gravitational forces".
Take the same balloon and inflate it with the same volume of air and the balloon plus air now has a buoyancy of about 595 grams less than the weight of the balloon plus the air.
So in this case "buoyancy forces are weaker than gravitational forces".
In these calculations I have used: Air density = 1.225 kg/m3 and helium density = 0.17 kg/m3 at sea level and at 15°C.
And the balloon lifting capacity is from: Balloon Performance Calculator (http://tools.highaltitudescience.com/#).
And toss a piece of softwood into water and it floats but toss a piece of ebony in and it will sink.
Buoyancy can easliy be greater than, equal to of less than gravitational forces.Quote from: InFlatEarthSo my question is this, since they are stronger, then why is it impossible to state that the buoyancy forces is what keeps up on a Flat Earth, instead of Gravity. heavier items fall, lighter items rise do to buoyancy, gravity not needed.But, why do your "heavier items fall" if not for gravity?
You have never proved, or even really provided evidence, that "buoyancy forces are stronger than gravitational forces".
But, gravity is certainly needed:
- The buoyancy force is the weight of the displaced fluid and the weight is gravity x mass.
How do you even calculate buoyancy if there is no gravity? No gravity, no buoyancy!- The direction of gravity is what defines up and down. If you do not have gravity what make buoyancy "up".
They'd both burst at the pressure equivalent of about 27,600 m altitude.No matter what you state, you can't overcome the fact that buoyancy forces are stronger than gravitational forces. It is a fact.No, it is not a fact!
Take a small weather balloon (described as a 350 g weather balloon) and inflate it with 1 m3 of helium.
It will have a buoyancy of about 630 grams greater than the weight of the balloon plus the helium.
If you like, you can say that in this case "buoyancy forces are stronger than gravitational forces".
Take the same balloon and inflate it with the same volume of air and the balloon plus air now has a buoyancy of about 595 grams less than the weight of the balloon plus the air.
So in this case "buoyancy forces are weaker than gravitational forces".
In these calculations I have used: Air density = 1.225 kg/m3 and helium density = 0.17 kg/m3 at sea level and at 15°C.
And the balloon lifting capacity is from: Balloon Performance Calculator (http://tools.highaltitudescience.com/#).
And toss a piece of softwood into water and it floats but toss a piece of ebony in and it will sink.
Buoyancy can easliy be greater than, equal to of less than gravitational forces.Quote from: InFlatEarthSo my question is this, since they are stronger, then why is it impossible to state that the buoyancy forces is what keeps up on a Flat Earth, instead of Gravity. heavier items fall, lighter items rise do to buoyancy, gravity not needed.But, why do your "heavier items fall" if not for gravity?
You have never proved, or even really provided evidence, that "buoyancy forces are stronger than gravitational forces".
But, gravity is certainly needed:
- The buoyancy force is the weight of the displaced fluid and the weight is gravity x mass.
How do you even calculate buoyancy if there is no gravity? No gravity, no buoyancy!- The direction of gravity is what defines up and down. If you do not have gravity what make buoyancy "up".
In this example, if you place both balloons in a vacuum chamber will they lift or fall?
They'd both burst at the pressure equivalent of about 27,600 m altitude.
But, if the balloons were both of some hypothetical material that would not stretch or burst they would both fall.
There could be no buoyancy, because buoyancy is just the weight of displaced fluid (be it gas of liquid).
But, without gravity there is no "weight of displaced fluid", so how can "weight of displaced fluid" be much stronger than gravity - it is gravity!QuoteThey'd both burst at the pressure equivalent of about 27,600 m altitude.
But, if the balloons were both of some hypothetical material that would not stretch or burst they would both fall.
There could be no buoyancy, because buoyancy is just the weight of displaced fluid (be it gas of liquid).
and this "weight of displaced fluid" is much stronger than gravity.
We agree!
Thank you for proving my point!
The Cavendish experiment and G, Genevieve Roeder-Hensley | Cavendish Experiment Revisited, Andrew Bennett | Cavendish experiment, proving mass derived gravity, flat earth debunker |
The Cavendish Experiment at Bishop O'Connell High School, Inside Science | DeHaan Cavendish Balance, James DeHaan | Universal Gravitation Demonstration, Nick Merrill |
But, without gravity there is no "weight of displaced fluid", so how can "weight of displaced fluid" be much stronger than gravity - it is gravity!
There are no "variations in gravity dependent of the media that it is in". What you measure on scales is the weight, less any buoyancy.QuoteBut, without gravity there is no "weight of displaced fluid", so how can "weight of displaced fluid" be much stronger than gravity - it is gravity!
OK, then how come their are variations in gravity dependent of the media that it is in. Is this some type of anti-gravity force???
How about tensile strength is the controlling fact for everything!!!!In Air, water and solid.Fluids (gasses and liquids) have no tensile or shear strength.
That would solve everything and in tensile strength their is no gravity, is their???Sure tensile strength does not involve gravity, but it doesn't exist for liquids and gasses.
Sure tensile strength does not involve gravity, but it doesn't exist for liquids and gasses.
And if there is a Santa Claus, parents don't have to put presents under the tree...QuoteSure tensile strength does not involve gravity, but it doesn't exist for liquids and gasses.
It does if their is Aether...
Total utter garbage! How does the non-existent Aether give tensile strength to fluids.QuoteSure tensile strength does not involve gravity, but it doesn't exist for liquids and gasses.
It does if their is Aether...
QuoteSure tensile strength does not involve gravity, but it doesn't exist for liquids and gasses.
It does if their is Aether...
They'd both burst at the pressure equivalent of about 27,600 m altitude.
But, if the balloons were both of some hypothetical material that would not stretch or burst they would both fall.
There could be no buoyancy, because buoyancy is just the weight of displaced fluid (be it gas of liquid).
QuoteBut, without gravity there is no "weight of displaced fluid", so how can "weight of displaced fluid" be much stronger than gravity - it is gravity!
OK, then how come their are variations in gravity dependent of the media that it is in. Is this some type of anti-gravity force???
How about tensile strength is the controlling fact for everything!!!!In Air, water and solid. That would solve everything and in tensile strength their is no gravity, is their???
If their is Aether, then the rocket has something to have friction with.
What about 'friction' between rocket and exiting gas?
Drive wheels push ground back, propellers push water or air back, and rocket pushes gas back?
Pushing air back and pushing gas back "lights the bulb"? (enlightens the thinker)
You have to be trolling. It is not reasonable to believe that someone can be this dumb.QuoteWhat about 'friction' between rocket and exiting gas?
Drive wheels push ground back, propellers push water or air back, and rocket pushes gas back?
Pushing air back and pushing gas back "lights the bulb"? (enlightens the thinker)
The ground has matter, atmosphere has matter, vacuum has NO matter, thus nothing can push back. Is their an opposite reaction to the satellite in a vacuum?
Why did you add vacuum to the issue?
QuoteWhy did you add vacuum to the issue?
Are satellites operating in a vacuum or in an atmosphere?
What they are operating in is irrelevant, because unlike every other vehicle you've mentioned, rockets do not engage an external medium for propulsion.QuoteWhy did you add vacuum to the issue?
Are satellites operating in a vacuum or in an atmosphere?
If their is Aether, then the rocket has something to have friction with.
As their not being any Aether in the Universe, how can you prove that something does not exists if you don't know what it is?
If their is Aether, then the rocket has something to have friction with.
As their not being any Aether in the Universe, how can you prove that something does not exists if you don't know what it is?
I don't have to prove it doesn't exist, you have to prove it does
Where is your proof of the aether?
I have to prove that it exists, then you have to prove that satellites can move in a vacuum!!!
I have to prove that it exists, then you have to prove that satellites can move in a vacuum!!!
Is this a joke?
Buy a vacuum pump, make a vacuum, drop something, hey look it moves
Or just watch the hundreds of videos that show this
We are talking moving in a zero gravity environment in a vacuum
Satellites don't move in a zero gravity environment?
QuoteSatellites don't move in a zero gravity environment?
In what environment do they operate in?
If their is an environment, then their must also be a temperature and is this higher of lower than the melting point of aluminum or titanium?
Do they operate in a gravity and if so, what is the g value for it?
If their is Aether, then the rocket has something to have friction with.But a rocket needs nothing "to have friction with" and if a rocket had "something to have friction with" then so would satellites and that would rapidly slow them down, that does not happen.
As their not being any Aether in the Universe, how can you prove that something does not exists if you don't know what it is?
Outline the features of the aether model for the transmission of light.No description aether's properties that I have seen postulates any interaction with matter, only with EM waves or gravitation.
- In 1801, Thomas Young showed that light could interfere with each other through some experiments and soon light was decided to be a WAVE.
- Before the concept of Electromagnetic Waves was accepted, people believed that all waves required a medium to travel through. (See Prelim: The world communicates)
- Having recognised that light was a wave, the scientists thought that light needed a medium to travel through, seeing how most other waves known at the time needed one such as sound.
- The Aether was believed to have the following properties:
- Perfectly Transparent
- Permeated ALL matter
- Filled ALL of space
- Low to No density (massless)
- Rigid AND/OR Elastic to support high-velocity waves. (Yeah I have no idea either)
- However, the existence of Aether could not be proved. One experiment which had failed to prove this was the Michelson Morley experiment which attempted to find an aether wind but failed.
- Eventually, it was found that light did not require a medium to propagate. In fact, light was a self-propagating wave. As there was proof for this new model, unlike the Aether model, the newer model was accepted and the Aether model was eventually phased out as noone used it any more.
From: Outline the features of the aether model for the transmission of light. (http://nsb.wikidot.com/pl-9-2-4-1)
QuoteSatellites don't move in a zero gravity environment?
In what environment do they operate in?
IfYou say, "If there is an environment, then there must also be a temperature", but not if that environment were a perfect vacuum.theirthere is an environment, thentheirthere must also be a temperature and is this higher of lower than the melting point of aluminum or titanium?
More goalpost moving? What does your gross misunderstanding of temperature and heat transfer have to do with gravity or movement in a vacuum?QuoteSatellites don't move in a zero gravity environment?
In what environment do they operate in?
If their is an environment, then their must also be a temperature and is this higher of lower than the melting point of aluminum or titanium?
I have created a new thread about the satellite orbit, which is at the following linkWhen you are proven to be wrong about motion in a vacuum in that thread will you then bring up misconceptions about temperature and heat?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74102.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74102.0)
I have created a new thread about the satellite orbit, which is at the following linkWhen you are proven to be wrong about motion in a vacuum in that thread will you then bring up misconceptions about temperature and heat?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74102.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74102.0)
I have created a new thread about the satellite orbit, which is at the following linkWhen you are proven to be wrong about motion in a vacuum in that thread will you then bring up misconceptions about temperature and heat?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74102.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74102.0)
To have temperature and heat convection you need an atmosphere, are you saying the space is not a vacuum and thus has an atmosphere?
If you are, then I will admit that rockets and satellites can travel in space with rocket power, but then you have to deal if the material will melt in those conditions.
Do you want to go down this road?
I don't think so!
For efficiency reasons, and because they physically can, rockets run with combustion temperatures that can reach ~3,500 K (~3,200 °C or ~5,800 °F).(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine))
Most other jet engines have gas turbines in the hot exhaust. Due to their larger surface area, they are harder to cool and hence there is a need to run the combustion processes at much lower temperatures, losing efficiency. In addition, duct engines use air as an oxidant, which contains 78% largely unreactive nitrogen, which dilutes the reaction and lowers the temperatures.[6] Rockets have none of these inherent disadvantages.
Therefore, temperatures used in rockets are very often far higher than the melting point of the nozzle and combustion chamber materials (~1,200 K for copper). Two exceptions are graphite and tungsten, although both are subject to oxidation if not protected. Indeed, many construction materials can make perfectly acceptable propellants in their own right. It is important that these materials be prevented from combusting, melting or vaporising to the point of failure. This is sometimes somewhat facetiously termed an "engine-rich exhaust". Materials technology could potentially place an upper limit on the exhaust temperature of chemical rockets.
Alternatively, rockets may use more common construction materials such as aluminium, steel, nickel or copper alloys and employ cooling systems that prevent the construction material itself becoming too hot. Regenerative cooling, where the propellant is passed through tubes around the combustion chamber or nozzle, and other techniques, such as curtain cooling or film cooling, are employed to give longer nozzle and chamber life. These techniques ensure that a gaseous thermal boundary layer touching the material is kept below the temperature which would cause the material to catastrophically fail.
In rockets, the heat fluxes that can pass through the wall are among the highest in engineering; fluxes are generally in the range of 1-200 MW/m2. The strongest heat fluxes are found at the throat, which often sees twice that found in the associated chamber and nozzle. This is due to the combination of high speeds (which gives a very thin boundary layer), and although lower than the chamber, the high temperatures seen there. (See rocket nozzles above for temperatures in nozzle).
In rockets the coolant methods include:
uncooled (used for short runs mainly during testing)
ablative walls (walls are lined with a material that is continuously vaporised and carried away).
radiative cooling (the chamber becomes almost white hot and radiates the heat away)
dump cooling (a propellant, usually hydrogen, is passed around the chamber and dumped)
regenerative cooling (liquid rockets use the fuel, or occasionally the oxidiser, to cool the chamber via a cooling jacket before being injected)
curtain cooling (propellant injection is arranged so the temperature of the gases is cooler at the walls)
film cooling (surfaces are wetted with liquid propellant, which cools as it evaporates)
In all cases the cooling effect that prevents the wall from being destroyed is caused by a thin layer of insulating fluid (a boundary layer) that is in contact with the walls that is far cooler than the combustion temperature. Provided this boundary layer is intact the wall will not be damaged.
Disruption of the boundary layer may occur during cooling failures or combustion instabilities, and wall failure typically occurs soon after.
With regenerative cooling a second boundary layer is found in the coolant channels around the chamber. This boundary layer thickness needs to be as small as possible, since the boundary layer acts as an insulator between the wall and the coolant. This may be achieved by making the coolant velocity in the channels as high as possible.
In practice, regenerative cooling is nearly always used in conjunction with curtain cooling and/or film cooling.
Liquid-fuelled engines are often run fuel-rich, which lowers combustion temperatures. This reduces heat loads on the engine and allows lower cost materials and a simplified cooling system. This can also increase performance by lowering the average molecular weight of the exhaust and increasing the efficiency with which combustion heat is converted to kinetic exhaust energy.
Incorrect!QuoteWhat about 'friction' between rocket and exiting gas?
Drive wheels push ground back, propellers push water or air back, and rocket pushes gas back?
Pushing air back and pushing gas back "lights the bulb"? (enlightens the thinker)
The ground has matter, atmosphere has matter, vacuum has NO matter, thus nothing can push back. Is their an opposite reaction to the satellite in a vacuum?
A Saturn F-1 rocket engine burns 2,578 kg of fuel + oxidiser PER SECOND. That is emitted from the engine nozzle at about 2,600 m/s.
Do a few sums and you will find that the momentum of ONE SECOND'S exhaust is around 6.83 MN. Since force is the rate of change of momentum, that is equivalent to a force of 6.83 MN or about 696,000 kg. This is about right for the F-1 engine, and does NOT depend on the atmosphere one little bit (only conservation of momentum - pretty basic!) In fact if you do a more exact analysis the total static thrust is HIGHER for a LOWER ambient pressure!
OK, you say the rocket cannot push on NOTHING, I guess you are right, BUT it is pushing on a MASSIVE amount (2,578 kg/sec) of burnt fuel coming out the back REAL FAST (2,600 m/s). Right at the exit of the rocket there is no longer a vacuum - the gas cannot escape at infinite speed! It is leaving at around 2,600 m/s (randomised by thermal velocities). So you the rocket temporarily destroys the vacuum immediately behind the rocket nozzle - after that - as a certain rocket scientist said "WHO CARES?" - mind you a lot of people in London and Antwerp cared a lot!
From post: Flat Earth General / Re: People on skateboards. « Message by rabinoz on December 04, 2015, 09:18:22 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64577.msg1734799;topicseen#msg1734799)
You were the one who implied the temperature in space was above the melting points of aluminum and titanium. I'll remind you"I have created a new thread about the satellite orbit, which is at the following linkWhen you are proven to be wrong about motion in a vacuum in that thread will you then bring up misconceptions about temperature and heat?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74102.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74102.0)
To have temperature and heat convection you need an atmosphere, are you saying the space is not a vacuum and thus has an atmosphere?
If you are, then I will admit that rockets and satellites can travel in space with rocket power, but then you have to deal if the material will melt in those conditions.
Do you want to go down this road?
I don't think so!
If their is an environment, then their must also be a temperature and is this higher of lower than the melting point of aluminum or titanium?If you're going to walk that back to an understanding how their near vacuum environment functions with regard to temperature, then we're fine.