The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: IceDragon on March 05, 2024, 12:27:14 PM
-
and why don't you try raising money to buy a rocket of your own to prove earth looks flat from space?
as pointed out in https://archive.is/umT7M, the first photograph of Earth from outer space was taken from a modified V-2 rocket in 1946.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_No._13
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1946-11-21_White_Sands_NM_V-2_rocket.ogg
(https://i.imgur.com/kB4UCKL.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/KwzHlvH.png)
-
How? Because I know it for the hoax that it is.
Also...
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1123593550983090283/1214701531493048410/KwzHlvH.png?ex=65fa11f5&is=65e79cf5&hm=94e09a0947e5cd573e6cc189d0e5a68925092ef8b2e310392c7ee8d1daef49b0&)
Images of space are either doctored, unconvincing (as above), or both.
How the hoax works. They tell people to doubt their senses of something as simple as the Earth appearing flat, and the sun and moon appearing to go around the Earth. Then they get them to doubt their senses about bigger stuff. Like remembering news events or the names of cereal (it's Fruit Loops) or what Darth Vader said. They show them doctored images, and get them to question their own minds.
When they do that, they are able to be brainwashed. They are no longer sovereign.
-
If you know it, then to reiterate my second question,why don't you try proving it? Why don't you start a crowdfunding campaign to buy a rocket and film the Earth from space, then upload the footage on youtube for everyone to see it?
-
If you know it, then to reiterate my second question,why don't you try proving it? Why don't you start a crowdfunding campaign to buy a rocket and film the Earth from space, then upload the footage on youtube for everyone to see it?
bulmabriefs144 was presented with this account, and utterly unable to debunk it.
UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight
-
btw, it's interesting how "world's first rocket program" started as rocket cars - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel-RAK
(https://i.imgur.com/UrOXIeY.png)
-
If you know it, then to reiterate my second question,why don't you try proving it? Why don't you start a crowdfunding campaign to buy a rocket and film the Earth from space, then upload the footage on youtube for everyone to see it?
bulmabriefs144 was presented with this account, and utterly unable to debunk it.
UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight
You mean the video that I altitude-analyzed against the layers of atmosphere, found it egregiously wrong, then figured out the numbers were lying, then noticed the re-entry numbers were omitting information?
Yeah I totally never debunked that video.
Also, it is hardly uncut. I noticed a skip during the descent for one.
Every time the frame perspective changes is a cut, as anyone who took film class will tell you. They cut it, they added special effects, the whole shebang.
-
You mean the video that I altitude-analyzed against the layers of atmosphere,
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I typically get an A or B in most classes.
What an accomplishment!
It's clear that you are capable of attending class and passing a test, but your postings here show that your ability to retain, understand, and apply that knowledge properly beyond those classes is abysmal.
This is like trying to prove the Yeti exists by analysing a boot mark on a road with a 1.2 megapixel photo taken at 30m away at night in a rain storm.
If you take enough photos with the sky in the background, and you actually spend a decent amount of time working with imaging software, you would realise that the sky does not always give a noticeable gradient. It has a lot to do with what portion of the sky you are photographing, at what zoom, where the sun was and what the general weather conditions it was.
I get different colour samples almost everywhere I click in this image.
This is just a ridiculous attempt at analysing the BO launch.
The only thing you accomplished bulmabriefs144 is to play the fool and try to “debunk” the reality of a well witnessed and documented event of a rocket entering space.
Why has man added hundreds of lights to the night sky through satellites, where you can witness the international space station for yourself passing overhead? With geosynchronous satellites providing satellite TV from the exact location in space that can be verified by the way satellite dishes point across the USA.
-
How? Because I know it for the hoax that it is.
And yet again you demonstrate that your dishonesty knows no bounds.
You ignore what the image shows, and instead draw an arbitrary line, and pretend it matches.
And this isn't the first time.
This shows you just happily imagine a straight line, even if you can't see one.
Images of space are either doctored, unconvincing (as above), or both.
How the hoax works.
You mean this is how your dismissal works.
If you are confronted with evidence you are wrong, you dismiss it as being doctored, unconvincing or both. Even when you can't show any fault.
They tell people to doubt their senses of something as simple as the Earth appearing flat
Earth does not appear flat.
the sun and moon appearing to go around the Earth.
No more so than the ground appears to move around when you are driving.
This is not doubting senses.
This is recognising what information your senses give, and what they don't.
You mean the video that I altitude-analyzed against the layers of atmosphere, found it egregiously wrong, then figured out the numbers were lying, then noticed the re-entry numbers were omitting information?
No, we mean the one you couldn't show any fault with.
Where you lied about the threshold you used, you falsely claimed the sky doesn't look like real sky, lied about where the camera was to lie about how the rocket was moving, and just rejected it because you couldn't show a fault.
Yeah I totally never debunked that video.
That's right, you didn't. You just threw a bunch of BS at it hoping something would stick.
The only thing you were able to correctly say is that it was cut. What a surprise, a news site lied.
There is also plenty of other footage
e.g. this one:
-
It's clear that you are capable of attending class and passing a test, but your postings here show that your ability to retain, understand, and apply that knowledge properly beyond those classes is abysmal.
I'm actually able to photographically memorize things like numbers and maps. I once got a perfect score on a test including extra credit by adding in everything I'd read from the book. I was basically reading it off from the image in my head.
The more important thing though, is that unlike you, I'm able to compare all these facts to one another to find logical inconsistencies. I'm pretty good at Phoenix Wright games that way.
You hear a lie, and because it fits the Wizard's First Rule ("people will believe anything because they want it to be true, or because they fear it's true"), you swallow it whole.
Geometry class was about 20 years ago. I still remember many of those rules and know that the shape of curvature is wrong, as you guys proclaimed it (the 8 inch per mile estimate would put the overall shape of the Earth nearly as flat as FE, considering that this bulge of even one mile happens of the course of thousands of miles). I still remember the Fermi method. I remember what all they told us about the way the Earth, moon, stars work, and the tides. But the more I examine, the more silly this all is. I kinda know how to apply these things I learned just fine. But because it doesn't square with what you "know" you think it's my problem. Sorry, the one that is bad at this is you. Try comparing these numbers, and you quickly figure out that the numbers don't match up to perceived reality.
So ummm, Objection!
That picture declares the Earth's curvature is quite visible, but a straight line can be drawn from one side to another.
The video showed the shuttle in "space" before they got to the Karman line (widely believed to be the separation line of the atmosphere before what is commonly called "space" begins). Then it weirdly skipped numbers going down. I looked it over, it was a flawed record, and I can photographically remember where they just straight up stopped all the statistical numbers.
-
I'm actually able to photographically memorize things like numbers and maps.
You’re incoherently babbling.
You have been presented with numerous items that proves humankind has been to space. You been proven a liar, incompetent, and blinded by your beliefs.
-
You have been presented with numerous items that proves humankind has been to space. You been proven a liar, incompetent, and blinded by your beliefs.
You're projecting.
Actually, what I've been presented with is numerous video and photo samples.
Moving back to Ace Attorney, in one case a video record is thrown out because it was actually a crime done earlier for show to tamper with other evidence.
And in real court, being caught on video isn't always admissible. There could be a timestamp error, even if it was properly obtained.
All of this, before we even tackle the possibility of an altered picture. Watch. I can easily as a complete novice (getting better though) make a picture from whole cloth using only found resources.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1214966276074770482/OrdinaryUnusualSight.png?ex=65fb0885&is=65e89385&hm=bc82e41b9ec09dd2d73fa4d4d6821df92f117059f956074564b911eff71767b6&)
Ooooh, look at the sunset! ;)
Movies themselves prove that it is possible to make any background (or foreground), frame by frame. The only difference from and amateur and professional job is the look of clean lines and the absence of white or grey crud (there's a technical term for this somewhere).
But sure. You have "evidence."
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PwtRgPjvSKA/UD9do8JlAUI/AAAAAAAAIoU/1e9O1Ii3WCw/s1600/Outer+Space+Wallpapers+2.jpg)
Cool drawing, bro. How long did it take?
-
You're projecting.
No. There is countless instances that you have been caught in lies.
Like you shamelessly lying about the blue origin rocket flight to space. And the lies and falsehoods you used to try and dismiss reality.
The fact you have to ignore or lie about the international space station which many like myself have witnessed with their own eyes
-
And in real court, being caught on video
Like how you ignore the blue origin had a rocket crew, and a ground crew that can provide first hand accounts, telemetry, tracking data, and the actual equipment that entered space.
What this “fake” too
Blue Origin Resumes New Shepard Flight Operations, Delivers Payloads to Edge of Space
by Ben Evans
3 months ago
https://www.americaspace.com/2023/12/19/blue-origin-resumes-new-shepard-flight-operations-delivers-payloads-to-edge-of-space/
After a day-long delay due to cold weather and a ground system issue, Kent, Wash.-based Blue Origin successfully returned its New Shepard to flight after a 15-month hiatus on Tuesday, with a flawless uncrewed mission out of West Texas. Booster NS4 rose ponderously from Launch Site One at 10:42:28 a.m. CST, lifting Crew Capsule RSS H.G. Wells to the edge of space on the NS-24 mission with 33 payloads from NASA, academia, research institutions and commercial entities, as well as 38,000 postcards via Blue Origin’s non-profit Club for the Future foundation.
-
And in real court,
Was this “fake” too?
Crew Dragon Demo-2 (officially Crew Demo-2, SpaceX Demo-2, or Demonstration Mission-2)[a] was the first crewed test flight of the Crew Dragon spacecraft. The spacecraft, named Endeavour, launched on 30 May 2020[7][11][12] on a Falcon 9 rocket, and carried NASA astronauts Douglas Hurley and Robert Behnken to the International Space Station in the first crewed orbital spaceflight launched from the United States since the final Space Shuttle mission in 2011, and the first ever operated by a commercial provider.[13] Demo-2 was also the first two-person orbital spaceflight launched from the United States since STS-4 in 1982. Demo-2 completed the validation of crewed spaceflight operations using SpaceX hardware and received human-rating certification for the spacecraft,[14][15] including astronaut testing of Crew Dragon capabilities on orbit.[15]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Dragon_Demo-2
-
No. There is countless instances that you have been caught in lies.
Like you shamelessly lying about the blue origin rocket flight to space. And the lies and falsehoods you used to try and dismiss reality.
Okay, keep these two things in mind.
The Kármán line is a proposed conventional boundary between Earth's atmosphere and outer space set by the international record-keeping body FAI at an altitude of 100 kilometres above mean sea level
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1214994173514481724/KarmanLine.jpg?ex=65fb2280&is=65e8ad80&hm=49cff328e14a372f71cfb5a7742a8982deaf99059c30376f410eea98059ced2e&)
I've heard you say that there is no exact measurement of where the Karman Line is. This is your first lie you're caught in, Liar. I'm gonna name you Liar from now on, until you start to admit when you know you're full of crap. Of course there is always the option you're really that delusional. Both models of the atmosphere and the FAI agree in that measurement. Now you or I may decide that is a placeholder, but some governing body set that as the number for when you are outside Earth's main atmosphere. So let's start with that as a given.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1214984525474570300/image.png?ex=65fb1984&is=65e8a484&hm=ea9af2c0d37ea281a9bb2c51021b1add76906e4a7d6013f7689dd109a2eb3f7e&)
This "uncut" video cuts in order to change cameras. At 161,479 altitude they show the Earth leaving a ball, meaning it is outside Earth proper. Remember, 100 km is roughly 62 miles. Is this 62 miles, then? No it is not. We haven't even left the stratosphere yet (30.5 miles). This picture is already a lie, Liar.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1214995118914797618/image.png?ex=65fb2361&is=65e8ae61&hm=735a3d96679abb7fe271d3a345fab80b4a1447e1c9d36b4c1c63b6063f5491c9&)
At around 233,437, they tell us the Zero-G started happening. We're supposed to not be in Earth's atmosphere, but in space proper. Only we aren't. You remember I said the Karman Line is established as 62 mi or 100 km? The same one you said was arbitrary number even though other numbers are clearly not arbitrary? Well we're nearly 20 miles from that.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1214996738537160724/image.png?ex=65fb24e4&is=65e8afe4&hm=378f14f973bd4ce9e127e74444bad12c6eb777428a123b696bd925cb9c687a5f&)
They start separating (much like premature coitus) around 219,037 ft or 41 miles, still before Karman Line. All of this nonsense is ahead of where it should be.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1214997406895317032/image.png?ex=65fb2583&is=65e8b083&hm=fd744b2422c1528fba282d603fc690bf9ffabfae566cb43750f7cd98ac75cf56&)
Still premature. 313,976 ft is 59 miles.
Now watch the left gauge. The speed has been declining, right?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1214999243199086702/image.png?ex=65fb2739&is=65e8b239&hm=a2ffa8f270331ca45bdddf8d5788c9caf3e158c55c3b4883693fde210a9193f6&)
Well, it actually zeroes out but it keeps climbing. Then you can clearly see an "oops there", as they raise the speed.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1214999979991506974/image.png?ex=65fb27e8&is=65e8b2e8&hm=a9c580f662e0ea61dbd47edc37afc54f9bf3f755f23e7c16f0b8bc6a3a8f21f5&)
But now, it's fixed in altitude but continuing to speed up. This only makes sense if it turns in place. But the sudden acceleration means it is actually impossible for it to be exactly that altitude. That's like slamming on the gas to 110 mph when you about to make a right turn. The is no way there shouldn't be some skid. But since this is by fiat, it's the height we say it is, and it's going as fast as we say it is. Btw, for the record, it should now be 66 miles above Earth or just 4 miles past the Karman line, meaning that picture we saw earlier where it just left the ball of Earth? That should be now.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1215001849778937987/image.png?ex=65fb29a6&is=65e8b4a6&hm=5f0c4b6b04c826274ee4a5df44e213f37284fd5d56f50178fa53074c0e738585&)
Here, both 388 mph and 341,859 are fixed without clear explanation. Ummm, even if you are not increasing in speed, taking my cue from how cars travel, if I coast at 60 down a road I continue to get somewhere. Yet for several seconds, they show the display fixed like this. I can't see them turning, there seems to be no good explanation besides something like "oh it's broken". Then they show us reattachment (or whatever it's called). Sorry, no. If you say you are going 388 mph and you aren't moving, then your numbers are lying. That's 0 mph, except for pivoting and turning.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1215003738222239815/image.png?ex=65fb2b68&is=65e8b668&hm=04c279d9197d9cfb8530f99b9280d937414494d63907209c0e9f64146a970218&)
At around 260,000, perhaps realizing that people like me aren't buying their numbers anymore, they blank out both mph and altitude.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1215004514038583377/image.png?ex=65fb2c21&is=65e8b721&hm=2019e9e279015b101dfe4448637f3e876a9af96cb2267b10ce8b3fb6cc371bb9&)
They have a weird upright propulsionless fall of unknown speed for about the next two or three minutes. Real objects like that need propulsion or the top-heavy part flips the thing over. Only at abouut 9:01 do they realize this, and turn on the ignition. Then we have weird left and right ignition thrust, and...
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1215005576153665586/image.png?ex=65fb2d1f&is=65e8b81f&hm=da74f8fb188584fc55e89d198a1f17d99e2e82773474c7dee364b3700ac23755&)
Glory be! All of a sudden, we're back down to 301 ft with no explanation about the intervening altitudes. Also, wasn't the last number before they cut information saying Zero-G? Obviously they didn't rely on gravity to get them down there.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1215006423587753984/image.png?ex=65fb2de9&is=65e8b8e9&hm=96f794e18432ff19e87ba857621cd0c36c4697d19e6a3244395ca42001222d45&)
Awkwardly skips from 301 to 295 (while going down several ft) to 79 to 66, and keeps climbing down to 18, then 0 then digs a hole to -34. Then we instead see a number while it's just sitting here.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1215008051115855952/image.png?ex=65fb2f6d&is=65e8ba6d&hm=6a1e9957a9f268d8733fdf10e0df99d9431f074ee8c053150c4dd06e668e1edc&)
It turns out they are focusing on the pod which is coming down too, honest!
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1215008457569075200/image.png?ex=65fb2fce&is=65e8bace&hm=84dfd1256b20ac3189a23f455d8879667dfb505426c13e50959949e7708c41ab&)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1215009366374096907/image.png?ex=65fb30a6&is=65e8bba6&hm=fa643a8b631022d0177bc18af122bc06ef19f9e05376a03125a69b81fdc281ab&)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1215010046446936114/image.png?ex=65fb3148&is=65e8bc48&hm=59e72d33a273422029afc183c23e48a94e10d624a64faa5e7c2dd515033edfdb&)
At 151 is the last frame before they cut to a no altitude picture.
Uncut, my ass. It skipped from 151 to nothing all of a sudden, just as it skipped awkwardly from 295 to 79 with the other one. They pick and choose on speed and altitude.
Yes, I analyzed this before. Altitude was wrong for many key events during launch and re-entry. Speed was wrong in some cases. Speed/altitude omission was a thing. Awkward numeric skipping that looked adjusted. General weirdness.
This was a video in much the same way this is a video.
Just as real.
Liar, you want to tell me some more about how I don't know what looks wrong?
How can I dismiss all the space pictures? Rather easily.
-
se two things in mind.
You tried this BS in another thread and got caught in your web of lies?
While you ignore everything from the ISS, crewed space flight, all the assets placed in space like weather satellites, and the items and junk placed in space that adds and changes the night sky.
-
Okay, keep these two things in mind.
That just for 2023 you have over 200 space missions that you have to produce as being “fake”?
In his annual report on global Space Activities for 2023 [PDF] https://planet4589.org/space/papers/space23.pdf , astronomer and astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell calculates that there were a record 223 attempted space launches world wide in 2023, up from 186 in 2022, and more than double the 85 attempts made in 2016.
The number of satellites successfully orbited in 2023 also hit a record high at 2,917, versus 2,485 in 2022 and only 216 in 2016. Only 66 of those birds are owned and/or operated by militaries, and to no space watcher’s surprise, the vast bulk were commercial, the report finds.
The total number of “cataloged” objects in space — that is, those bigger than 10 centimeters in diameter that can be traced to an owner — including both active payloads and dangerous space junk also jumped to 27,896 in 2023, up from 26,623 in 2022 and 18,525 in 2016.
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/01/us-leads-world-in-2023-launches-sats-on-orbit-study/
-
I'm actually able to photographically memorize things like numbers and maps. I once got a perfect score on a test including extra credit by adding in everything I'd read from the book. I was basically reading it off from the image in my head.
So you are great at memorising things, but not thinking. Got it.
I'm able to compare all these facts to one another to find logical inconsistencies.
But you can't.
Instead, you just repeatedly lie, making up alleged inconsistencies because you can't show any actual faults.
the 8 inch per mile estimate
Which YOU keep bringing up even after it is refuted, showing a fundamental lack of understanding of basic geometry.
Again, you aren't showing a problem with the RE.
You are showing you are happy to repeat the same refuted lie, because you don't care about the truth, you just care about propping up your fantasy.
But the more I examine, the more silly this all is.
Yet you can't show anything silly about it, and instead the more ridiculous your attacks become.
That picture declares the Earth's curvature is quite visible, but a straight line can be drawn from one side to another.
Yet your straight line doesn't follow Earth.
The video showed the shuttle in "space" before they got to the Karman line
The Karman line is an arbitrary line in the sand.
Why do you say the video shows them in "space"?
Then it weirdly skipped numbers going down.
Which was already addressed. Including you failing to comprehend the difference between the 2 units.
Do you know what is really silly?
The idea that they faked it all, yet screwed up with something as simple as numbers.
Watch. I can easily as a complete novice (getting better though) make a picture from whole cloth using only found resources.
Which is quite clearly crap, for multiple reasons.
The most obvious being the poor cut out around the tower.
But again, you producing a crap fake doesn't mean everything is fake.
And you show a dishonest double standard where you happily accept any BS that you think shows Earth is flat, but reject anything that shows it is round.
If you want to be consistent with this, you would need to reject all photos and videos.
-
I've heard you say that there is no exact measurement of where the Karman Line is. This is your first lie you're caught in, Liar.
In order for it to be a lie they are caught in, you need to show what they actually said.
As you didn't, you have not caught them in a lie.
At 161,479 altitude they show the Earth leaving a ball, meaning it is outside Earth proper.
No, it doesn't.
Again, this shows you fail to understand what you are looking at.
Perhaps because you have played too many games where the atmosphere stays until you leave and go to space and then it fades all at once?
Instead of reality, where it is gradual.
At around 233,437, they tell us the Zero-G started happening. We're supposed to not be in Earth's atmosphere, but in space proper.
No, they aren't.
Zero-g is not space.
Zero-g is free fall.
You can be in zero-g inside the atmosphere.
The Vomit Comet does that quite frequently.
Yet again, you are lying.
You appear to have established a complete fantasy for yourself, where below the Karman line you are in Earth's atmosphere and it is perfectly blue and there is no possibility of 0-g; then when you go outside, you magically switch to a black sky of space with 0-g.
That might be how it works in some games, but not in reality.
I guess that also means you think every photo of night that shows a black sky is fake because it is pretending to be outside Earth rather than showing the blue atmosphere?
The same one you said was arbitrary number even though other numbers are clearly not arbitrary?
Some numbers (like the Karman Line) are arbitrary. Effectively arbitrary lines drawn in the sand.
Other numbers, like pi, are not arbitrary and instead are based upon facts about reality.
All of this nonsense is ahead of where it should be.
No, it is ahead of where you want it to be.
Well, it actually zeroes out but it keeps climbing. Then you can clearly see an "oops there", as they raise the speed.
By you, yes.
If you watch it frame by frame, they reach 351 185 ft, and then the speed drops to 0.
When the speed is at 0, the altitude does not continue to increase.
The speed then starts to climb again as the craft starts to descend.
But now, it's fixed in altitude but continuing to speed up. This only makes sense if it turns in place. But the sudden acceleration means it is actually impossible for it to be exactly that altitude.
No altitude is exact. They reported it to the nearest ft.
Considering you like archaic units, that is equivalent to the nearest 36 barelycorns.
So it could change by just less than that and still be reported as that same altitude.
From the time it hits a non zero speed to the time the altitude decreases, is 6 frames. At 30 frames per second, that is roughly 0.2 seconds. At 5 miles per hour, the top speed reached, do you know how far you go in 0.2 seconds?
5 miles is 26400 ft, and 1 hour is 3600 seconds.
So 5 miles per hour is roughly 7.3 ft per second.
So over 0.2 seconds, that would be ~1.5 ft.
But even more damning, did you bother to read? Clearly not.
Here is a simple comparison for you:
(https://i.imgur.com/hiUJzNj.png)
Notice the diference?
Any honest person that was so intent on showing problems with this footage would.
But lying people like you just ignore it.
In the first case, it is showing the altitude, which changes it moves.
Then, it shows the apogee, i.e. the maximum altitude.
But you go and lie and pretend this apogee is the current altitude to pretend it is a problem that the apogee doesn't change when the rocket is falling.
So again, you have demonstrated you will look for anything you can pretend is wrong, rather than actually thinking; or thinking of ways you can lie to pretend there are problems.
It certainly demonstrates a complete lack of any honest analysis.
meaning that picture we saw earlier where it just left the ball of Earth? That should be now.
Again, this is reality, where it is a gradual transition. It is not a video game where you reach a magical barrier and switch to space.
Here, both 388 mph and 341,859 are fixed without clear explanation.
You have been provided a clear explanation.
Unlike your delusional BS where these numbers are all fake, the numbers are coming from the booster itself, and there is an issue with the telemetry.
Again, your idea is insane.
If it was all fake, why would they have done that?
Real objects like that need propulsion or the top-heavy part flips the thing over.
Great job showing you fail to understand the aerodynamics of a rocket.
First, why do you say it is top heavy?
Are you appealing to the bit at the top which would increase drag and make it lag behind?
Only at abouut 9:01 do they realize this, and turn on the ignition.
No, at this point they ignite the booster to slow the descent for its propulsive landing.
Zero-G? Obviously they didn't rely on gravity to get them down there.
And again you show either a complete lack of understanding or that you are happy to lie to everyone.
Again, zero-g is free fall.
It doesn't mean gravity is magically switched off.
then digs a hole to -34. Then we instead see a number while it's just sitting here.
Again demonstrating that it is quite likely real.
And have you bothered looking at the launch site and landing site?
It starts out on a platform, and lands on the ground.
What is the elevation difference between them?
But again, if it was fake, and it was meant to finish at 0, why wouldn't it just finish at 0? What would cause it to go to a negative number?
It turns out they are focusing on the pod which is coming down too, honest!
As clearly indicated by the text you wish to ignore.
Uncut, my ass.
And that is pretty much the only thing you have said which is correct.
Yes, I analyzed this before.
And you repeated the same lies before and had them refuted before.
How can I dismiss all the space pictures? Rather easily.
Yes, because you don't care about the truth at all.
If something doesn't match your fantasy, you dismiss it.
-
It's clear that you are capable of attending class and passing a test, but your postings here show that your ability to retain, understand, and apply that knowledge properly beyond those classes is abysmal.
I'm actually able to photographically memorize things like numbers and maps. I once got a perfect score on a test including extra credit by adding in everything I'd read from the book. I was basically reading it off from the image in my head.
The more important thing though, is that unlike you, I'm able to compare all these facts to one another to find logical inconsistencies. I'm pretty good at Phoenix Wright games that way.
You hear a lie, and because it fits the Wizard's First Rule ("people will believe anything because they want it to be true, or because they fear it's true"), you swallow it whole.
Geometry class was about 20 years ago. I still remember many of those rules and know that the shape of curvature is wrong, as you guys proclaimed it (the 8 inch per mile estimate would put the overall shape of the Earth nearly as flat as FE, considering that this bulge of even one mile happens of the course of thousands of miles). I still remember the Fermi method. I remember what all they told us about the way the Earth, moon, stars work, and the tides. But the more I examine, the more silly this all is. I kinda know how to apply these things I learned just fine. But because it doesn't square with what you "know" you think it's my problem. Sorry, the one that is bad at this is you. Try comparing these numbers, and you quickly figure out that the numbers don't match up to perceived reality.
So ummm, Objection!
That picture declares the Earth's curvature is quite visible, but a straight line can be drawn from one side to another.
The video showed the shuttle in "space" before they got to the Karman line (widely believed to be the separation line of the atmosphere before what is commonly called "space" begins). Then it weirdly skipped numbers going down. I looked it over, it was a flawed record, and I can photographically remember where they just straight up stopped all the statistical numbers.
do you enjoy LARPing as a contrarian?
do you realize what are the implications if the governments of the countries with space programs listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#List_of_space_agencies_with_launch_capability, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China and so on, are all lying to their citizens? Why would they be lying, do we have a shadowy world government, do we live in a Matrix/Dark City type simulation?
-
Youre arguing with a person who belives circles are part of the conspiracy.
-
This launch
Euclid: Journey to darkness
https://www.youtube.com/live/2OJ6lCFS29Y?si=gZkvOqpo9sDS9FMc
Is a broadcasting object that reruns data
Euclid's first images: the dazzling edge of darkness
https://www.youtube.com/live/hHWbe82zM8o?si=ant8TBnJsIACX8Li
And that is just one of the over 200 space missions launched during 2023
-
do you enjoy LARPing as a contrarian?
do you realize what are the implications if the governments of the countries with space programs listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#List_of_space_agencies_with_launch_capability, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China and so on, are all lying to their citizens? Why would they be lying, do we have a shadowy world government, do we live in a Matrix/Dark City type simulation?
When you refuse to consider options, you let other people do the thinking for you.
Years ago, they explored Antarctica. Now I want you to look at this timeline, and see if anything is weird about it.
Operation Highjump - Exploration of Antarctica by plane & ship (1947)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Highjump
Founding of NASA (1958)
Antarctic Treaty System (1959)
Operation Fishbowl - A series of atmopheric bombing tests (June 1962)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl
Mariner 2 - First successful flight to Venus (Dec 1962)
Venera 4 (1967) - atmospheric probe (1967)
Mariner 5 (1967) - another flyby of Venus (1967)
https://www.space.com/venus-mission-success-history
Apollo 11 - Launch to Moon (July 1969)
So to paraphrase this timeline, Antarctica is explored. NASA gets set up when before people were just traveling the Earth, then several countries agree that Antarctica is by invitation only because we have to protect penguins, then bombing the atmosphere, and the same year they visit Venus. Then they publicly talk about visiting the moon AFTER having visited Venus.
If I may make a theory? The countries of the world are actually united. This is why they signed this Antarctic Treaty, they basically agreed "We'll join together, and keep these secrets from the public." No Matrix involved, something more real. NASA is called different names because of a big fake space race, but it too is a unified group. I can rightly call these globalists. They are people who push the idea of a globe, even though they themselves made (temporary) holes in the firmament to go visit Venus. Not by big fake space ship, but by plane.
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China and so on, are all lying to their citizens? Why would they be lying, do we have a shadowy world government?
What? You actually believe governments don't lie to their people on a regular basis? How naive!
And yes, we have a shadowy world government. But you already know this. International systems like the United Nations and NATO visibly exist. It's their actions to destabilize republics and sovereign countries that is shadowy. It's their actions to hide truth from people that is shadowy. In this way, they more closely resemble the World Government in One Piece than a group of sovereign states.
-
When you refuse to consider options,
Like over 200 successful rocket launches many placing active broadcasting objects into space retuning data. And providing reliable, whole area coverage, and consistent service like satellite phones providing telecommunications for the Pacific Ocean that isn’t explained by towers or balloons.
-
Double hmm
(https://i.imgur.com/vTOpYaT.jpeg)
Looks curved to me?
(https://i.imgur.com/ODW88Ac.jpeg)
Why is the rest of the earth hiding behind the dip of the horizon? 😂😂😂😂😂
-
Like over 200 successful rocket launches many placing active broadcasting objects into space retuning data. And providing reliable, whole area coverage, and consistent service like satellite phones providing telecommunications for the Pacific Ocean that isn’t explained by towers or balloons.
Why do you think they publicly broadcast these?
If you knew anything about world history, you should know what propaganda looks like.
"Look, look! There are rockets going up in the air! That proves they go to outer space! And here's videos!" As though you couldn't fake a live feed by playing a prerecorded video on live recording. There is already a known seven second delay for censorship. But there's also a delay for what's known as special effects (in layman's terms, you stop the film or cut in order to add visual or sound effects, this can be anything from superimposition to literal painting on the cells).
Why do you think Google publicly showed their failure of their weather balloon system? So the public would focus on poorly made low-flying balloons and not think that maybe you could fly balloons much higher. So the public would ignore literal hundreds of land-based towers.
There is a logical reason of line stability why towers provide stability to wireless, whereas orbiting satellites would not provide stability. Every season, the RE tilts according to your theory. Even with so-called geosynchronization, it would periodically be off-sync. So you would need bleeding-edge technology to have these satellites find Podunk, CT and enable wifi compatibility for that little suburb. Or you could have a broadcast tower in Guilford and three receiving towers in Podunk. Whoa, Podunk has 4G! Amazing! No tricky seasonal adjustments, no orbital satellites looking in on a nowhere town. Just towers picking up a signal from another town.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140214-the-last-places-without-internet
When you read between the lines, you figure out that even if satellite were a reality, it isn't the solution you think it is.
Finally, satellites are the slowest means of getting online, but the only choice for those living far from a cell phone tower or wire. The Iridium satellite constellation coverage extends over the entire world, and their satellite phones can wire you up in otherwise unconnected places, such as national parks in the US, Antarctica or isolated spots of land like the Cook Islands. “If you live out in the sticks somewhere, it makes no sense for your local telecom provider to run a fibre to your house or farm,” says David Belson, editor of the quarterly State of the Internet report at Akamai, one of the world’s largest content delivery networks. “So in many cases satellite is the optimal solution, although it may not be the fastest one.” Sheer distance explains that delay: from the equator, for instance, data needs to travel about 22,000 miles (35,000km) between satellite and user.
Imagine that! Greater distance isn't a asset but a liability. Almost like the cellphone tower is the primary means of getting internet! Almost like maybe satellites aren't really the source of the "satellite" signal at all but ambient frequencies traveling along the dome. Celltowers are really the way you get a signal. Satellites amount to magical thinking. Ask yourself, what is special about it being in space that a much taller tower couldn't provide the same or better service?
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/11/24/satellites-dont-exist/
https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/
-
do you enjoy LARPing as a contrarian?
do you realize what are the implications if the governments of the countries with space programs listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#List_of_space_agencies_with_launch_capability, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China and so on, are all lying to their citizens? Why would they be lying, do we have a shadowy world government, do we live in a Matrix/Dark City type simulation?
When you refuse to consider options, you let other people do the thinking for you.
Years ago, they explored Antarctica. Now I want you to look at this timeline, and see if anything is weird about it.
Operation Highjump - Exploration of Antarctica by plane & ship (1947)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Highjump
Founding of NASA (1958)
Antarctic Treaty System (1959)
Operation Fishbowl - A series of atmopheric bombing tests (June 1962)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl
Mariner 2 - First successful flight to Venus (Dec 1962)
Venera 4 (1967) - atmospheric probe (1967)
Mariner 5 (1967) - another flyby of Venus (1967)
https://www.space.com/venus-mission-success-history
Apollo 11 - Launch to Moon (July 1969)
So to paraphrase this timeline, Antarctica is explored. NASA gets set up when before people were just traveling the Earth, then several countries agree that Antarctica is by invitation only because we have to protect penguins, then bombing the atmosphere, and the same year they visit Venus. Then they publicly talk about visiting the moon AFTER having visited Venus.
If I may make a theory? The countries of the world are actually united. This is why they signed this Antarctic Treaty, they basically agreed "We'll join together, and keep these secrets from the public." No Matrix involved, something more real. NASA is called different names because of a big fake space race, but it too is a unified group. I can rightly call these globalists. They are people who push the idea of a globe, even though they themselves made (temporary) holes in the firmament to go visit Venus. Not by big fake space ship, but by plane.
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China and so on, are all lying to their citizens? Why would they be lying, do we have a shadowy world government?
What? You actually believe governments don't lie to their people on a regular basis? How naive!
And yes, we have a shadowy world government. But you already know this. International systems like the United Nations and NATO visibly exist. It's their actions to destabilize republics and sovereign countries that is shadowy. It's their actions to hide truth from people that is shadowy. In this way, they more closely resemble the World Government in One Piece than a group of sovereign states.
I know they lie, they lied about Covid, they lied about "climate change", they lied about many things, but why lie about the shape of the Earth? Somehow there's a giant conspiracy to keep people in the dark, Russia is in it, China is in it, South Korea is in it, North Korea is in it, Iran is in it, India is in it, Pakistan is in it. So when did this giant conspiracy began? Is there a secret society like Illuminati responsible?
-
Why do you think they publicly broadcast these?
Because it’s interesting to see how the technology advances. And see new products and services provided by companies.
You going to try to “debunk” this?
Double hmm
(https://i.imgur.com/vTOpYaT.jpeg)
Looks curved to me?
(https://i.imgur.com/ODW88Ac.jpeg)
Why is the rest of the earth hiding behind the dip of the horizon? 😂😂😂😂😂
It’s fun to see you fail and have to resort to blatant lies.
-
There is a logical reason of line stability why towers
There is no network of towers in the pacific to provide the equal coverage achieved by satellites.
Balloons would be susceptible to cyclones and hurricanes. Causing pockets with long outages for weeks. I was in the navy, no evidence of a network of “balloons” that would hinder aerial operations or could be taken out by bad actors. With zero evidence of logistics from manufacturing to ships placing balloons to the areas of operations. To no evidence of recovery and maintenance teams.
-
"Look, look! There are rockets going up in the air! That proves they go to outer space! And here's videos!"
Why do you think I picked crewed missions with large ground crews with equipment that could be tracked, actively broadcast during their flight/mission, and where the equipment retuned to earth.
-
I'm a history major and religion minor. My emphasis was not on Christianity but world religion. When you read religious text as history, you notice a curious thing.
- Pagan religions talk about great weapons as weapons of the gods.
- Hinduism likewise talks about the Brahma weapons (https://www.ancient-code.com/mohenjo-daro-an-ancient-city-destroyed-by-a-nuclear-attack-thousands-of-years-ago/), which many Hindus equate with some sort of nuke (https://www.gaia.com/article/evidence-nuclear-war-ancient-times).
- Hinduism also talks about a race of peaceful people being taken over by warring race (I think the Dravidians and the Aryans)
- Judaism likewise talks about the descendents of Shem vs the other descendents of Noah, and how Ham's descendents forced the building of the Tower of Babel.
- In the story of Joseph, they mention a wind coming from the east that kills all of the crops for seven years (http://ancientnuclearwar.com/). The date of both the Hindu passage about Brahma weapons and the passage about Joseph's 7 year famine? Same time frame.
How long have these people been around? Since ancient times.
They are the heirs of the Babylonians (famous for this tower above, as well as multiple examples of human wickedness), Romans (bread and circuses as well as crucifixion), Aztecs (blood sacrifices), and so on. They don't seem geographically similar, but they are ideologically similar. They are the warring nations of Pangaea. They are in opposition to the People of God. The people of God are not a race, or even a religion, but a value system. They want a culture that helps the rights of others, and doesn't encourage slaver, murder, or rape. The warring nations want an end to worship of God, and with it, an end to freedom. They are doomed to failure.
1Behold, a day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided in your presence. 2For I will gather all the nations for battle against Jerusalem, and the city will be captured, the houses looted, and the women ravished. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be removed from the city.
3Then the LORD will go out to fight against those nations, as He fights in the day of battle. 4On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half the mountain moving to the north and half to the south. 5You will flee by My mountain valley, for it will extend to Azal. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with Him.
6On that day there will be no light, no cold or frost. 7It will be a day known only to the LORD, without day or night; but when evening comes, there will be light.
8And on that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it toward the Eastern Seab and the other half toward the Western Sea, in summer and winter alike. 9On that day the LORD will become King over all the earth—the LORD alone, and His name alone.
10All the land from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem will be turned into a plain, but Jerusalem will be raised up and will remain in her place, from the Benjamin Gate to the site of the First Gate to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the royal winepresses. 11People will live there, and never again will there be an utter destruction. So Jerusalem will dwell securely.
12And this will be the plague with which the LORD strikes all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.
13On that day a great panic from the LORD will come upon them, so that each will seize the hand of another, and the hand of one will rise against the other. 14Judah will also fight at Jerusalem, and the wealth of all the surrounding nations will be collected—gold, silver, and apparel in great abundance. 15And a similar plague will strike the horses and mules, camels and donkeys, and all the animals in those camps.
16Then all the survivors from the nations that came against Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of Hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 17And should any of the families of the earth not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of Hosts, then the rain will not fall on them. 18And if the people of Egypt will not go up and enter in, then the rain will not fall on them; this will be the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 19This will be the punishment of Egypt and of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.
On the day Jesus was crucified, a great darkness swept over the land for an extended period of time (not a solar eclipse, which lasts only a few minutes in total). After this, both Jews and Gentiles worshiped God. This is the kingdom set up as prophesied by Daniel. A kingdom where all are under the same tent.
44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces."
This is the kingdom made by God. It's a kingdom oppressive people have tried and failed to overthrow.
-
all religions agree that the Earth is round though, and it's been that way for many centuries.
heliocentrism is a different story though. as pointed out, Galileo Galilei was accused of heresy for claiming that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-in-rome-for-inquisition
"On February 13, 1633, Italian philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei arrives in Rome to face charges of heresy for advocating Copernican theory, which holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Galileo officially faced the Roman Inquisition in April of that same year and agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Put under house arrest indefinitely by Pope Urban VIII, Galileo spent the rest of his days at his villa in Arcetri, near Florence, before dying on January 8, 1642."
a blogger I respect, saccsiv.wordpress.com believes in geocentrism but he believes the Earth is round.
-
all religions agree that the Earth is round though, and it's been that way for many centuries.
They actually don't.
(https://mattbelair.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/external-content.duckduckgo-9-1080x675.jpg)
The lay people (the non-priests) and some of the priests agree that. Many modern Jews do (I know from asking).
But the source material doesn't.
The Earth as described in Genesis, as waters gathered around it to separate water from sky. Let's show a picture of how that works. First we draw a circle (1), then we pull water upward through evaporation (2).
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1215375242805907476/Dome.png?ex=65fc8566&is=65ea1066&hm=2bc4dbf83a0fd1580618d93114ec884f0b4c82910746cd582486f64134fd81c0&)
In Egyptian religion, the sky goddess is in a state of near copulation at all times with the earth god, who is lying on his back.
In Hindu religion, the Discworld idea was lifted almost verbatim.
These are depicted as "round", but a round dome is quite different from a sphere. Many of the South American ones also have an idea of a center of the world, as does Norse.
Btw, this is incomplete. Taoism has Pangu. Buddhism has the Desire Realm. In all cases, the are are discs and/or domes, not spheres.
That is, NASA's teaching of a globe is actually at odds with religion. But since many of the followers of most religions are conventionally educated, but not educated about religion from childhood, so they believe in the postmodern globalist idea of Earth, not the classical religious idea.
(https://static.attn.com/sites/default/files/Flat-Earth-Memes-284-14.jpg)
-
When you refuse to consider options, you let other people do the thinking for you.
You mean like you?
Where you refuse to consider the option that you are wrong, that Earth is round, that photos from space can be real?
Instead, you just look for whatever excuse you can to dismiss it?
Then they publicly talk about visiting the moon AFTER having visited Venus.
And again your dishonesty knows no bounds.
You are comparing sending a probe to Venus, to people landing on the moon.
No person has landed on Venus yet, or even gotten close to Venus.
Sending a probe is much easier than sending a person.
Lunar 2 impacted the moon's surface in 1959
Lunar 3 captured pictures of the far side of the moon back in 1959.
Pioneer 4 had a flyby of the moon in 1959.
Notice how that predates a trip to Venus?
If I may make a theory?
Why not be honest?
May you engage in wild speculation to pretend there is a massive global conspiracy to hide the truth so your fantasy can still be true?
You don't have any rational basis for your objection, so you just to complete insanity to reject reality.
All because of how desperately you want your fantasy to be true.
Why do you think they publicly broadcast these?
And another great example of FEer dishonesty.
If they broadcast it, then it is clearly propaganda and they are lying.
If they don't broadcast it (or not in the ultra specific way a FE demands) then it is fake/lies/etc because they are clearly hiding something.
i.e. it doesn't matter what they do, they are lying.
If you knew anything about world history, you should know what propaganda looks like.
Yes. Like what the FEers produce.
Notice how for the most part, no one cares about space.
They take it for granted with things like weather forecasts and GPS, but most don't care.
Yes, you can find footage of a launch if you want, but it isn't being shoved into your face.
That is how we can easily tell it isn't propaganda.
Why do you think Google publicly showed their failure of their weather balloon system?
Because they publicly promoted it, and then wanted to save face when it was a complete failure.
There is a logical reason of line stability why towers provide stability to wireless, whereas orbiting satellites would not provide stability.
Yet you cannot demonstrate any logical reason and instead repeatedly lie.
You provide either vague BS with no justification at all, or outright lies.
Every season, the RE tilts according to your theory.
No, it doesn't.
That is an outright lie, but dishonest people like you that are willing to spout any lie you want to pretend the RE can't possibly be true.
According to all the available evidence, and therefore consistent with the mainstream RE model, the Earth rotates about its axis while orbiting the sun, and the axis of the rotation and orbit are not the same.
When you read between the lines
You see that FEers are repeatedly lying about so many things it isn't funny; while being entirely incapable of showing an actual fault with the RE model.
Instead of demonstrating a fault, they choose to lie about reality, lie about the RE model, or both.
Almost like the cellphone tower is the primary means of getting internet!
No, it isn't.
Most of the internet uses wires or fibre optics.
Cell towers are quite rare.
But then in cities where most people live, cell towers provide a good coverage.
Satellites are only used for internet in specific situations, where other methods are quite bad.
Satellites amount to magical thinking.
Your rejection of satellites amounts to magical thinking.
Ask yourself, what is special about it being in space that a much taller tower couldn't provide the same or better service?
Do you have a 400 km tall tower?
No.
For any given altitude, there will be a range, limited by the curve of Earth, and a practical range much smaller than that due to things like buildings and terrain getting in the way.
A satellite in space has a much greater altitude than a tower on the ground, and so it can cover a much larger area.
The distance to the horizon is given by r*acos(r/(r+h))
For a tower 500 m tall, that is 80 km.
For a 1 km tall tower, that is 113 km.
For a satellite orbiting at 400 km, that is 2200 km.
For a satellite orbiting at 35000 km, that is ~9000 km.
If we ignore the issue of needing to overlap ranges, then a single satellite at 400 km altitude would need to be covered by roughly 760 towers each 500 m tall.
If we instead go to 35 000 km, then we end up with over 12 000 towers needed.
So when you are in a population dense area, towers make sense, because a single tower, covering a relatively small area, reaches a very large number of people.
E.g. in New York, if a tower covered just a single km^2, it would cover over 11 000 people.
But if you tried to average that out over the entirety of the united states, it works out to be 33.6 people per km^2.
If you go to the pacific ocean, it drops to basically 0.
Satellites don't need a support on the ground. They can be over any terrain, including over the ocean.
Satellites themselves aren't affected by terrestrial weather. So if there is a hurricane it can take out a tower, but wont take out a satellite.
Towers require large areas, not just for the tower itself, but also for supports for it. These massive towers are typically held up by guy wires that periodically need to be replaced, and if done wrong the entire tower collapses. These guy wires also take up a lot of space on the ground. In general, they go off at a 45 degree angle, so however the tower is, you also need to take up that space in 3 directions out from the tower. A satellite doesn't have any requirements for the ground.
When you read religious text as history, you notice a curious thing.
That the person doing so is an idiot that can't tell fiction from reality?
(https://static.attn.com/sites/default/files/Flat-Earth-Memes-284-14.jpg)
And another wonderful example of the lies of FEers.
Where you entirely ignore what is shown on the image, and just draw in your own line.
Why don't you try toing it honestly?
(https://i.imgur.com/zylIzKy.png)
What's that, it shows a curve?
Well that clearly explains why you don't.
And then lying by pretending a reflection is a hot-spot.
If it was a hot spot, multiple people should be able to take a picture of it, with it being seen in the same physical location.
Instead it moves as you move, as it is merely a reflection of the sun.
-
(https://static.attn.com/sites/default/files/Flat-Earth-Memes-284-14.jpg)
Ok? Your picture shows the dip of the horizon. Yeah.
Crew mission that can attest to the below picture taken in space. And this view. Backed by ground crew, data, and returned equipment.
Looks curved to me?
(https://i.imgur.com/ODW88Ac.jpeg)
From this flight.
Back to this picture.
(https://i.imgur.com/ODW88Ac.jpeg)
Why is the rest of the earth hidden behind the dip of the horizon. 😂😂😂
-
all religions agree that the Earth is round though
They don't.
People desperate to have their religion match reality distort their religion to pretend it shows Earth is round.
So what you really have are religious people accepting Earth is round, even if their religion clearly portrays it differently.
You also have some far more dishonest people claiming their religion said it was round before people knew it was to pretend their religion is divinely inspired, even though they were only able to reach the conclusion that it says Earth is round after it was known to be round for quite some time.
-
(https://static.attn.com/sites/default/files/Flat-Earth-Memes-284-14.jpg)
Ok? Your picture shows the dip of the horizon. Yeah.
Crew mission that can attest to the below picture taken in space. And this view. Backed by ground crew, data, and returned equipment.
Looks curved to me?
(https://i.imgur.com/ODW88Ac.jpeg)
You have a serious attention deficit problem. It's worse than mine. Picture 1 shows the line of the horizon. You measure across. If you're trying to make it into a hill, then you have already messed with your own head. Lemme blow this up for you.
(https://static.attn.com/sites/default/files/Flat-Earth-Memes-284-14.jpg)
See that print there? Well, you see, outside atmosphere, ignition isn't a thing. That there is a bright point here
"Herp derp, that line in this picture looks curved." Yeah well, that picture looks fake, so we're even.
GIMP explains how to make straight lines curved. Here''s one of them. Spherize is another.
https://docs.gimp.org/2.10/en/plug-in-curve-bend.html
Let's demonstrate.
(https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/asphalt-road-and-mountains-landscape-under-morning-sky-with-clouds-picture-id891429982?k=6&m=891429982&s=612x612&w=0&h=sJhJnV_bCHxQS7pyqZv1R6xQl0XDfqOkRSgeb_GxPzI=)
We'll gonna make a hill.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1215510622402514974/istockphoto-891429982-612x612.jpg?ex=65fd037b&is=65ea8e7b&hm=aee8e5b689091b95c861294c675b9e317261976bae4766f71aadb316b035ec8a&)
Oh wow, there's a tiny curve here before they added the ship layer on top! That's uhhhh proof!
-
to repeat my question, why is there no attempt to prove the Earth looks flat from a high altitude, in order to finally settle the debate?
a rocket is expensive, but apparently a weather balloon can also take footage from space.
(https://i.imgur.com/vQSU0BB.png)
-
(https://static.attn.com/sites/default/files/Flat-Earth-Memes-284-14.jpg)
See that print there? Well, you see, outside atmosphere, ignition isn't a thing. That there is a bright point here.
Erm... that's called a reflection. On a still lake, you can see the sun reflected, along with trees, clouds, mountains or anything else that happens to be in the right direction to see reflected:
(https://natureconnections.in/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/02/Lake-meditation-768x512.jpg)
When there are waves like over the sea, you see a much more diffuse reflection, because the light is hitting the uneven surface at lots of different angles. You can recreate the exact same effect at home by shinning a torch light at matte steel plate vs a polished plate or mirror (grained steel should be the closest approximation to waves, because the texture is in parallel lines).
It's not a "hot spot" any more than than the reflection of the trees above are "cold spots" and has nothing do to with distance to the object being reflected. Only the angle of light hitting the water.
-
You have a serious attention deficit problem. It's worse than mine. Picture 1 shows the line of the horizon.
Which you entirely ignore and just draw in your own line.
As if you don't give a damn what the evidence shows, you just care about your fantasy and pretending it is true.
outside atmosphere, ignition isn't a thing
Repeating the same lie wont help you. And that is irrelevant to the BS you are posting.
That "bright point" is a reflection.
Yeah well, that picture looks fake, so we're even.
You mean it doesn't show your fantasy, so you reject it.
GIMP explains how to make straight lines curved.
And notice how it distorts the entire image.
Guess what? You can also turn a curve into a straight line.
Yet again, you just reject things because they don't fit your fantasy.
While you will happily accept any BS you can come up with which does match your fantasy, even if it is pure BS.
If you were honest, you would either accept the photos provided until you can actually demonstrate they are fake, or you would also reject all the ones which allegedly show Earth is flat.
-
You have a serious attention deficit problem.
Me? This has all been explained before repeatedly to you where you can’t comprehend how large the earth is…
Again…
Is this basketball flat?
(https://i.imgur.com/A0qHGoi.jpeg)
-
See that print there? Well, you see, outside atmosphere, ignition isn't a thing.
Why? When rocket fuel supplies its own oxidizer.
You have repeatedly been debunked on this.
Neither gunpowder nor rocket candy or acetone peroxide ignite in a vacuum.
But somehow this works in the vacuum of space.
Just delusional are you to see a non-result with your own eyes and still conclude something should work?
Rockets igniting in a vacuum.....
-
"Herp derp, that line in this picture looks curved."
Besides the rest of the arguments presented.
I also asked you a question..
(https://i.imgur.com/ODW88Ac.jpeg)
Why is the rest of the earth hidden behind the dip of the horizon. 😂😂😂
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_balloon
"Hobbyists frequently purchase weather balloons because of its ease of use, low price point, and its widespread commoditisation.
These balloons are launched into what is defined as "near space", defined as the area of Earth's atmosphere between the Armstrong limit (18–19 km (11–12 mi) above sea level), where pressure falls to the point that a human being cannot survive without a pressurised suit, and the Kármán line (100 km (62 mi) above sea level[2]), where astrodynamics must take over from aerodynamics in order to maintain flight.
Due to the low cost of GPS and communications equipment, high-altitude ballooning is a popular hobby, with organizations such as UKHAS assisting the development of payloads.[3][4] "
(https://i.imgur.com/6CuDJZl.png)
-
"Hobbyists frequently purchase weather balloons because of its ease of use, low price point, and its widespread commoditisation.
Funny bulmabriefs144 is all about “balloons” to falsely try to explain away sat phone communications that provides coverage for all of the Pacific Ocean until you point out amateurs using balloons have broken the “monopoly” held by “NASA” an filming the earth. 😂
-
You have a serious attention deficit problem.
So? Why does hobby balloonists show the distance to the horizon for earth is constant with change in height for a sphere. And not a flat plane with an even higher ice wall around it?
-
Erm... that's called a reflection. On a still lake, you can see the sun reflected, along with trees, clouds, mountains or anything else that happens to be in the right direction to see reflected:
So this is now the third time I need to restate what is in the picture.
Not the water lighting up. The sky around the sun is reacting to the sun. This can only happen is the sun is near or in the atmosphere.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_balloon
"Hobbyists frequently purchase weather balloons because of its ease of use, low price point, and its widespread commoditisation.
These balloons are launched into what is defined as "near space", defined as the area of Earth's atmosphere between the Armstrong limit (18–19 km (11–12 mi) above sea level), where pressure falls to the point that a human being cannot survive without a pressurised suit, and the Kármán line (100 km (62 mi) above sea level[2]), where astrodynamics must take over from aerodynamics in order to maintain flight.
Due to the low cost of GPS and communications equipment, high-altitude ballooning is a popular hobby, with organizations such as UKHAS assisting the development of payloads.[3][4] "
The point I'm getting at, is that there are basically front balloon operations, where they show how noticeable balloons are.
We have planes that radar hits and we have stealth planes. But somehow, people don't think that the same tech can be used on blimps and other dirigibles. At 80,000 ft up, most people do not see objects in the sky.
https://thedebrief.org/new-liquid-coating-could-make-stealth-aircraft-invisible-and-hypersonic/
radar reflecting shape and radar absorbing materials
I want you to think about this phrase. What's to stop a "satellite" from being tied to a balloon? Only the satellite is visible if the materials screen out signals.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_fill,f_auto,fl_progressive,g_center,h_675,pg_1,q_80,w_1200/jpzicks8ghj7ciegacy9.png)
They claim that's a parachute on the news connected to that red string. Yet these two photos are rather tight shots and ummmm this "parachute" appears to still be floating. We can also see the nearby trees even to their top, and it seems to instead dangle in a freestanding fashion.
For comparison.
(https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/newscms/2014_17/368956/140421-parachute-jsw-738a.jpg)
Parachutes are usually shot with lots of short straps and you can see the tarp. There's no reason for a much longer string on a real parachute. Moreover, real paras settle as they slowly fall. This "parachute" hangs in the air much higher than the satellite. I'm sure the people there were made to sign an NDA, giving them money for their farm if they stayed quiet, and lawsuits if they refused.
https://hotairflyer.com/do-balloons-show-radar/
Overall, hot air balloons do not often show up on a flight radar unless they have a transponder or they are flying high enough, most balloons do not have a transponder and stay below 3000 feet. Some high altitude balloons may show up on a radar such as weather balloons.
Some of them can. And if someone is trying to tell the public that satellites exist, they will conveniently mention balloons being visible when it is a known project, and keep quiet or claim it's something else when it's not known. Like calling them weather balloons instead of what they are. Satellites.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_project
In commerce, this is called trade secrets. These are things that cannot be publicly admitted, so people instead use excuses. "The parachute is still up there!" says a news reporter while a helium balloon dangles onscreen.
-
These balloons are launched into what is defined as "near space", defined as the area of Earth's .
Asked you a question
One that returns the thread to on topic. That stops you from flacking the thread with BS.
Why do these high altitude pics with consistency produce a dip of the horizon and a view to the horizon for altitude consistent with predictions for a spherical earth. And in no way consistent with a flat earth encircled with an even higher ice wall.
-
So this is now the third time I need to restate what is in the picture.
Not the water lighting up. The sky around the sun is reacting to the sun. This can only happen is the sun is near or in the atmosphere.
So you are appealing to glare?
You are still entirely wrong.
That does not require the sun to be in or near the atmosphere.
Why do you think it does?
The point I'm getting at, is that there are basically front balloon operations, where they show how noticeable balloons are.
No, you are trying to dismiss them as that, because you can't accept reality.
this "parachute" appears to still be floating.
Floating or caught in a tree?
We can also see the nearby trees even to their top
And more lies.
You can't see the top of the trees. If you could, you wouldn't be spouting such ignorant crap.
Here is a link for comparison:
https://www.facebook.com/leonhendrix/videos/517205835729631/
Notice how here, when the camera pans up, we can see it is caught in the tree?
Any more pathetic lies you want to spout?
But I don't see the point in this BS of yours at all.
It is known that this was a publicity stunt by Samsung. It was a weather balloon, not a satellite.
As Google has shown, balloons are not cost effective.
As basic math has shown, balloons are not cost effective.
But more problematic for you is that balloons cannot move at the velocities required for LEO satellites, don't maintain their position like geostationary satellites, and aren't at the right height for dishes pointing to geostationary satellites to point to.
You are just making up pathetic excuses, without thinking at all; all because of how much you hate reality.
-
Asked you a question
One that returns the thread to on topic. That stops you from flacking the thread with BS.
Why do these high altitude pics with consistency produce a dip of the horizon and a view to the horizon for altitude consistent with predictions for a spherical earth. And in no way consistent with a flat earth encircled with an even higher ice wall.
Because that's what you want to see.
Simple answer. You have confirmation bias.
To a lesser extent, maybe they are also faked. I haven't looked at most of them so I dunno. But I do know you are more than willing to believe this, so yeah. It's you.
And even though I tell you until I am blue in the face that the angles from dead ahead to above you to behind you is only 180 degrees, while horizon is 360 degrees, you will always see this thing that isn't there.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1217542695422136360/360-Degrees-Logo_Blog.png?ex=660467ff&is=65f1f2ff&hm=54dc2c1d5fbe8be478f3b399682e8b69d4c959862ada16b0df175ca7457b5a76&)
You know what they call people who go around hallucinating things that aren't there?
-
Because that's what you want to see.
Simple answer. You have confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias can't magically make the horizon drop.
Confirmation bias can't magically hide the bottom of buildings.
Confirmation bias can't magically make a flat surface curved.
And even though I tell you until I am blue in the face that the angles from dead ahead to above you to behind you is only 180 degrees, while horizon is 360 degrees, you will always see this thing that isn't there.
Again, you can look down as well.
All this is doing is demonstrating your vision works with angles.
It is doing NOTHING to show Earth isn't round.
You know what they call people who go around hallucinating things that aren't there?
bulmabriefs144?
-
Erm... that's called a reflection. On a still lake, you can see the sun reflected, along with trees, clouds, mountains or anything else that happens to be in the right direction to see reflected:
So this is now the third time I need to restate what is in the picture.
Not the water lighting up. The sky around the sun is reacting to the sun. This can only happen is the sun is near or in the atmosphere.
implication being sun having height of 30 kilometers maximum. You know how messed geometry would be then? Along with shadow placement?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_balloon
"Hobbyists frequently purchase weather balloons because of its ease of use, low price point, and its widespread commoditisation.
These balloons are launched into what is defined as "near space", defined as the area of Earth's atmosphere between the Armstrong limit (18–19 km (11–12 mi) above sea level), where pressure falls to the point that a human being cannot survive without a pressurised suit, and the Kármán line (100 km (62 mi) above sea level[2]), where astrodynamics must take over from aerodynamics in order to maintain flight.
Due to the low cost of GPS and communications equipment, high-altitude ballooning is a popular hobby, with organizations such as UKHAS assisting the development of payloads.[3][4] "
The point I'm getting at, is that there are basically front balloon operations, where they show how noticeable balloons are.
We have planes that radar hits and we have stealth planes. But somehow, people don't think that the same tech can be used on blimps and other dirigibles. At 80,000 ft up, most people do not see objects in the sky.
https://thedebrief.org/new-liquid-coating-could-make-stealth-aircraft-invisible-and-hypersonic/
radar reflecting shape and radar absorbing materials
I want you to think about this phrase. What's to stop a "satellite" from being tied to a balloon? Only the satellite is visible if the materials screen out signals.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_fill,f_auto,fl_progressive,g_center,h_675,pg_1,q_80,w_1200/jpzicks8ghj7ciegacy9.png)
They claim that's a parachute on the news connected to that red string. Yet these two photos are rather tight shots and ummmm this "parachute" appears to still be floating. We can also see the nearby trees even to their top, and it seems to instead dangle in a freestanding fashion.
For comparison.
(https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/newscms/2014_17/368956/140421-parachute-jsw-738a.jpg)
Parachutes are usually shot with lots of short straps and you can see the tarp. There's no reason for a much longer string on a real parachute. Moreover, real paras settle as they slowly fall. This "parachute" hangs in the air much higher than the satellite. I'm sure the people there were made to sign an NDA, giving them money for their farm if they stayed quiet, and lawsuits if they refused.
https://hotairflyer.com/do-balloons-show-radar/
Overall, hot air balloons do not often show up on a flight radar unless they have a transponder or they are flying high enough, most balloons do not have a transponder and stay below 3000 feet. Some high altitude balloons may show up on a radar such as weather balloons.
Some of them can. And if someone is trying to tell the public that satellites exist, they will conveniently mention balloons being visible when it is a known project, and keep quiet or claim it's something else when it's not known. Like calling them weather balloons instead of what they are. Satellites.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_project
In commerce, this is called trade secrets. These are things that cannot be publicly admitted, so people instead use excuses. "The parachute is still up there!" says a news reporter while a helium balloon dangles onscreen.
king, sattelites can stay in same spot for days in case of geostationary sattelites and be visible for 1000s of miles. Only object 35 000 km matches that. BTW before you say something yes that distance can be measured via parallax.
and about spaceselfie
https://www.unit9.com/project/samsung-spaceselfie/
all you needed to do was just google. its all public, like all supposedly hidden satloon launches
-
all religions agree that the Earth is round though, and it's been that way for many centuries.
They actually don't.
(https://mattbelair.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/external-content.duckduckgo-9-1080x675.jpg)
The lay people (the non-priests) and some of the priests agree that. Many modern Jews do (I know from asking).
But the source material doesn't.
The Earth as described in Genesis, as waters gathered around it to separate water from sky. Let's show a picture of how that works. First we draw a circle (1), then we pull water upward through evaporation (2).
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1215375242805907476/Dome.png?ex=65fc8566&is=65ea1066&hm=2bc4dbf83a0fd1580618d93114ec884f0b4c82910746cd582486f64134fd81c0&)
In Egyptian religion, the sky goddess is in a state of near copulation at all times with the earth god, who is lying on his back.
In Hindu religion, the Discworld idea was lifted almost verbatim.
These are depicted as "round", but a round dome is quite different from a sphere. Many of the South American ones also have an idea of a center of the world, as does Norse.
Btw, this is incomplete. Taoism has Pangu. Buddhism has the Desire Realm. In all cases, the are are discs and/or domes, not spheres.
That is, NASA's teaching of a globe is actually at odds with religion. But since many of the followers of most religions are conventionally educated, but not educated about religion from childhood, so they believe in the postmodern globalist idea of Earth, not the classical religious idea.
(https://static.attn.com/sites/default/files/Flat-Earth-Memes-284-14.jpg)
now what did these people think about origin of thunder? or nature of fire? And greeks discovered earth was round so good luck with claiming they were flat earthers
I'm a history major and religion minor. My emphasis was not on Christianity but world religion. When you read religious text as history, you notice a curious thing.
i kinda doubt that
-
Confirmation bias can't magically make the horizon drop.
Confirmation bias can't magically hide the bottom of buildings.
Confirmation bias can't magically make a flat surface curved.
It can if that's what you're convinced you're seeing.
Horizon doesn't "drop". Angles drop. Horizon is a line.
The bottoms of buildings aren't hidden, the overall object shrinks.
A flat surface isn't curved. Unless you magically decide it is, while looking at a flat area, deciding you really see a curve.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1217644208618209351/manhattan_skyline_new_york_city_urban_cityscape_architecture_skyscrapers_downtown-770448.jpgd.jpg?ex=6604c68a&is=65f2518a&hm=810198f9f724e251d560811578e2c80bd1d02efc0dc6353be438c9f86f0468db&)
Damn, I really can't see the bottom of these buildings.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1217644208618209351/manhattan_skyline_new_york_city_urban_cityscape_architecture_skyscrapers_downtown-770448.jpgd.jpg?ex=6604c68a&is=65f2518a&hm=810198f9f724e251d560811578e2c80bd1d02efc0dc6353be438c9f86f0468db&)
Do you see the red line in the first picture (without blowing it up)? No? It's because shrinkage. Not descent into a curve.
This is your confirmation bias. You are convinced something stupid and wrong is right because if that's right, the other stupid stuff you may also believe in (climate change, open borders, neo-Marxism, population control, electric vehicles) is vindicated. But it's horseshit. Not even bullshit is good enough for that.
i kinda doubt that
You can doubt it all you want.
Remember references to thunder bolts and divine fire? Ancient weapons.
king, sattelites can stay in same spot for days in case of geostationary sattelites and be visible for 1000s of miles. Only object 35 000 km matches that. BTW before you say something yes that distance can be measured via parallax.
That's nice.
Stationary. Means not moving. Now, you can say that it is actually keeping orbital pace with the Earth, and that is all fine until... well, let's show it in a picture.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1217650171610009681/seasons2.gif?ex=6604cc17&is=65f25717&hm=a0a9b6dada5dfb1d45a91a2d5e7acc849522c46b6ba8b86213a9bdf895024b5b&)
In September and March, no problem, it's keeping pace around say NYC. As Earth turns, we are assuming the constant centrifugal force and gravity are (*cough* magically) keeping this satellite exactly in place. Now, we're going to assume that the geostationary position means it stays fixed at the third line here and likewise fixed around Eastern Standard Time. No problem, right?
Big problem.
Despite the satellite keeping pace with this orbit as it spins, the satellite has stayed in place. The Earth however has tilted. In December, it is closer to Texas. In June it is closer to Newfoundland. In order for it to notice this subtle shift while a much more profound pull happens requires programming to adjust it. The signal would go to the middle of the ocean, not magically hold latitude during different seasons. It would be one thing if it were pulled along with the atmosphere. I could totally believe a mass of air, water, dust, etc pulling satellites along with it (as it would inside the Earth's sky). But since you people insist that these satellites are outside all of this, yeah no. It would get lost whenever seasons shift.
-
It can if that's what you're convinced you're seeing.
It isn't about what is convinced.
It is about what photos clearly demonstrate.
Horizon doesn't "drop". Angles drop. Horizon is a line.
Trying to hide behind semantic BS wont help you.
There is an angle of dip to the horizon.
This angle of dip gets larger (i.e. the horizon gets lower) with increasing altitude.
The bottoms of buildings aren't hidden, the overall object shrinks.
The bottoms are hidden, when you can clearly resolve the object.
Lying wont save you.
A flat surface isn't curved.
And likewise a curved surface isn't flat.
But that wont stop liars like you from calling it flat.
Damn, I really can't see the bottom of these buildings.
No, you have intentionally shrunk the image down to make it appear small, but I can still see all the way down to the shore.
Notice how the entire building is affected the same? How the building just appears to shrink.
Look at how hard it is to see the Antenna at the top of the WTC.
Compare that to something like this:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/turning-torso.jpg)
This is not the building shrinking making it hard to see. This is the bottom being hidden.
Your lies will not save you.
This is your confirmation bias.
No, this is you blatantly lying to try to escape reality.
You are convinced something stupid and wrong
If it is so stupid and wrong, why are you completely incapable of showing any fault with it?
Why do need to continually resort to pathetic lies?
and that is all fine until... well, let's show it in a picture.
Until you spout the same pathetic, refuted lies?
The Earth however has tilted.
No, it hasn't.
Earth's tilt remains constant.
This has been explained to you before, yet you keep on lying about it.
Here is a better picture for you to understand:
(https://i.imgur.com/6Dw9UV6.png)
Notice how Earth hasn't changed?
In both cases the north pole is pointing up and to the right of this image.
But in December, the southern hemisphere is pointing "towards the sun", because the sun is to the left.
But in June, the northern hemisphere is pointing "towards the sun", because the sun is to the right.
Earth isn't tilting. The relative position of the sun is changing.
Going to stop repeating this pathetic lie?
Who am I kidding, of course you wont.
Because you are a compulsive liar, that will happily spout whatever dishonest you can come up with which you think can pretend to show a problem with the RE.
Grow up.
-
That's nice.
Stationary. Means not moving. Now, you can say that it is actually keeping orbital pace with the Earth, and that is all fine until... well, let's show it in a picture.
it orbits above equator, so it will always be above equator. Geometry between Earth and Sun angle will change but not between sattelite and earth. You can look at it as extension of earth in some way. This has curious effect called eclipse season where earth sun and sattelite are in line leading to eclipse as earths shadow blocks sun
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/652994-animationgeostationary-satellites-flare-and-eclipse-aside-trees/
these can be calculated in advance using not so complex math. idea that you are first one to bring this up is stupid.
-
Only it is not an extension of Earth.
It is a disconnected object that is in proximity to Earth only vaguely, as it wobbles, tilts, eccentrics, rotates, and orbits, and you say "simple math" is all that is needed.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in sidereal days.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in leap days and the fact that seasons don't start the same every year.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in other satellites.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in non-stationary orbiting objects (dead satellites, the moon itself, the Earth skimming past stars and moons as it orbits the galaxy...)
Simple math that has to hold up for several years without incident, or you lose satellite signal.
OR
Transmissions working from electromagnetic signals moving across the atmsophere and being picked up by various antennas, dishes, and so on. Exactly as was consistent with reality before the great satellite hoax began.
Sputnik was the first artificial satellite, so the entire satellite narrative hinges on that. It launched in October 4, 1957 and several totally not suspicious people claimed they could see it whizzing past. Even though it was the size of a beach balland flew from 142 miles and 588 miles away from Earth.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/sputnik/index.html
https://www.space.com/38331-sputnik-satellite-fun-facts.html
Tell me if you can see a beach ball with a fancy light tied to it, from between 142 miles and 588 miles away.
Here's the important part. They had dishes (as part of radar), as far back as the 1940s.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Radar_antenna.jpg)
These "satellite" dishes aren't picking up satellite signals at all. They are picking up signals from (1) cell towers, (2) radio towers, (3) "weather balloons", (4) radio signals travelling across the atmosphere, and (5) hidden "satellites" produced by planes/helicopters/blimps/buoys/mini-broadcasters/underground or underwater fiber optic wires/etc.
-
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in sidereal days.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in leap days and the fact that seasons don't start the same every year.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in other satellites.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in non-stationary orbiting objects (dead satellites, the moon itself, the Earth skimming past stars and moons as it orbits the galaxy...)
Simple math that has to hold up for several years without incident, or you lose satellite signal.
Not really.
As explained before, sidereal days and leap days do nothing.
Other orbiting craft are insignificant unless they collide.
Tell me if you can see a beach ball with a fancy light tied to it, from between 142 miles and 588 miles away.
If the light is bright enough, I certainly can see it.
These "satellite" dishes aren't picking up satellite signals at all.
Then why are they pointing far too high to be pointing to any radio tower?
Why do they all seem to be pointing to an object above the equator in orbit around Earth?
I also notice you entirely ignored the refutation of your lies regarding tilt. Why is that?
-
It is a disconnected object that is in proximity to Earth only vaguely, as it wobbles, tilts, eccentrics, rotates, and orbits, and you say "simple math" is all that is needed.
math you didnt even look at it seems since your objection is outright stupid. All can be accounted but effects are so low it doesnt matter when doing something which doesnt require arcsecond precision. Effects form Moon are most notable but still small
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in sidereal days.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in leap days and the fact that seasons don't start the same every year.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in other satellites.
Simple math that gets more complicated when you factor in non-stationary orbiting objects (dead satellites, the moon itself, the Earth skimming past stars and moons as it orbits the galaxy...)
Simple math that has to hold up for several years without incident, or you lose satellite signal.
it doesnt really. All you have to do is get sidereal rotation correct and above equator. Effects you mention are irrelevant, except Moon which is often accounted actually
Transmissions working from electromagnetic signals moving across the atmsophere and being picked up by various antennas, dishes, and so on. Exactly as was consistent with reality before the great satellite hoax began.
except data can be gained directly from satellites by pointing radio at their position and tuning in for that frequency. If you aim at random point in sky you wont get anything. Also note that frequencies used by satellites are public and most of them arent low enough to saturate atmosphere like that. BTW many radio waves are strictly (or nearly) line of sight and dont work over long distances.
Sputnik was the first artificial satellite, so the entire satellite narrative hinges on that. It launched in October 4, 1957 and several totally not suspicious people claimed they could see it whizzing past. Even though it was the size of a beach balland flew from 142 miles and 588 miles away from Earth.
it was bright and only thing moving in sky. In dark areas and especially with telescopes it isnt even that hard to see it. And booster stage was far better visible. If you care about observing spacecraft take a look at this channel
These "satellite" dishes aren't picking up satellite signals at all. They are picking up signals from (1) cell towers, (2) radio towers, (3) "weather balloons", (4) radio signals travelling across the atmosphere, and (5) hidden "satellites" produced by planes/helicopters/blimps/buoys/mini-broadcasters/underground or underwater fiber optic wires/etc.
you can observe satellite with telescope and then use radio to get signals from it. And only from it. And how do fiber obtic wires produce signals which can be picked up?
-
it doesnt really. All you have to do is get sidereal rotation correct and above equator. Effects you mention are irrelevant, except Moon which is often accounted actually
Seasonal tilt would put the satellite as much as 30 degrees off course. As I showed.
Then there's the occasional oddity. The Earth orbits little fast? The satellite moves 1 degree off. It only takes 15 of these unadjusted for, and you're broadcasting to the wrong time zone.
You know what would work in terms of geostationary satellites? A flat unmoving Earth with an orbiting sun.
Amazing, isn't it? You spend all of this time trying to tell me it's simple math when I know it actually wouldn't be (as a game programmer first, and programmer in general second), when the far simpler equation is that it just doesn't move.
-
Seasonal tilt
What do you mean by seasonal tilt? The earth always tilts the same way. What part of earth is tilted towards the sun is dependent on what part of its orbit around the sun it is in.
I think the earth wobbles a bit, but satellites have stored gasses that power rockets that correct orbits.
-
Seasonal tilt would put the satellite as much as 30 degrees off course. As I showed.
No, as you falsely claimed.
You continue to lie by pretending Earth is rocking back and forth.
In reality, Earth is tilted.
That tilt remains as it orbits the sun.
This was explained previously, but like the liar you are, you just ignored it:
Earth's tilt remains constant.
This has been explained to you before, yet you keep on lying about it.
Here is a better picture for you to understand:
(https://i.imgur.com/6Dw9UV6.png)
Notice how Earth hasn't changed?
In both cases the north pole is pointing up and to the right of this image.
But in December, the southern hemisphere is pointing "towards the sun", because the sun is to the left.
But in June, the northern hemisphere is pointing "towards the sun", because the sun is to the right.
Earth isn't tilting. The relative position of the sun is changing.
Going to stop repeating this pathetic lie?
Who am I kidding, of course you wont.
Because you are a compulsive liar, that will happily spout whatever dishonest you can come up with which you think can pretend to show a problem with the RE.
Grow up.
Then there's the occasional oddity. The Earth orbits little fast?
Why would it?
What is affecting Earth to make it go faster, but not affecting the satellite to move it the same?
You know what would work in terms of geostationary satellites? A flat unmoving Earth with an orbiting sun.
No, it wouldn't. As satellites can't exist there.
And it can't as Earth isn't flat.
Amazing, isn't it? You spend all of this time trying to tell me it's simple math when I know it actually wouldn't be
No, you don't.
You just repeatedly lie.
-
What do you mean by seasonal tilt? The earth always tilts the same way.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1217650171610009681/seasons2.gif?ex=6604cc17&is=65f25717&hm=a0a9b6dada5dfb1d45a91a2d5e7acc849522c46b6ba8b86213a9bdf895024b5b&)
Maybe this? This is legitimately what RE ppl say is the cause of the seasons.
Until it's inconvenient, then like everything else about their theory, they either toss it aside or make excuses for it.
"...the Earth always tilts the same way."
Correct. Not at all. The Earth is flat.
This was explained previously, but like the liar you are, you just ignored it:
(https://i.imgur.com/6Dw9UV6.png)
Notice how Earth hasn't changed?
Or maybe, since both you and Jack Black are on my ignore list, I pick and choose what I even get to notice.
It could also have to do with the fact that this picture is self-contradictory, starting with the idea that Austria... I mean the Earth is the same.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1218619389323120772/6Dw9UV6.png?ex=660852bf&is=65f5ddbf&hm=d8534f2f189c9609c8f2e9a23002fd3265b89a89feac3787660606046983b191&)
-
Maybe this? This is legitimately what RE ppl say is the cause of the seasons.
No, that isn't what RE people say.
You take what they say and blatantly lie about it to pretend they are saying something different.
Again, Earth is not tilting as seasons change.
Repeating this lie just demonstrates your dishonesty.
Or maybe, since both you and Jack Black are on my ignore list, I pick and choose what I even get to notice.
i.e. you ignore when your lies are exposed.
You know certain people are good at exposing your lies, so you ignore them.
It could also have to do with the fact that this picture is self-contradictory
No, it isn't.
Yet again you lie about something that has already been explained to you.
That is NOT the same time of day.
That is the same time of a sidereal day.
For a solar day, they are roughly 12 hours apart.
Yet again, you can't refute the RE model, so you repeat the same pathetic lies.
Once more, Earth rotates on its axis once every roughly 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
Due to its orbit it needs to rotate a bit more to face the sun. This averages out to an extra 3 minutes and 56 seconds, or 24 hours in total.
Taking this as half a year later, that is roughly 183 rotations later.
That would be approximately 4380 hours and 12 seconds later.
If we look at mean solar days, that is roughly 182.5 solar days later.
That means if you are measuring in sidereal time, that is time which tracks Earth's rotation and the stars (excluding the sun), it is the same time and so other than the sun the stars are in basically the same position.
If instead you measure in solar time like most people, you are 12 hours off, so the sun is roughly 180 degrees off.
Again, there is nothing contradictory about this at all.
You just hate reality so you come up with whatever dishonest BS you can.
On what basis do you claim it is the same time of day?
Absolutely none except your desperation for the RE model to be wrong.
And while doing this you entirely ignore the fact that it demonstrates beyond any doubt your claims about Earth magically rocking back and forth for the seasons are pure BS.
Care to stop lying?
Again, with every lie you post you just further demonstrates how dishonest and desperate and pathetic you and your position are.
-
I watched the SpaceX Starship launch and suborbital flight. It was pretty impressive. The second stage failed on reentry, but much better than the previous test. Plus I loved the ground shots where you could see the smoke from the launch pad and then the earth in the background and the plasma glow around the ship on descent.
Maybe next time they'll try for orbit.
-
it doesnt really. All you have to do is get sidereal rotation correct and above equator. Effects you mention are irrelevant, except Moon which is often accounted actually
Seasonal tilt would put the satellite as much as 30 degrees off course. As I showed.
Then there's the occasional oddity. The Earth orbits little fast? The satellite moves 1 degree off. It only takes 15 of these unadjusted for, and you're broadcasting to the wrong time zone.
You know what would work in terms of geostationary satellites? A flat unmoving Earth with an orbiting sun.
Amazing, isn't it? You spend all of this time trying to tell me it's simple math when I know it actually wouldn't be (as a game programmer first, and programmer in general second), when the far simpler equation is that it just doesn't move.
Ie you misunderstood diagram made for literal school children
flat earth fails since triangulation puts them more than one disc radius away, meaning they should never be low on horizon
-
What do you mean by seasonal tilt? The earth always tilts the same way.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1217650171610009681/seasons2.gif?ex=6604cc17&is=65f25717&hm=a0a9b6dada5dfb1d45a91a2d5e7acc849522c46b6ba8b86213a9bdf895024b5b&)
Maybe this? This is legitimately what RE ppl say is the cause of the seasons.
Until it's inconvenient, then like everything else about their theory, they either toss it aside or make excuses for it.
"...the Earth always tilts the same way."
Correct. Not at all. The Earth is flat.
This was explained previously, but like the liar you are, you just ignored it:
(https://i.imgur.com/6Dw9UV6.png)
Notice how Earth hasn't changed?
Or maybe, since both you and Jack Black are on my ignore list, I pick and choose what I even get to notice.
It could also have to do with the fact that this picture is self-contradictory, starting with the idea that Austria... I mean the Earth is the same.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1218619389323120772/6Dw9UV6.png?ex=660852bf&is=65f5ddbf&hm=d8534f2f189c9609c8f2e9a23002fd3265b89a89feac3787660606046983b191&)
yes there is change. Imagine globe was spinning, Due to fact that it is spinning at angle America for example would be close to 0 degrees on left and where it is on right
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/542232792168267780/1219015946774249554/6Dw9UV6mod.png?ex=6609c411&is=65f74f11&hm=693b9afe3412f589a7491f0f456d565794fac5b46dd512766a51d9ae35509ce1&)
yellow line being area. In which case is it getting most light
-
Which did not address my actual criticism, in addition to probably not being true. I do not care how high or low the sun's light is supposed to be, as there are two glaring issues with this model.
At exactly 6am, the Earth should be at the same rotation position all year long.
1. If it is not the same rotation position (partial tidal locking), the sun should appear to be traveling across the sky backwards, as Earth tidally locks and rotates in the opposite direction. It is not. Also, such a lock would eventually slow Earth to uninhabitable sunlight and darkness.
2. If it is the same rotation position, then at exactly 6am (that looks to be UK and Africa on the left side facing the sun) is on sun up for the left Earth, and six months later 6am is night. This is clearly not how things work either.
Either Earth is doing one thing or another, and both things contradict the reality of what we view.
You lose.
-
Bulmba has zero...possibly negative, conceptual thinking.
The light hits that yellow stick.
The light POWER is a different story given the distance from those in alaska in december would farther away from sun vs those in florida.
Draw those striaght light rays as rings of power.
-
Leap years dont exist in bulmas calendar.
-
1. If it is not the same rotation position (partial tidal locking), the sun should appear to be traveling across the sky backwards, as Earth tidally locks and rotates in the opposite direction.
Huh?
Why. If the sun is the center of the solar system and stays in an unmoving relative distance to earth where the earth continually orbits the sun in the same direction while continually turning the same direction on its own axis.
This is why planets from earth retrograde.
What causes apparent retrograde motion?
(https://i.imgur.com/8eignCw.gif)
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/retrograde
For flat earth. What keeps the sun in orbit in atmosphere above the flat earth. What separate forces act on the moon and planets to have then orbit at different speeds. And what additional forces cause some of the planets to travel backwards or retrograde in the night sky. With the moon blocking the sun’s light and radiation during a solar eclipse. And the earth casting a shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
-
Which did not address my actual criticism, in addition to probably not being true. I do not care how high or low the sun's light is supposed to be, as there are two glaring issues with this model.
At exactly 6am, the Earth should be at the same rotation position all year long.
1. If it is not the same rotation position (partial tidal locking), the sun should appear to be traveling across the sky backwards, as Earth tidally locks and rotates in the opposite direction. It is not. Also, such a lock would eventually slow Earth to uninhabitable sunlight and darkness.
2. If it is the same rotation position, then at exactly 6am (that looks to be UK and Africa on the left side facing the sun) is on sun up for the left Earth, and six months later 6am is night. This is clearly not how things work either.
Either Earth is doing one thing or another, and both things contradict the reality of what we view.
You lose.
take a bet is he misunderstanding solar day, sidereal day or retrograde motion?
In all seriousness i am wondering how much person needs to be proven wrong to realize their understanding of astronomy needs to be refreshed
And about your point unless planet orbits faster than it rotates movement of Sun will mainly be determined by rotation of said object. Also predicting position of sun is basics of positional astronomy so it it like if 5 grader denied squaring because they think square 2 is 2+2 as opposed to 2*2 and ignored they cant be first person to crack that
-
Which did not address my actual criticism
Your criticism was addressed, including in previous discussions which you choose to ignore the repeat the same pathetic lies.
in addition to probably not being true.
You mean your criticism? Of course it isn't true. It is a blatant lie to attack the RE.
I do not care how high or low the sun's light is supposed to be, as there are two glaring issues with this model.
You mean 2 glaring lies you continue to make because you can't show a fault with the model.
At exactly 6am, the Earth should be at the same rotation position all year long.
NO! It should NOT be at the same rotation.
As explained to you repeatedly, Earth does not rotate on its axis once every 24 hours.
Instead, it rotates once every ~23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
That means after 24 hours, Earth is oriented in a slightly different orientation.
Continuing to ignore this to repeat the same pathetic lies just further demonstrates your dishonest.
1. If it is not the same rotation position (partial tidal locking), the sun should appear to be traveling across the sky backwards
Only if you compare snapshots taking 1 rotation apart.
And in that case, IT DOES!
If you use Earth's rotational period, such that the stars other than the sun appear in the same location at a given time, then the sun appears to move backwards through the sky, drifting further east each sidereal day.
But this has nothing to do with tidal locking.
Tidal locking like what occurs with the moon, means the same face faces the primary all the time.
Either Earth is doing one thing or another, and both things contradict the reality of what we view.
You lose.
Or you are yet again lying about reality and unable to show a fault.
Again, if you use the rotation, the sun falls behind each day.
This does not result in tidal locking.
We see just what is expected for the RE HC model.
And you cannot show a single fault.
So instead you repeat these same pathetic lies.
-
Which did not address my actual criticism, in addition to probably not being true. I do not care how high or low the sun's light is supposed to be, as there are two glaring issues with this model.
At exactly 6am, the Earth should be at the same rotation position all year long.
1. If it is not the same rotation position (partial tidal locking), the sun should appear to be traveling across the sky backwards, as Earth tidally locks and rotates in the opposite direction. It is not. Also, such a lock would eventually slow Earth to uninhabitable sunlight and darkness.
2. If it is the same rotation position, then at exactly 6am (that looks to be UK and Africa on the left side facing the sun) is on sun up for the left Earth, and six months later 6am is night. This is clearly not how things work either.
Either Earth is doing one thing or another, and both things contradict the reality of what we view.
You lose.
take a bet is he misunderstanding solar day, sidereal day or retrograde motion?
In all seriousness i am wondering how much person needs to be proven wrong to realize their understanding of astronomy needs to be refreshed
And about your point unless planet orbits faster than it rotates movement of Sun will mainly be determined by rotation of said object. Also predicting position of sun is basics of positional astronomy so it it like if 5 grader denied squaring because they think square 2 is 2+2 as opposed to 2*2 and ignored they cant be first person to crack that
I'm not "misunderstanding" anything.
Sidereal and solar days are something you roundheads
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3105/2785825869_49914bd25c_b.jpg)
came up with to justify your woefully flawed model.
You criticize and insult and double-down, rather than dare admit that this is a fatal flaw where this model simply crashes and burns. You haven't proven anyone wrong about anything. You are wrong in two distinct ways, and legit trapped in a problem of logic. Either something is true or it's not true. Regardless, the model you have which depends on two contradictory things being true, isn't true.
Again.
If Earth was forced to tidal lock, this would slow its rotation and also reverse it, so the sun would appear to be rising and setting backwards some days. This reversed direction means reversed solar path.
If Earth on the other hand kept the same rotation all year long, you would have similar reversal, this time with days starting and ending at weird times according to the clock.
These are two contradictions of the same theory, both of which are logically consistent instead with FE by being mutually invalidating.
-
If Earth was forced to tidal lock, this would slow its rotation and also reverse it, so the sun would appear to be rising and setting backwards some days.
What are you babbling about.
How. If the sun is relatively staying in the center of the heliocentric model. Staying the stand distance from Earth.
What you’re trying to describe is retrograde. We see retrograde motion from earth for the inner plants. This is how it works.
What causes apparent retrograde motion?
(https://i.imgur.com/8eignCw.gif)
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/retrograde
So. Yes. We do see “backwards” or retrograde motion in the heliocentric model. It’s just between planets that change relative distance from each other in their orbits.
No. We would not expect to sun to seem to move backwards being the point the earth orbits and staying the same relative distance.
I'm not "misunderstanding" anything.
came up with to justify your woefully flawed model.
Then you blatantly lie?
In the flat earth delusion. The sun would have to turn relative north after passing California, or right for a person looking west out to sea. The sun would have to continually turn to make its circular circuit above the FE delusion. The sun doesn’t do anything require for a flat earth. Where you can’t explain how the sun and the moon that physically blocks the sun from view during a solar eclipse stays in orbit in atmosphere.
-
I'm not "misunderstanding" anything.
Because you do understand it, instead you are wilfully, intentionally, blatantly lying about it.
Sidereal and solar days are something you roundheads came up with to justify your woefully flawed model.
No, this is something which is a direct consequence of a combination of orbital and rotational motion.
This was not something that was just came up with rectify a flaw.
This is something that is directly measurable and observable, and a direct consequence of the model.
But because you do not give a damn about the truth at all, because you are happy to blatantly lie to everyone to prop up your dishonest, delusional BS, you keep coming back with this.
You criticize and insult and double-down, rather than dare admit that this is a fatal flaw
No, we don't.
Instead, we clearly and simply explain why you are wrong, as we have done countless times.
But because you cannot defend your lies, you just double down with more lies and insults, as you have done yet again.
Can you show any fault with the model?
No. All you can do is repeat the same refuted, pathetic lies.
If Earth was forced to tidal lock
It isn't.
So saying this is pointless.
If Earth on the other hand kept the same rotation all year long, you would have similar reversal, this time with days starting and ending at weird times according to the clock.
Why?
What magic is causing this?
This is a simple math problem, simple geometry.
If you have an object rotating about its axis, while orbiting a primary, then after a complete rotation about its axis, it will have moved along its orbit and need to turn more to face the primary again.
If Earth was in a perfectly circular orbit, with a perfect solar day of 24 hours, with a perfect year of 365 days, then it has to rotate 366 times. This gives a rotational period of ~86163.9 s.
So consider a starting point with some point on the planet pointing directly to the sun, with another point pointing directly to a distant star (one located a distance 100 thousand times the radius of the orbit).
After rotating exactly once, i.e. after 86163.934 seconds, that point pointing to a distant star will again be pointing to it (the change is negligible).
But the point initially pointing to the sun wont still be pointing to the sun. This is because it has moved along its orbit. Specifically it would have moved along by 0.9836... degrees. This means it needs to rotate more to line back up with the sun.
After 24 hours, it will have rotated 1.0027397 times.
This is equivalent to 360.9863 degrees. or 0.9863 degrees more than a single rotation.
The distant star no longer aligns.
But the sun does. This is because it has also moved along its orbit, specifically by 0.9863 degrees.
The solar day is LONGER than the sidereal day.
Now, what happens half way around its orbit?
Well it is a total time of exactly 4380 hours, or 182 solar days and 12 hours, or 183 sidereal days.
Again, there is no problem. There is none of the BS you are making up.
You just know that this shows no fault with the RE, HC model, so you continually lie about it.
If you think there is a problem, then explain it.
Don't just assert more pure BS, EXPLAIN the problem.
Or, be honest for once in your life and admit there is no fault and you have been lying.
-
What are you babbling about.
How. If the sun is relatively staying in the center of the heliocentric model. Staying the stand distance from Earth.
What you’re trying to describe is retrograde. We see retrograde motion from earth for the inner plants. This is how it works.
*Planets. Not plants.
And your retrograde ideas are why Earth is still stuck in the control systems model of dictatorships.
Retrograde:
3. Reverting to an earlier or inferior condition.
Because you do understand it, instead you are wilfully, intentionally, blatantly lying about it.
Says the person who I am sure also knows that this model can't work, and is lying to me and other viewers about it.
If I were to spin the Earth this way in order to adjust for the light cast on the nearest side of Earth...
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1220432174436712488/UhhhhYeahRight.png?ex=660eeb08&is=65fc7608&hm=238156d618abf56d29c3c39efd653c2a5f9ed669fb61e086299cd0e0a529c1e3&)
You get that counter-turn (inner circle). That's the sun rising and setting Oz-style.
The sun orbiting the Earth never has to make such adjustments, btw. It rises and sets the same way all year long, all century long, all eternity long.
-
And your retrograde ideas are why Earth is still stuck in the control systems model of dictatorships.
Which has zero to do with this..
This is why planets from earth retrograde.
What causes apparent retrograde motion?
(https://i.imgur.com/8eignCw.gif)
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/retrograde
If I were to spin the Earth this way in order to adjust for the light cast on the nearest side of Earth...
[/quote]
Which has nothing to do with the sun as the center of the heliocentric model with the earth orbiting the sun as the earth rotates about its axis once a day.
Note. Obviously not to scale.
(https://www.solpass.org/science6-8-new/s6/images/solarsystem2.gif)
-
The sun orbiting the Earth never has to make such adjustments,
The sun above the delusional flat earth would have to constantly and visibly turn to complete its circular orbit.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Sun_tmb.gif)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Sun_tmb.gif
For flat earth.
The sun exhibits none of the needed characteristics for a flat earth circular circuit.
No explanation how the sun in air stays in orbit.
No explanation for night, or why the sun would be blocked from view where a telescope that can bring stars too faint to see with the naked eye in view can’t bring the sun back into view.
Doesn’t explain solar and lunar eclipses where the moon physically blocks the light and radiation from the sun during a solar eclipse.
-
Which has zero to do with this..
On the contrary. Globalism (headed by UN) routinely props up dictatorships and undermines legitimate Christian republics.
Why? Because their ideas are backward and contrary. Retrograde.
As long and you think the Earth moving backwards (or spinning backwards) is a legitimate solution to the still unaddressed problem of how an object at summer and winter can have a completely different 6am, then you will continue believe other asinine and retrograde ideas. Like "Hey, let's bulldoze a protected forest so that solar plant merchants can sell what amounts to a factory on protected land! Surely this is not some developers trying to hoodwink their way into ownership by gaining control of land in the name of environmentalism!"
And I don't care was Earth is doing in comparison to Jupiter. This is about Earth, this is about whether it is doing the right things.
Standing firmly on the ground, keeping a level head and an upright mindset (these are all flat Earth analogies, if you haven't noticed), this is how one functions sanely in society. Spinning around aimlessly in the universe, and even heading backwards on occasion, that's how you get swept up in fads.
“Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock. 25 Though the rain comes in torrents and the floodwaters rise and the winds beat against that house, it won’t collapse because it is built on bedrock. 26 But anyone who hears my teaching and doesn’t obey it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand. 27 When the rains and floods come and the winds beat against that house, it will collapse with a mighty crash.”
-
On the contrary.
Your babbling.
Your misrepresenting retrograde and how and why it occurs as relating to planets as viewed from earth.
Which is different than observing the relatively stationary sun in regards / context to earth’s orbit around the sun. The sun being the center of the heliocentric model.
For flat earth.
The sun exhibits none of the needed characteristics for a flat earth circular circuit.
No explanation how the sun in air stays in orbit.
No explanation for night, or why the sun would be blocked from view where a telescope that can bring stars too faint to see with the naked eye in view can’t bring the sun back into view.
Doesn’t explain solar and lunar eclipses where the moon physically blocks the light and radiation from the sun during a solar eclipse.
Which kills flat earth delusion.
-
The sun orbiting the Earth never has to make such adjustments,
The sun exhibits none of the needed characteristics for a flat earth circular circuit.
No explanation how the sun in air stays in orbit.
No explanation for night, or why the sun would be blocked from view where a telescope that can bring stars too faint to see with the naked eye in view can’t bring the sun back into view.
I've already explained these things.
Night happens because the sun angles out. If you're trying to see with the naked eye (or even a telescope) something that moves beyond a 180 degree point, you will no longer see it.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1220447075951444162/Sun_tmb.gif?ex=660ef8e9&is=65fc83e9&hm=83cf7e9844cbb4f9a9d4c873478ed2b4f76bfcb576b2e03356049440ea5a163b&)
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1220453417562931402/AngleOut.png?ex=660efed1&is=65fc89d1&hm=743496160b6fe7e042485d01ad979a4b678ed8df80da33f0a601714db29df926&)
When an object is directly in front of you, it appears to shrink.
When it is above you, it appears instead to sink into the ground.
"Why can't you see it with a telescope?" Well, to put it bluntly, you are probably not even sure where to look. Because of angle issues, it appears below yet is actually still above.
-
Says the person who I am sure also knows that this model can't work, and is lying to me and other viewers about it.
Says the blatant liar, who is yet again lying.
I know the RE model can work.
I know you are yet to show a single fault.
I know you need to keep lying, because you can't show a fault.
This is demonstrated by your behaviour.
I clearly explained why your claims were BS, and how the rotation and orbit results in what is observed.
I asked you to stop with the BS and clearly explain the problem.
And what do you?
Throw out more lies claiming that I know the model can't work, when in fact it is you that cannot show a fault with the model and thus likely knows the model does work; and instead of even attempting to explain you come up with this BS:
If I were to spin the Earth this way in order to adjust for the light cast on the nearest side of Earth...
Or, how about instead of that, you just keep it rotating about its axis as it orbits, and trying explaining why this wouldn't produce what is observed?
Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work.
The sun orbiting the Earth never has to make such adjustments, btw. It rises and sets the same way all year long, all century long, all eternity long.
Earth orbiting the sun, while rotating never has to make such adjustments. It results in the sun rising and setting the same way.
unaddressed problem of how an object at summer and winter can have a completely different 6am
And another lie.
Again, that position halfway around the orbit is 12 solar hours off.
Your lies have been refuted countless times.
You just ignore it because you can't accept reality.
Standing firmly on the ground, keeping a level head and an upright mindset (these are all flat Earth analogies, if you haven't noticed), this is how one functions sanely in society.
Yet you throw all that out the window, and instead just blatantly lie to everyone.
You are not functioning sanely.
I've already explained these things.
No, you haven't. You have either spouted nonsense, or just fled.
Night happens because the sun angles out.
See, this is an example of nonsense.
The sun never goes beyond 180 degrees, your diagram below shows that.
When an object is directly in front of you, it appears to shrink.
It doesn't matter where it is.
If it gets further away, it appears to shrink.
Being above you doesn't change that.
Lying wont save you.
Again, you have explained nothing. You just lie to pretend the FE works and pretend there are problems with the RE.
-
Night is when the light angles out
Thats amazing!!!
Are origins of star lights closer or farther than the sun light?
-
I've already explained these things.
Night happens because the sun angles out.
You haven’t explained anything. You literally make incoherent crap up.
In reality where a telescope can bring stars into view that are to faint to see with the unaided eye, how can I not bring the big old sun back into view after sunset. Because it’s physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.
The sun would literal have to visibly turn north after passing California to makes its circular circuit for the flat earth. A circuit where the sun would have to continuously turn to make its orbit.
You have no explanation for a lunar and solar eclipses.
Flat earth is D E A D.
-
The sun never goes beyond 180 degrees, your diagram below shows that.
Exactly. Now you're getting it.
When the sun moves at a distance where it would be approaching 180 degrees (if not before), your vision reaches what is known as the vanishing point. The object either shrinks or sinks.
If you stopped listening to "esteemed professors" and bothered looking at planes, bridges, skylines, etc. yourself, you would be able to tell me that yourself. Instead, you are convinced that what you see is a curve, and when people like me tell you over and over again, that no, in fact it is not, you sit there blankly not understanding. It's painful to watch.
Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work.
Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work.
Yet again, you are just baselesssly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work. Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work. Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE cantwork. Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend that REEEE can't work.
I'm writing this over and over again to emphasize the point that like this guy,
(https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/all-work-and-no-play-jack-torrance.jpg)
you're nuts. Flat Earth is what you are standing on. It is what holds water. Not only can it work, the alternative doesn't work.
Neither the most basic physics nor geometry supports the idea of any of this.
"But what about..." No. You bother learning basic logic, then maybe we'll talk.
-
shrinks or sinks
???
more amazingness!
your eyes converge things
thats why perspective converges train tracks from left<->right.
the ground and the sky converge into the horizon at "eye level".
they converge left-right-up-down to a point.
they shrink.
but they don't sink.
-
When the sun moves at a distance where it would be approaching 180 degrees (if not before),
What are you babbling about. On a flat earth you literally should always have a line of sight to the sun. You can always look straight at where the sun should be on a flat earth.
Why does the sun’s radiation and light become physically blocked by the earth’s curvature where the sun’s X-rays at night become undetectable. And a telescope that can bring stars too faint to see with the unaided eye into view can’t bring the big old sun back into view.
And you have no explanation for solar and lunar eclipses
And you have no explanation why the sun doesn’t visibly turns as needed to circle above a flat earth.
And you have no explanation why highly accurate ring laser gyroscopes drift as if the earth rotates about its axis every 24 hours.
-
The sun never goes beyond 180 degrees, your diagram below shows that.
Exactly. Now you're getting it.
I have been getting before. It shows your model is BS.
Your diagram shows the sun not going beyond 180 degrees, so it can't "angle out".
It will stay above the horizon and be visible.
Your own diagram refuted your BS.
vanishing point
The vanishing point is infinitely far away. Objects never reach it.
If you stopped listening to "esteemed professors" and bothered looking at planes, bridges, skylines, etc. yourself, you would be able to tell me that yourself.
That we observe objects appear to shrink as they get further away, showing the sun is not setting due to getting further away?
Instead, you are convinced that what you see is a curve
I am convinced by quite simple observations that there is a curve.
For a flat surface, I can see everything above it. The surface cannot magically block the view.
The angular size of an object is a function of distance.
It doesn't matter if it passes overhead, or is directly front, or the side, as it gets further away its angular size gets smaller.
And it never magically sinks into the surface it is above.
Conversely, for a round surface, like a ball or a large hill, as objects go over the curve, they disappear from the bottom up.
Likewise, for a curved corridor, I see people disappear from the side as they go around the corner.
What we see on Earth matches that of a round surface, not a flat surface.
It's painful to watch.
Perhaps it wouldn't be so painful if you weren't continually spouting pure BS and getting it refuted.
I'm writing this over and over again to emphasize the point
That you are dishonest, continually lying to people and have no interest in the truth?
That you will continue to spout whatever BS you can think of to pretend your fantasy is true with no concern for the truth?
you're nuts. Flat Earth is what you are standing on.
Then why are you unable to show a single fault with the RE and instead need to continually lie about it?
Why are you unable to defend the FE from the multitudes of faults with it.
Neither the most basic physics nor geometry supports the idea of any of this.
The idea of a FE, sure.
No physics nor geometry supports your delusional BS. You need to continually lie to pretend it does.
No. You bother learning basic logic, then maybe we'll talk.
Follow your own advice.
-
The sun never goes beyond 180 degrees, your diagram below shows that.
Exactly. Now you're getting it.
When the sun moves at a distance where it would be approaching 180 degrees (if not before), your vision reaches what is known as the vanishing point. The object either shrinks or sinks.
If you stopped listening to "esteemed professors" and bothered looking at planes, bridges, skylines, etc. yourself, you would be able to tell me that yourself. Instead, you are convinced that what you see is a curve, and when people like me tell you over and over again, that no, in fact it is not, you sit there blankly not understanding. It's painful to watch.
Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work.
Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work.
Yet again, you are just baselesssly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work. Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work. Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE cantwork. Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend that REEEE can't work.
I'm writing this over and over again to emphasize the point that like this guy,
(https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/all-work-and-no-play-jack-torrance.jpg)
you're nuts. Flat Earth is what you are standing on. It is what holds water. Not only can it work, the alternative doesn't work.
Neither the most basic physics nor geometry supports the idea of any of this.
"But what about..." No. You bother learning basic logic, then maybe we'll talk.
Unpacking more bull from your briefs today I see, bulinmabriefs144? Does the 144 denote your waist size in inches? It certainly doesn't denote your IQ!
Globe Earth holds water because of gravity. Flat Earth holds water because of what? Just because. Or did duh bible tell you so?
We have circumnavigated the Earth because it is a globe. You can't circumnavigate a plate where you can't even find an edge to, or the precise size of the plate.
Why can you not see we each live in two worlds? Our own little day to day world (which you can't see beyond) and the much larger entire world?
-
144 is 122. It's also a gross number.
Globe Earth holds water because of gravity
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1123593550983090283/1220569410238943242/PayUp.png?ex=660f6ad8&is=65fcf5d8&hm=2873ba91fdf50693160b71e4f900f8140ad58ec4d88b36ac9caf6e3296c6010e&)
Seriously, give me all your money.
You have people who claim to have circumnavigated the globe.
(https://cdn.britannica.com/s:700x500/76/20676-049-D10EC86B/circumnavigation-globe-route-navigator-Ferdinand-Magellan-Portuguese-1521.jpg)
Not circumnavigation.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1220572346742607943/flat_earth_highs_and_lows.png?ex=660f6d94&is=65fcf894&hm=f59d92524a835af0bf7f645e3e207994fccfdf9446bf04c8354c9bc0240fd2a5&)
What about this?
(https://www.oceannews.com/images/webnews/2019/August/Week-8-5-19/1-saildrone-circumnavigation-track-750px.jpg)
Or this?
(https://www.iridium.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ACE-Route-1080x1089.jpg)
Skirting the edge is not proof. This is what skimming actually looks like on a flat Earth map.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B20ljGkuutA/VyNcXyV0TbI/AAAAAAAAFjI/CGD644FMmTg2C5_rXCNNzxoUuadMDgEHgCLcB/s1600/antarctic%2B-%2Bswiss%2Bpolar%2Binst.%2Bon%2Bflat%2Bearth%2Bpath.jpg)
Your maps are inside out.
-
Seriously,
What?
Me bulmabriefs144 post pics. Me bulmabriefs144 r derail thread.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
How is buoyancy a fundamental force.
What drives or fuels buoyancy.
How do you accelerate an object down towards earth without unbalanced forces.
-
[flees]
So you have entirely failed to defend your blatant lies, and now you resort to fleeing form them like the pathetic lying coward you are, and instead bringing up other pathetic lies to get refuted?
Shall I take that as an admission that you fully accept that you have been blatantly lying to everyone about the issue of a sidereal day, and the feeling of motion; that you know you wouldn't feel Earth's rotation or orbit, and that the model makes sense and matches reality and you cannot find fault with is; and that you have been lying to everyone when you pretend the FE model works, when something as simple as an observation of night destroys your fantasy?
-
Amazing!!!
Does bulbma not know where the center of a circle is?
Why do things keep falling OFF the circles he draws (vs faling TOWARDS the center of the circle)?
Eh?
-
Seriously,
What?
Me bulmabriefs144 post pics. Me bulmabriefs144 r derail thread.
How is buoyancy a fundamental force.
What drives or fuels buoyancy.
How do you accelerate an object down towards earth without unbalanced forces.
You keep fixating on forces.
What force drives or fuels buoyancy? When you look up the word buoyancy, the first seven words are...
Buoyancy, or upthrust, is an upward force
Forces do not need other forces to work. They are the end of the line. The only difference between myself and Wikipedia, is that I would define buoyancy as
Buoyancy is a balancing force between upthrust and downthrust as determined by the difference between an object's density and the liquid, solid, or gas medium that surrounds them. For example, ice is a solid medium that will cave in if something more dense is placed upon it. On the other hand, if an object is less dense than water, it will float above it. (I'd then talk about the use of propulsion to sometimes overcome initial density, as in swimming and flight)
And yes, we as humans are allowed to write definitions. You probably have a definition of love that is quite different from mine. I suspect it includes the words "similar politics."
What force fuels buoyancy indeed. Btw. Buoyancy is a proven force since ancient times. It has been trusted to guide balloons across the sky and ships across the seas. Gravity is theoretical force by a natural philosopher that got his brains jarred loose by an apple falling on them. We managed without it for centuries and centuries, and it basically is only there to hold RE together. If taken on its own merits, it basically paves over existing real forces as a sort of catch-all. Angular momentum? Gravity. Greater density vs buoyancy? Gravity? Things spinning around? Gravity. My teeth fall out? Why, it's clearly not because I didn't brush my teeth. It's gravity. Even entropy is called "gravity" by this hack. He also defines fundamental laws like "Objects in motion stay in motion" (sorry, momentum is not infinite) or that "equal and opposite force" thing. What these are, are not laws. They are memes. Catchy phrases intended to be repeated over and over. Nobody ever really examines whether the force that is opposite actually is always equal, and I can most certainly push a glass jar off a counter without opposite force (really only applies for things like firing a bow).
[flees]
I don't "flee." I have ADD (or ADHD, though I think they added the H to many diagnoses where it wasn't warranted). This means I experience extreme boredom debating the same points over and over again. Unfortunately, you people are dull, and I often wind up talking about the same stupid things again and again.
But I seem to have two ppl after me both actually fleeing a topic I brought up. You know, that one where I cut a globe in half and rained on it? Hmmm, you accuse me of derailing rather than adapt to the current question, and answer it.
I also seemed to have answered the question about circumnavigation. But sure, you can say that I flee if that's what it takes to keep your denial going.
they shrink.
but they don't sink.
Planes in the sky do both. I was in Florida by the beach, and instead of listening to my parents, I was watching plane come in, go past me, and disappear.
From starting position:
---•••√````\•••-
That crude ASCII drawing is basically that the plane when it first appears is practically a dot, then you see the plane as distinct object, then it appears the rise above you in the sky (before that it was eye level due to angle, and because it was flying pretty low), then it falls again to eye level, and you watch it sinking slightly but shrinking alot more. As I watched it, my eyes did something funny, I blinked, and it was gone. I never saw it sink to the ground like the sun does.
But you guys yourself have admitted that buildings and seem to what was it? "Disappearing bottom first"? But oh, that's not sinking there. Nothing ever sinks...
That's rather interesting. So what do you call that?
So what exactly did I run away from?
You want to accuse me of cowardice, but it seems that I'm fielding 3 vs 1 questions. Forgive me, but I might occasionally ignore you.
Lastly, since you accuse me of ignoring the topic, yes I can quite easily dispute space footage. Because you see, like this globe that reacts wrong to rain (answer the question!) the sky has buoyant layers. These layers are verified by both RE and FE models, but they can get away with their space hoax because we believe Hollywood movies about weightlessness in space. But that's not the truth of what happens in a vacuum.
Less air up there means they cannot get past certain layers of atmosphere. So they instead do a Barnum show, point a spaceship up at an angle, and use about a year's worth of fuel. Thanks NASA for doing your part for worldwide poverty. Oh sorry, no, I didn't mean fighting worldwide poverty, you're causing it.
-
L
You keep fixating on forces.
How does an object accelerate down if there are no unbalanced forces acting on it.
-
So what exactly did I run away from?
How do you accelerate an object of mass without unbalanced forces.
You thrown a ball straight up. It slows down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.
It stops in mid air.
What unbalanced force causes the ball to change travel of direction 180 degrees to fall back to earth.
What unbalanced force causes the ball to accelerate down to earth.
Why do objects weigh more, or increase in there downward force as atmosphere is removed from a chamber to a fraction of atmospheric pressure. (We can make a buoyant force negligible by creating an environment without any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere.)
If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball. Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop mid air, change travel of direction 180 degrees to accelerate back to earth. All requiring force we all gravity.
-
So what exactly did I run away from?
You haven’t explained anything. You literally make incoherent crap up.
In reality where a telescope can bring stars into view that are to faint to see with the unaided eye, how can I not bring the big old sun back into view after sunset. Because it’s physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.
The sun would literal have to visibly turn north after passing California to makes its circular circuit for the flat earth. A circuit where the sun would have to continuously turn to make its orbit.
You have no explanation for a lunar and solar eclipses.
Flat earth is D E A D.
-
What force fuels buoyancy indeed.
The same force that causes air molecules to bunch up at the earth’s surface to overcome the molecules tenancy to spread away from each other.
If the earth truly had no gravity in an airtight dome, then the atmosphere would be near equal density at all altitudes. But something is overcoming the tendency of gas molecules to equal distance themselves and bunch up at Earth’s surface.
-
You keep fixating on forces.
Because you want to appeal to magic instead.
Forces do not need other forces to work.
Fundamental forces, like gravity, don't need other forces to work.
But non-fundamental forces do.
For example, the buoyant force relies upon gravity, with other manifestations present.
The force due to air resistance is from relative motion, inertia and the electrostatic force.
An electromagnetic is due to electricity, and the fundamental force of electromagnetism.
Buoyancy is a proven force since ancient times.
As is weight, i.e. gravity.
Gravity is theoretical force
No, as above, gravity is a proven force since ancient times.
Newton didn't magically invent gravity, he provided a partial explanation for it.
If taken on its own merits, it basically paves over existing real forces as a sort of catch-all
No, if taken as your pathetic strawman where you lie about it and reality.
sorry, momentum is not infinite
You don't need infinite momentum to continue moving forever.
What these are, are not laws.
Your irrational hatred of reality doesn't magically negate it.
I can most certainly push a glass jar off a counter without opposite force (really only applies for things like firing a bow).
No you can't.
The jar pushes back against you.
If you think they aren't a thing, go push your hand through a solid wall. If you find it hard, keep applying more and more force to your hand.
I don't "flee."
Yes you do. You do it repeatedly and continually.
You spout the same dishonest, pathetic, refuted BS, get it refuted yet again, and then flee.
If you don't want to be accused of fleeing, then stick to the point and defend your lies or admit they are lies.
But I seem to have two ppl after me both actually fleeing a topic I brought up.
No, they are pointing out that you are fleeing like the lying coward you are, and wanting you to stick to the topic.
You know, that one where
where you yet again lied about gravity and set up a strawman to attack?
you accuse me of derailing
I accuse you of fleeing, because that is what you are doing.
You have been refuted, you ran out of excuses to spout, so you flee.
Like you always do.
I also seemed to have answered the question about circumnavigation.
Which is smokey just deflecting from the topic.
Planes in the sky do both.
And perspective is not what makes them appear to sink into the ground.
Perspective would make them get closer to 0 degrees, but not sink.
But you guys yourself have admitted that buildings and seem to what was it? "Disappearing bottom first"? But oh, that's not sinking there. Nothing ever sinks...
i.e. perspective doesn't explain it.
The curvature of Earth does.
The curvature of Earth explains why objects appear to sink into Earth.
Perspective cannot.
So what exactly did I run away from?
Your repeated refuted lies about the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day.
Your lies about how that should magically cause problems for the RE, HC model even though you can't explain any.
How things disappear from the bottom up.
The fact, that even your pathetic diagram shows the sun wouldn't set in your flat fantasy and instead clearly above Earth.
Don't complain about having too many questions when you bring up far too much crap fleeing topics.
But that's not the truth of what happens in a vacuum.
Again, this is your pathetic strawman.
It isn't based upon reality at all.
So no, that does nothing to negate footage from space.
Again, it isn't the vacuum that makes them weightless.
It is that they are in free-fall.
Likewise, you lie about how things move.
They don't need buoyancy to get up.
They are not a balloon, they are a rocket.
We can easily see the difference.
For a balloon, you inflate it with helium, and it floats up, no extra fuel needed.
For a hot air balloon, they use some fuel, to heat the air, to make it less dense.
But for a rocket, they expel large volumes of hot gas to push themselves.
Only lying scum would pretend they need buoyancy.
You have also had orbits explained to you.
But like the typical lying coward, you flee from those explanations, just to bring up the same pathetic, refuted BS again and again.
And this includes you bringing up the same lies again and again.
No one other than liars like you are pretending vacuum means weightlessness.
No one other than liars like you are pretending things like planes and rockets work on buoyancy.
-
Edit: because gravity is soooo important it didn't come until "Sir" Isaac Newton. Nobody else was important enough to discover it. Right.
Or maybe, buoyancy replaces gravity as the fundamental force, as it was used for literally everything.
-
Which has zero to do with this..
On the contrary. Globalism (headed by UN) routinely props up dictatorships and undermines legitimate Christian republics.
Why? Because their ideas are backward and contrary. Retrograde.
As long and you think the Earth moving backwards (or spinning backwards) is a legitimate solution to the still unaddressed problem of how an object at summer and winter can have a completely different 6am, then you will continue believe other asinine and retrograde ideas. Like "Hey, let's bulldoze a protected forest so that solar plant merchants can sell what amounts to a factory on protected land! Surely this is not some developers trying to hoodwink their way into ownership by gaining control of land in the name of environmentalism!"
And I don't care was Earth is doing in comparison to Jupiter. This is about Earth, this is about whether it is doing the right things.
Standing firmly on the ground, keeping a level head and an upright mindset (these are all flat Earth analogies, if you haven't noticed), this is how one functions sanely in society. Spinning around aimlessly in the universe, and even heading backwards on occasion, that's how you get swept up in fads.
“Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock. 25 Though the rain comes in torrents and the floodwaters rise and the winds beat against that house, it won’t collapse because it is built on bedrock. 26 But anyone who hears my teaching and doesn’t obey it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand. 27 When the rains and floods come and the winds beat against that house, it will collapse with a mighty crash.”
best troll ever
-
144 is 122. It's also a gross number.
Globe Earth holds water because of gravity
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1123593550983090283/1220569410238943242/PayUp.png?ex=660f6ad8&is=65fcf5d8&hm=2873ba91fdf50693160b71e4f900f8140ad58ec4d88b36ac9caf6e3296c6010e&)
Seriously, give me all your money.
You have people who claim to have circumnavigated the globe.
(https://cdn.britannica.com/s:700x500/76/20676-049-D10EC86B/circumnavigation-globe-route-navigator-Ferdinand-Magellan-Portuguese-1521.jpg)
Not circumnavigation.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1220572346742607943/flat_earth_highs_and_lows.png?ex=660f6d94&is=65fcf894&hm=f59d92524a835af0bf7f645e3e207994fccfdf9446bf04c8354c9bc0240fd2a5&)
What about this?
(https://www.oceannews.com/images/webnews/2019/August/Week-8-5-19/1-saildrone-circumnavigation-track-750px.jpg)
Or this?
(https://www.iridium.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ACE-Route-1080x1089.jpg)
Skirting the edge is not proof. This is what skimming actually looks like on a flat Earth map.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B20ljGkuutA/VyNcXyV0TbI/AAAAAAAAFjI/CGD644FMmTg2C5_rXCNNzxoUuadMDgEHgCLcB/s1600/antarctic%2B-%2Bswiss%2Bpolar%2Binst.%2Bon%2Bflat%2Bearth%2Bpath.jpg)
Your maps are inside out.
do you have a fetish for made up scenarios which will break down moment they come to be? That globe will collapse to smaller planet
-
Edit: because gravity is soooo important it didn't come until "Sir" Isaac Newton. Nobody else was important enough to discover it. Right.
Or maybe, buoyancy replaces gravity as the fundamental force, as it was used for literally everything.
Asked you a series of questions you ran away from…
How do you accelerate an object of mass without unbalanced forces.
You thrown a ball straight up. It slows down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.
It stops in mid air.
What unbalanced force causes the ball to change travel of direction 180 degrees to fall back to earth.
What unbalanced force causes the ball to accelerate down to earth.
Why do objects weigh more, or increase in their downward force as atmosphere is removed from a chamber to a fraction of atmospheric pressure. (We can make a buoyant force negligible by creating an environment without any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere.)
If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball. Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop mid air, change travel of direction 180 degrees to accelerate back to earth. All requiring force we all gravity.
-
Yes, yes, I'm running away.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1221174514159976560/image.png?ex=66119e64&is=65ff2964&hm=5f44533a3d94b3f163d030bb4007d41bdcb4fff9c3eb060bc176f700bc96ba49&)
You're the gutless coward that does a 2-on-1 gangup.
And I'm supposed to somehow field all the questions you and JackBlack (and maybe Code-Beta) ask.
Bullies are cowards. Every school child knows that if someone had any guts, they'd fight people alone.
What they call "pick on someone your own size."
But while we're all the topic of fleeing, I do believe Code-Beta is the only one who even bothered to respond and his answer made no sense. Something about a sphere collapsing into tinier spheres.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1123593550983090283/1220569410238943242/PayUp.png?ex=660f6ad8&is=65fcf5d8&hm=2873ba91fdf50693160b71e4f900f8140ad58ec4d88b36ac9caf6e3296c6010e&)
Man up, and answer the question. You say gravity holds water in place, but I can plop down a hemisphere where it is sure to rain and a basin right next to it, and only the basin will hold water. You never will admit this, so you instead get your buddies to all talk at once, and then accuse me of fleeing when I honestly don't feel like answering two or three people today. You've been running away from this question since I asked it, but you're gonna tell me I'm fleeing.
I am not obligated to answer any of your questions while you still haven't addressed this.
And I'm pretty sure you haven't, because I haven't noticed it in any of your posts.
But if you're interested, the model is simple.
You see, buoyancy divides the water and the sky into layers. Less air molecules on top, more air molecules below that, some water molecules below that, dense water molecules on bottom. Gravity, on the other hand, is not a stable model. If we were to follow the train of thought to its logical conclusion, the entire atmosphere ought to be falling towards the ground. But that's not what happens!
-
You say gravity holds water in place, but I can plop down a hemisphere where it is sure to rain and a basin right next to it, and only the basin will hold water.
It runs down the mountain from higher potential energy until it flows to the oceans with relative zero potential energy.
It’s actually really simple to describe.
Are you down changing the subject…
Why do objects weigh more, or increase in their downward force as atmosphere is removed from a chamber to a fraction of atmospheric pressure. (We can make a buoyant force negligible by creating an environment without any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere.)
If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball. Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop mid air, change travel of direction 180 degrees to accelerate back to earth. All requiring force we call gravity.
-
You see, buoyancy divides the water and the sky into layers.
How do I buoyancy a normal car up a hill with no balloon?
Actually. Heat cause water to evaporate and rise as vapor. If enough water is condensed in a certain area, it forms clouds. If the clouds get cold enough, the water further condenses to the point it rains.
-
How do I buoyancy a normal car up a hill with no balloon?
You don't. Any more than you use "gravity" to get a car up a hill.
You use energy to get up the hill, you don't wait around for the Earth to spin in such a way that it gets you up the hill, do you?
Amazing. This was all about trying to pin me intellectually, give me a question to stump me (or something), and you never bothered to think about the fact that it can't work your way either.
In both cases, the car has more mass than its surroundings, so it rolls down the incline. The only difference is under your method, you need a gravitational force to decide this, whereas my method is perfectly capable of saying "Ummmm, cars are more dense than air. The car rolls because the front of it has solid earth and behind it is air."
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1221208293066801244/PassiveVsActive.png?ex=6611bdda&is=65ff48da&hm=c22f9223151ab45815333212d9f43bf9b765f6219efb612b21618afb2e61fcfe&)
So no, you don't buoyancy a car with no hot air balloon, any more than you gravity the car up by waiting for it to spin the right way. This is because cars sink rather than float on air. These methods are pipe dreams.
However, you could procure enough balloons to do so. There's even a calculator for this.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/everyday-life/helium-balloons
The average weight of a compact car is about 3000 lb (https://www.autolist.com/guides/average-weight-of-car). You'd need 113,860 helium balloons, but it would technically be possible.
Enjoy waiting for gravity from Earth's rotation to help your car up the hill. I am going to bet even if you waited your whole life, you would have a far better chance of finding your soulmate than seeing that car move even one inch uphill without investing some sort of energy from the engine.
-
And again fleeing form sidereal vs solar day, and how you repeatedly lie about it.
Does that mean you fully admit to lying about it? That you know there is nothing wrong with the RE model regarding it?
That it clearly and easily refutes your BS claims about satellites needing to magically move around?
You admit you are a lying POS that cares more about pretending your fantasy is true than reality?
If not, try addressing it.
Clearly explain what the issue is rather than just spouting vague BS.
because gravity is soooo important it didn't come until "Sir" Isaac Newton. Nobody else was important enough to discover it. Right.
You could say that about anything.
I guess buoyancy was sooooo important, it didn't come until Archimedes. Nobody else was important enough to discover it.
Or maybe, buoyancy replaces gravity as the fundamental force, as it was used for literally everything.
No, it doesn't. Even Archimedes recognised that buoyancy was a result of weight (i.e. gravity).
Remove weight, remove buoyancy.
Buoyancy is quite well explained by a combination of gravity and the behaviour of fluids.
e.g. on Earth we know that everything has weight, including fluids.
We can calculate the pressure gradient expected for a fluid, based upon its weight.
We can then measure that pressure gradient to confirm.
We can then note what the effect of this pressure gradient is, to push everything up.
We can then consider the effect of an object in that fluid, and note that it pushes it up.
We can do the math and see this upwards force is equal in magnitude to the weight of the fluid displaced.
This means bouncy CANNOT be the fundamental force.
Buoyancy is a direct result of weight and pressure in fluids.
The best you can get is that weight being the fundamental force, with things magically going down for no reason at all.
Or you can accept that weight is a manifestation of gravity.
Yes, yes, I'm running away.
Yes, you are running away, like the lying coward you are.
You are so terrified that you need to ignore the posts to pretend you have an excuse and aren't running away.
But that doesn't negate the fact that you are running away.
And I'm supposed to somehow field all the questions you and JackBlack (and maybe Code-Beta) ask.
Again, if you don't want that, you should stick to the topic instead of continually running off to avoid answering simple questions.
Bullies are cowards. Every school child knows that if someone had any guts, they'd fight people alone.
This is not a fight.
This is you, coming in spouting pure BS, and being upset that people are saying you are wrong.
But while we're all the topic of fleeing, I do believe Code-Beta is the only one who even bothered to respond
And how would you know that if you are ignoring people?
Yet again demonstrating that you are just using that as an excuse.
I did respond. It is your pathetic strawman.
Man up, and answer the question. You say gravity holds water in place, but I can plop down a hemisphere where it is sure to rain and a basin right next to it, and only the basin will hold water.
Again, this is your strawman.
Again, RE is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
What we see in that strawman of yours is exactly what is expected in the RE model.
The water, feeling a much stronger gravitational attraction to Earth, moves towards it.
Your tiny balls are not enough to hold water next to the massive ball of Earth.
Go repeat your experiment in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive body.
You know that your experiment is invalid, and no better than holding a plate on its side to refute the FE.
But you will continue to repeat this pathetic lie of yours.
I am not obligated to answer any of your questions while you still haven't addressed this.
Quite the opposite.
Given you brought this up to flee from the topic at hand, it would actually be the other way around.
We wouldn't have to answer your crap while you haven't addressed the points we made before you brought it up to flee.
And I'm pretty sure you haven't, because I haven't noticed it in any of your posts.
Yet again demonstrating you are using ignoring as a shield.
You see, buoyancy divides the water and the sky into layers. Less air molecules on top, more air molecules below that, some water molecules below that, dense water molecules on bottom.
Why?
What is the driving force causing these molecules to bunch up?
Why does the pressure gradient created not push them away?
Gravity, on the other hand, is not a stable model.
Yet you cannot show a fault with it and instead need to repeatedly lie about it.
If we were to follow the train of thought to its logical conclusion, the entire atmosphere ought to be falling towards the ground.
Only if you want to ignore air pressure.
Air pressure is a thing.
The layer of air at the bottom is compressed by all the air above it, which acts to hold up the air above it.
So when you honestly follow it to its logical conclusion, gravity works and buoyancy entirely fails.
It is only by entirely ignoring this pressure gradient that you can pretend your fantasy works.
-
In both cases, the car has more mass than its surroundings, so it rolls down the incline.
If there is no gravity, why does the car going from a flat run to go up hill have to gear down, increase RPMs, and use more fuel. For a no gravity delusion, why does it take more fuel to go up hill than on a flat run.
-
Amazing.
That you keep trying to change the argument?
Why do objects weigh more, or increase in their downward force as atmosphere is removed from a chamber to a fraction of atmospheric pressure. (We can make a buoyant force negligible by creating an environment without any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere.)
If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball. Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop mid air, change travel of direction 180 degrees to accelerate back to earth. All requiring force we call gravity.
-
Amazing.
That you keep trying to change the argument?
Why do objects weigh more, or increase in their downward force as atmosphere is removed from a chamber to a fraction of atmospheric pressure. (We can make a buoyant force negligible by creating an environment without any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere.)
If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball. Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop mid air, change travel of direction 180 degrees to accelerate back to earth. All requiring force we call gravity.
To quote kabool...
more amazingness!
What is truly amazing is that you can't declutter your mind enough to visualize this without your "downward force."
Buoyancy is responsible for the whole shebang. The up and the down.
If we remove a ball to a chamber as you say (let's do a tennis ball and an experimental vacuum room).
Reddit says that contrary to popular belief, a ball won't bounce forever in a perfect vacuum, because it loses kinetic energy as heat for each bounce.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/fki8wc/would_a_ball_bounce_forever_in_perfect_vacuum/
I would go a step further and say that it probably wouldn't bounce at all, because it has no air to push back up against.
Buoyancy dictates that an object lighter than what surrounds it floats, and heavier than what surrounds it sinks. Without any air to propel it, it just hits the ground with a dull thud (but oh wait, it probably doesn't make a sound either, because sound pushes against air to carry to our ears).
If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball.
No. You are throwing this ball up, correct? So what's happening is that momentum (as kinetic energy) steadily decreases, until you just have an object in air (or a vacuum). Because buoyancy is a force of comparison, the ball's mass is heavier than the air (or vacuum), and it begins to stop midair (gathering potential energy), then heads toward the ground (potential energy becomes kinetic energy). Potential energy while in hand, and what at peak in air (it's actually at rest here). Kinetic energy while rising and falling. No gravity. Just mass and motion and momentum.
Buoyancy acts only when the ball rises or falls while at rest (sinking or floating), not when energy is applied (propulsion). Falling is sinking, throwing is propulsion.
-
If we remove a ball to a chamber as you say (let's do a tennis ball and an experimental vacuum room).
Reddit says that contrary to popular belief, a ball won't bounce forever in a perfect vacuum, because it loses kinetic energy as heat for each bounce.
Which I posted nothing about.
This was what was posted
Why do objects weigh more, or increase in their downward force as atmosphere is removed from a chamber to a fraction of atmospheric pressure. (We can make a buoyant force negligible by creating an environment without any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere.)
If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball. Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop mid air, change travel of direction 180 degrees to accelerate back to earth. All requiring force we call gravity.
No. You are throwing this ball up, correct? So what's happening is that momentum (as kinetic energy) steadily decreases, until you just have an object in air (or a vacuum).
Why does a ball thrown straight up in atmosphere slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance. There is more acting on the ball than air resistance.
Because buoyancy is a force of comparison,
We know from weighing objects while removing fluid atmosphere from around those objects, that objects weigh more. Buoyancy is a lifting force. Remove the atmosphere from around an object, the lifting force called buoyancy is removed and the object weighs more. Atmosphere is not a force, what acts on the atmosphere to drive buoyancy.
Now pressure, density, and air resistance increase the closer objects get to earth’s surface.
So. Buoyancy is a lifting force. A force that is caused by something acting on air molecules. And that lifting force increases as atmosphere becomes more dense. And explains in no way why a ball thrown straight would slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance. Buoyancy Doesn’t explain why the ball would stop, and turn 180 degrees, and accelerate down. Down from less dense atmosphere into more dense atmosphere with increases resistance that would want to provide a more buoyant force of lifting. And still doesn’t explain why the atmosphere bunch up at earth’s surface when air molecules want to distance themselves from each other unless acted on by a force.
-
What is truly amazing is that you can't declutter your mind enough to visualize this without your "downward force."
You mean we look at it honestly and recognise such a downwards force is needed to explain what happens in reality.
Buoyancy is responsible for the whole shebang. The up and the down.
Only if by "buoyancy" you mean gravity or some other downwards force and the consequences of it.
Again, we know that there is a pressure gradient in fluids.
We can directly measure this.
And we can understand that this pressure gradient pushes things up.
That means we understand the upwards force is NOT a fundamental force, instead it is a result of the pressure gradient which is a result of the downwards force.
I would go a step further and say that it probably wouldn't bounce at all, because it has no air to push back up against.
And you would be wrong.
Buoyancy dictates that an object lighter than what surrounds it floats, and heavier than what surrounds it sinks.
That is a combination of buoyancy and the downwards force known as gravity.
Without any air to propel it, it just hits the ground with a dull thud
And this just makes no sense at all.
If you need air to propel it, it would just hover, not moving at all, not falling down.
If it does move down, then there is something to propel it.
This then results in it hitting the ground and compressing and slowing it down.
This compression is then released to push it back up.
No. You are throwing this ball up, correct?
No. The ball is in a medium (the gas) that has a pressure gradient that results in an upwards force on everything in the medium.
This is not us throwing up the ball.
This is the pressure gradient of the fluid trying to push it up.
Why does your magic defy this?
No gravity.
Accept the downwards force accelerating the ball.
Otherwise, what is removing the momentum? What then makes it fall back down?
Again, we know that buoyancy is a result of a downwards force that produces a measurable pressure gradient which results in an upwards force.
We know the upwards force is a result of the downwards force.
You ignoring that wont change it.
-
Buoyancy is responsible for the whole shebang.
Air molecules want to spread out far as possible from each other. What forces causes them to bunch up at earth’s surface to make buoyancy as we know it possible.
-
Why do objects weigh more, or increase in their downward force as atmosphere is removed from a chamber to a fraction of atmospheric pressure. (We can make a buoyant force negligible by creating an environment without any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere.)
If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball. Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop mid air, change travel of direction 180 degrees to accelerate back to earth. All requiring force we call gravity.
Which is what I answered. You just didn't like the answer.
1. Atmospheric pressure is what you assume gravity is, and that thinner air ought to mean you can jump six times as high. In other words, air presses down on us, and thinner air means less pressure. Even though this is at odds with real life vacuum tests of falling objects.
Now where would you get this idea? By watching NASA videos. Guess what? They were making films before the 1969 moon landing (hoax).
https://www.redsharknews.com/a-brief-history-of-gravity-how-filmmakers-have-tried-to-replicate-zero-g
The commenters mention two things.
Don't forget the Czechoslovak movie Ikarie XB 1. It pictures weightlessness even before they could see from real space footage.
George Pal made heroic effects to defeat zero-G in the 1950s too. He also showed high-G sequences in films like Destination Moon (which also made an attempt at 1/6 Lunar gravity).
Hold up here. Before something is explored, we already have decided that its thin atmosphere ought to allow high jumping. They got the idea for their hoax from movies, not the other way around!
So ummm, Mount Everest has thin air too. Not 1/6 thin, but thin enough to require respiration for amateurs. Do we have any record of space jumps there? No, we do not. Reddit thinks you ought to be able to jump 0.3% higher, but vacuum tests show the opposite.
DoomAxe
9 yr. ago
Well there's also the fact that you'll experience less buoyant force based on the lower density of air. I went through and calculated the buoyant force at both sea level and on Mount Everest to be .784 N and .2745 N respectively for an average human of .0664 m3. Using average mass of 62 kg found from a quick google search, we get an average net force of 606.8 N at sea level and 605.5 N at altitude. This was using 9.8 m/s2 at sea level and 9.8 m/s2 * .997 on Everest. Making the difference even smaller at around .2%.
jammerjoint
9 yr. ago
I'd imagine that the lower oxygen content may make it more difficult to jump.
kc1man
9 yr. ago
This is great. How much of an impact would the thinner air and therefore reduced resistance have on your jump?
swagboner
9 yr. ago
What about the buoyancy? Air is much thinner at the top of mount everest, at sea level she would be relatively lighter because she is replacing more air by mass, I think in actuality it would be harder to jump at the top of mount everest. E.g you have to put forth less effort jumping underwater than you do on land
Some people at least have brains in their head.
But we have plenty of buoyancy tests in areas of higher pressure (water has higher pressure than air). I drop a ball in the water, no special chamber needed, and it floats by being higher pressure than the object's density.
2. Again. Unless you are talking about Vomit Comet as an example (which is a factor of momentum not gravity or air pressure), buoyant force is not what is causing these balls to rise. It's motion. Buoyancy is active when determining whether something is rising or falling while at rest. Just as you can toss a ball up in the air, and it slows then reverses direction, you can toss a ball downward in a pool and it slows and reverses direction (this time heading upward).
-
Yes, yes, I'm running away.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1221174514159976560/image.png?ex=66119e64&is=65ff2964&hm=5f44533a3d94b3f163d030bb4007d41bdcb4fff9c3eb060bc176f700bc96ba49&)
You're the gutless coward that does a 2-on-1 gangup.
And I'm supposed to somehow field all the questions you and JackBlack (and maybe Code-Beta) ask.
Bullies are cowards. Every school child knows that if someone had any guts, they'd fight people alone.
What they call "pick on someone your own size."
But while we're all the topic of fleeing, I do believe Code-Beta is the only one who even bothered to respond and his answer made no sense. Something about a sphere collapsing into tinier spheres.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1123593550983090283/1220569410238943242/PayUp.png?ex=660f6ad8&is=65fcf5d8&hm=2873ba91fdf50693160b71e4f900f8140ad58ec4d88b36ac9caf6e3296c6010e&)
Man up, and answer the question. You say gravity holds water in place, but I can plop down a hemisphere where it is sure to rain and a basin right next to it, and only the basin will hold water. You never will admit this, so you instead get your buddies to all talk at once, and then accuse me of fleeing when I honestly don't feel like answering two or three people today. You've been running away from this question since I asked it, but you're gonna tell me I'm fleeing.
I am not obligated to answer any of your questions while you still haven't addressed this.
And I'm pretty sure you haven't, because I haven't noticed it in any of your posts.
But if you're interested, the model is simple.
You see, buoyancy divides the water and the sky into layers. Less air molecules on top, more air molecules below that, some water molecules below that, dense water molecules on bottom. Gravity, on the other hand, is not a stable model. If we were to follow the train of thought to its logical conclusion, the entire atmosphere ought to be falling towards the ground. But that's not what happens!
Hey Jerkovsky, the only time you will ever experience buoyancy is when you open a playboy centerfold.
As for gravity, your low hanging fruit knows all about gravity. Why didn't you just do your globe shattering experiment by unzipping your fly while standing over a bucket, and pouring in ice cold water to prove water will flow off a ball but be collected in a container? You could also prove that heat expands while cold contracts, while you're at it!
-
Buoyancy is responsible for the whole shebang.
Air molecules want to spread out far as possible from each other. What forces causes them to bunch up at earth’s surface to make buoyancy as we know it possible.
Diffusion. And they don't bunch up as you say. They separate into layers of atmosphere.
(https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w1200-q80/upload/e4/22/16/shutterstock-1697221522.jpg)
I ignore the exosphere.
-
Diffusion.
Which makes no sense. Why can atmosphere exert 14.7 psia of pressure at sea level and provide enough oxygen to support life. And at 60,000 feet only be 1 psia and not support like.
Why can atmosphere at sea level exert enough pressure to crush a steel drum with a vacuum in it.
-
Hey Jerkovsky, the only time you will ever experience buoyancy is when you open a playboy centerfold.
As for gravity, your low hanging fruit knows all about gravity. Why didn't you just do your globe shattering experiment by unzipping your fly while standing over a bucket, and pouring in ice cold water to prove water will flow off a ball but be collected in a container? You could also prove that heat expands while cold contracts, while you're at it!
Crass. Very crass.
Why can atmosphere at sea level exert enough pressure to crush a steel drum with a vacuum in it.
Clever. Very clever. The vacuum does all the work.
Which makes no sense. Why can atmosphere exert 14.7 psia of pressure at sea level and provide enough oxygen to support life. And at 60,000 feet only be 1 psia and not support life.
Because requires oxygen to function, maybe?
If I were to launch a bunch of rockets filled with oxygen boosters into the upper atmosphere (not because I wanted to "explore space" but because I was an evil globalist hoping to suffocate the Earth), my evil plan wouldn't work. The oxygen would diffuse down to lower levels. Meanwhile, NASA is talking about helium shortages. Hmmmm, wonder why? Could it be because their real satellites (the balloons they use) are dispersing helium up into the upper atmosphere?
-
Edit: because gravity is soooo important it didn't come until "Sir" Isaac Newton. Nobody else was important enough to discover it. Right.
Or maybe, buoyancy replaces gravity as the fundamental force, as it was used for literally everything.
they had various "theories" such as Ancient Greek nobility of elements. These were pretty useless as you were not able to produce any results from them. Buoyancy needs force other than itself to even exist . It is a result of gravity
-
Yes, yes, I'm running away.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1221174514159976560/image.png?ex=66119e64&is=65ff2964&hm=5f44533a3d94b3f163d030bb4007d41bdcb4fff9c3eb060bc176f700bc96ba49&)
You're the gutless coward that does a 2-on-1 gangup.
And I'm supposed to somehow field all the questions you and JackBlack (and maybe Code-Beta) ask.
Bullies are cowards. Every school child knows that if someone had any guts, they'd fight people alone.
What they call "pick on someone your own size."
But while we're all the topic of fleeing, I do believe Code-Beta is the only one who even bothered to respond and his answer made no sense. Something about a sphere collapsing into tinier spheres.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1123593550983090283/1220569410238943242/PayUp.png?ex=660f6ad8&is=65fcf5d8&hm=2873ba91fdf50693160b71e4f900f8140ad58ec4d88b36ac9caf6e3296c6010e&)
Man up, and answer the question. You say gravity holds water in place, but I can plop down a hemisphere where it is sure to rain and a basin right next to it, and only the basin will hold water. You never will admit this, so you instead get your buddies to all talk at once, and then accuse me of fleeing when I honestly don't feel like answering two or three people today. You've been running away from this question since I asked it, but you're gonna tell me I'm fleeing.
I am not obligated to answer any of your questions while you still haven't addressed this.
And I'm pretty sure you haven't, because I haven't noticed it in any of your posts.
But if you're interested, the model is simple.
You see, buoyancy divides the water and the sky into layers. Less air molecules on top, more air molecules below that, some water molecules below that, dense water molecules on bottom. Gravity, on the other hand, is not a stable model. If we were to follow the train of thought to its logical conclusion, the entire atmosphere ought to be falling towards the ground. But that's not what happens!
you change topics quite a lot so it makes sense for people to ignore it.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/542232792168267780/1221452973834768424/PayUpfix.png?ex=6612a1ba&is=66002cba&hm=a858ec4634fa5ce9dc398496f87061b5878c43033c74d70730b70dec74871829&)
reason why water flows into valley isnt because some metaphysical attraction towards half a globe, but rather because gravity pulls it down as much as it can. In valley it cant flow down because there is bottom of it holding it down. In "hill" ie second picture water is free to slide down and flow towards point of least potential ie red spot. It will try its hardest to reach it
-
Hey Jerkovsky, the only time you will ever experience buoyancy is when you open a playboy centerfold.
As for gravity, your low hanging fruit knows all about gravity. Why didn't you just do your globe shattering experiment by unzipping your fly while standing over a bucket, and pouring in ice cold water to prove water will flow off a ball but be collected in a container? You could also prove that heat expands while cold contracts, while you're at it!
Crass. Very crass.
Why can atmosphere at sea level exert enough pressure to crush a steel drum with a vacuum in it.
Clever. Very clever. The vacuum does all the work.
Which makes no sense. Why can atmosphere exert 14.7 psia of pressure at sea level and provide enough oxygen to support life. And at 60,000 feet only be 1 psia and not support life.
Because requires oxygen to function, maybe?
If I were to launch a bunch of rockets filled with oxygen boosters into the upper atmosphere (not because I wanted to "explore space" but because I was an evil globalist hoping to suffocate the Earth), my evil plan wouldn't work. The oxygen would diffuse down to lower levels. Meanwhile, NASA is talking about helium shortages. Hmmmm, wonder why? Could it be because their real satellites (the balloons they use) are dispersing helium up into the upper atmosphere?
how can balloon stay stationary in sky for years? How can it make circle around earth in 90 minutes in case of ISS?
If we remove a ball to a chamber as you say (let's do a tennis ball and an experimental vacuum room).
Reddit says that contrary to popular belief, a ball won't bounce forever in a perfect vacuum, because it loses kinetic energy as heat for each bounce.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/fki8wc/would_a_ball_bounce_forever_in_perfect_vacuum/
I would go a step further and say that it probably wouldn't bounce at all, because it has no air to push back up against.
well then it would be a lot harder to jump at mountain since you have less air to push aganst
https://www.google.com/search?q=vacuum+chamber+feather&source=lmns&tbm=vid&bih=1050&biw=2133&prmd=ivsnmbtz&rlz=1C1ASUM_enRS1025RS1025&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOxPXEh42FAxVi8wIHHUdmBB4Q0pQJKAJ6BAgBEAY#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:63d33110,vid:E43-CfukEgs,st:0
you see both ball and feathers bounce in vaccum
-
1. Atmospheric pressure is what you assume gravity is, and that thinner air ought to mean you can jump six times as high.
Yet again you present a pathetic strawman.
Atmospheric pressure is CAUSED by gravity, not what gravity is.
Thinner air would mean you are slowed down by the air less, but that is negligible.
Thinner air would also mean that there is less of a buoyant force pushing you up.
Less air would mean a balloon with a rigid skin would fall faster.
In other words, air presses down on us
No. Air presses from all directions.
This includes from below.
And due to the pressure gradient, it pushes more from below than above.
Now where would you get this idea?
By listening to dishonest people like you that need to lie about reality to try to discredit reality to try to pretend your fantasy is real.
Don't forget the Czechoslovak movie Ikarie XB 1. It pictures weightlessness even before they could see from real space footage.
Then why don't you provide a link to a video and include the timestamp of this?
Also, you don't need real space footage to understand weightlessness.
Again, it isn't weightless because it is in space, it is because it is in free fall.
Hold up here. Before something is explored, we already have decided that its thin atmosphere ought to allow high jumping.
No, through an understanding and basic math. Something you seem entirely ignorant of.
And again, the lack of atmosphere has nothing to do with it.
Mount Everest has thin air too.
Which doesn't mean you can jump higher.
but vacuum tests show the opposite.
How?
Or do you just mean they show your strawman is a blatant lie?
Some people at least have brains in their head.
You should try it some time.
But we have plenty of buoyancy tests in areas of higher pressure (water has higher pressure than air).
Buoyancy doesn't rely upon the absolute pressure. It relies upon the pressure gradient.
This pressure gradient is a function of density and gravity.
If you drop a ball in the water, it floats, because the upwards force from the pressure gradient of the water is greater than the downwards force due to gravity.
Unless you are talking about Vomit Comet as an example (which is a factor of momentum not gravity or air pressure)
The Vomit Comet is about free fall, where the craft itself is accelerating down to Earth at a rate equal to that of the people inside due to gravity.
In this, the buoyant force vanishes, because the pressure gradient vanishes.
Buoyancy is active when determining whether something is rising or falling while at rest.
This literally makes no sense.
Just as you can toss a ball up in the air, and it slows then reverses direction, you can toss a ball downward in a pool and it slows and reverses direction
Yes, due to the forces acting on it.
A combination of gravity and buoyancy.
Diffusion. And they don't bunch up as you say. They separate into layers of atmosphere.
Diffusion would mean they separate, not bunch up.
And saying they separate into layers doesn't help you.
The air at sea level is a much greater pressure than at high altitudes.
What magic is maintaining this pressure gradient?
It can't be buoyancy, because the air is the same density as the surroundings.
We can even increase the pressure gradient through other means and see that it doesn't magically get held.
Why can atmosphere at sea level exert enough pressure to crush a steel drum with a vacuum in it.
Clever. Very clever. The vacuum does all the work.
No, the vacuum does nothing.
The air pressure around it does.
If you place the steel drum in a vacuum chamber, and remove the air, the drum is fine.
It is only if you have a large pressure on the outside and far less on the inside does it get crushed, due to the air outside pushing in.
The oxygen would diffuse down to lower levels.
That isn't how diffusion works.
Diffusion goes in all directions, not magically down.
What I think you mean is that you can't maintain that large pressure there because there isn't enough air above pushing down due to gravity.
Again, we know buoyancy is NOT a fundamental force.
We know it is a result of the pressure gradient, which is the result of a downwards force.
All your lies can't change this.
Another fact which destroys your buoyancy fantasy is that you can measure the downwards force, by varying the density of the object and fluid and find that the net downwards force is:
F=g*V*(rho_obj - rho_flu)
i.e. we see that there appears to be 2 forces, one going down based upon the mass, and one going up.
The maximum upwards force we could ever get is from a hypothetical object with 0 mass being immersed in a dense fluid, which is then g*V*rho_flu.
Yet somehow you want us to believe that even though the maximum upwards force it can exert, it can magically exert a much larger force downwards?
e.g. in air, if you have a cube 1 m wide, the maximum upwards force is roughly 12 N.
But the downwards force can be much larger, e.g. if that cube was made out of steel, it would be 77 kN.
HOW?
What allows the air to push down so much more?
Especially when the pressure gradient in the air is pushing upwards?
But another important fact we see is the dependence on g.
If we go around Earth, that force varies.
This makes no sense in your fantasy, but perfect sense for the RE.
Your idea simply doesn't make any sense at all.
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1123593550983090283/1220569410238943242/PayUp.png?ex=660f6ad8&is=65fcf5d8&hm=2873ba91fdf50693160b71e4f900f8140ad58ec4d88b36ac9caf6e3296c6010e&)
This is amazing
If the model of a globe earth has thinhs falling toawrds the center of the globe, why then would you draw (middle image) the cut southern half with the water falling to bottom of the screen, vs center of the globe.
Where did the center go?
Do you not know how to find the center of a circle?
If you cut the circle in half up-down.
And it rained on each.
What wiuld you imagine that looking like?
The rain clouds oriented up-down alao as originally drawn?
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1123593550983090283/1220569410238943242/PayUp.png?ex=660f6ad8&is=65fcf5d8&hm=2873ba91fdf50693160b71e4f900f8140ad58ec4d88b36ac9caf6e3296c6010e&)
This is amazing
If the model of a globe earth has thinhs falling toawrds the center of the globe, why then would you draw (middle image) the cut southern half with the water falling to bottom of the screen, vs center of the globe.
Where did the center go?
Do you not know how to find the center of a circle?
If you cut the circle in half up-down.
And it rained on each.
What wiuld you imagine that looking like?
The rain clouds oriented up-down alao as originally drawn?
It's not amazing. It's one of the saddest things I've ever seen in my life. They don't call him bullshitbeliefs144 for nuthin, and boy does he live up to his name!
-
144 is 122. It's also a gross number.
Globe Earth holds water because of gravity
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1123593550983090283/1220569410238943242/PayUp.png?ex=660f6ad8&is=65fcf5d8&hm=2873ba91fdf50693160b71e4f900f8140ad58ec4d88b36ac9caf6e3296c6010e&)
Seriously, give me all your money.
You have people who claim to have circumnavigated the globe.
(https://cdn.britannica.com/s:700x500/76/20676-049-D10EC86B/circumnavigation-globe-route-navigator-Ferdinand-Magellan-Portuguese-1521.jpg)
Not circumnavigation.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1220572346742607943/flat_earth_highs_and_lows.png?ex=660f6d94&is=65fcf894&hm=f59d92524a835af0bf7f645e3e207994fccfdf9446bf04c8354c9bc0240fd2a5&)
What about this?
(https://www.oceannews.com/images/webnews/2019/August/Week-8-5-19/1-saildrone-circumnavigation-track-750px.jpg)
Or this?
(https://www.iridium.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ACE-Route-1080x1089.jpg)
Skirting the edge is not proof. This is what skimming actually looks like on a flat Earth map.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B20ljGkuutA/VyNcXyV0TbI/AAAAAAAAFjI/CGD644FMmTg2C5_rXCNNzxoUuadMDgEHgCLcB/s1600/antarctic%2B-%2Bswiss%2Bpolar%2Binst.%2Bon%2Bflat%2Bearth%2Bpath.jpg)
Your maps are inside out.
My bad. I lost count of all your backwards posts and missed replying to this steaming pile of doo doo.
What's the significance of 12 x 12 to you?
Skimming the edge of Antarctica and plotting its shape, is circumnavigating it. As for your sophisticated drawings of how rain fills a bowl but runs down a hill, all I can say is I'm glad you asked your two year old sister to do the artwork for you. The drawing style really suits the babyish concepts you promote.
Ritalin is just a fancy name for speed isn't it? I hope you aren't self medicating on that shit.....
-
A convex vs concave Earth. I hollowed out the inside of the underside, except where lands are. The lands allow runoff and the water gathers as oceans. Exactly how Earth actually is.
(https://www.readersdigest.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/dirty-dishes-sink-shutterstock_143876221.jpg)
Concave.
(https://cdn.techinasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/umbrella-rain.jpg)
Convex.
Amazing. Designers of tech know that water ("gravity" or no) doesn't stick to convex surfaces.
What's your excuse?
And no, it doesn't matter to me where the sphere is question is hollow or solid.
To answer the other question, I'm clean and sober. Don't even drink alcohol or caffeine. Been that way since early college, where I realized the drugs they gave me to "help me concentrate" were making me weird and unsociable. I'd rather be weird on my own merits, thank you.
-
But the model says things fall to tue center.
You have them fall literally down in relation to the page.
Draw it out.
A vertical cut with clouds on the left and right.
Accordingnto you which way will the rain fall?
-
you change topics quite a lot so it makes sense for people to ignore it.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/542232792168267780/1221452973834768424/PayUpfix.png?ex=6612a1ba&is=66002cba&hm=a858ec4634fa5ce9dc398496f87061b5878c43033c74d70730b70dec74871829&)
reason why water flows into valley isnt because some metaphysical attraction towards half a globe, but rather because gravity pulls it down as much as it can. In valley it cant flow down because there is bottom of it holding it down. In "hill" ie second picture water is free to slide down and flow towards point of least potential ie red spot. It will try its hardest to reach it
problem
Thank you for drawing a better picture.
Gravity claims credit for what other rules of science actually do.
It is not being pulled down. It's rolling down on its own initiative. Water is more massive than air. Angular momentum, buoyancy (the real rule includes sinking as well as floating), and adhesion means that water slides down with other water, which all slides down because there is a gap of air on the surface of the hill. If I didn't hollow out this bottom half, it would gather on top but eventually spill off the edge as volume of water exceeded total space on top.
-
(https://cdn.techinasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/umbrella-rain.jpg)
What overcomes the adhesive and cohesive forces to pull the rain drops off the umbrella in the first place?
And your little mind can’t comprehend that the spherical earth has gravity, and the earth and the water are both in free fall orbit around the sun.
So. Why would the water not settle out equal distance around the earth.
What would pull water off a spherical earth in the heliocentric model?
And you still have no working model for tides. Where the heliocentric model has accurate forecasts
And you still ignore..
Lunar and solar eclipses.
The ISS
The sun would have to turn constantly and visibly to circuit over a flat earth.
No explanation why a sun in air would stay in orbit above a flat earth.
Why there isn’t glare and layers of soot and dust on your imaginary dome.
Why celestial navigation works.
Why these simple dial star atlases are accurate for the northern and southern hemispheres. Where the souther hemisphere atlas would have to be a bigger dial than its northern counterpart with no southern celestial pole at the center.
(https://i.imgur.com/EQBVj4s.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/OuU3kzq.jpg)
Years using a northern hemisphere star atlas. And all this time, the simplest and most direct argument that flat earth is debunked and dead is the simple fact a 15 dollar dial southern star atlas is effective and accurate. Where in a flat earth it would be totally useless.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
-
Angular momentum,
By what force causes acceleration down in the first place.
I have a gallon of water sitting on my desk. How do I get it to buoyant fall up. Then what causes the water go up, change direction, and then accelerate down.
Note. Forgotten important aspect. Where down is from less pressure and less atmospheric density. Down into more atmospheric pressure and increased density. And more resistance that should increase the buoyant lifting force?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
-
Angular momentum, not being a force (I think they call it a reaction) is dependent on a force, as you say.
That force is buoyancy. Buoyancy determines sinking and floating.
The rainclouds, the rain, and the water running or pooling is all H2O.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1221826701709934757/PayUp.png?ex=6613fdca&is=660188ca&hm=08fe33ef12551a4f2d1b77b37408567ed5c9f63cd17e5c9714ff9f96af199126&)
In figure 1, volume of water builds on the surface until it has nowhere to go. It then moves towards the nearest edge. Why does it do so? After all, it seems as though the top in figure 1 is perfectly flat. I'll even humor you and say that it is perfectly flat. But it's got nowhere to go, so it pushes against other water. Water is less dense than air. Water moves away from water, and towards air.
Figure 2, water is less dense than the slope and more dense than air. Water moves away from the slope, and towards air. Down the hill.
Figure 3, water is less dense than the slope and more dense than air. Water moves away from the slope, and towards air. Down the hill.
The raincloud has water thin enough that it floats due to low density. When it reaches critical mass, it falls as rain.
-
amazing
is the placement of the #2 in your sketch where the center of gravity would be in relation to the curved surface?
-
Angular momentum,
Which is not a force. Takes a force to drive it.
How do you accelerate mass in any direction without a force.
How do you take a gallon of water acceleration it straight up. Then how does the same gallon of water slow faster than what is accounted for by air resistance. Stop mid air with the buoyant force of a fluid atmosphere still trying to lift the water. Change direction 180 degrees of travel.
And not just accelerate down. But accelerate down from less pressure and atmospheric density into greater pressure, atmospheric density, and resistance.
-
Figure 2, water is less dense than the slope and more dense than air.
What density do you measure slope in?
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Wind never blows rain and hail upward?
At what point does hail gain enough mass to fall down from the wind that was circulating it in the atmosphere to build its layers up to accelerate down from less pressure and atmospheric density into greater pressure, atmospheric density, and resistance.
-
datqa
you getting a little abstract talking forces and momentum
the guy put the gravitation center of the globe, outside the globe!
out the gate he's wrong.
-
A convex vs concave Earth.
Both of which are pathetic strawmen.
Here is a more accurate depiction of your crap:
(https://i.imgur.com/JSYwOrk.png)
With your tiny crap on the top of a much larger sphere.
Notice how this doesn't represent the RE model?
Stop with your pathetic strawmen.
All they do is show your dishonesty.
It is not being pulled down. It's rolling down on its own initiative.
They can't just magically go down all by itself, it needs a force to make it move.
Angular momentum, buoyancy
Do not help you at all.
Angular momentum has nothing to do with it.
Buoyancy relies upon the downwards force you are yet to explain.
But notice how you are trying to attack the RE model, with your fantasy?
That force is buoyancy. Buoyancy determines sinking and floating.
No, buoyancy is a result of the force you are ignoring.
The combination of buoyancy and that force determines if things sink or float.
Buoyancy is an upwards force. It can't make things go down.
In figure
Is yet another strawman of yours so we can just ignore it as the steaming pile of BS it is.
Your garbage has no connection to reality at all.
-
A convex vs concave Earth. I hollowed out the inside of the underside, except where lands are. The lands allow runoff and the water gathers as oceans. Exactly how Earth actually is.
(https://www.readersdigest.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/dirty-dishes-sink-shutterstock_143876221.jpg)
Concave.
(https://cdn.techinasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/umbrella-rain.jpg)
Convex.
Amazing. Designers of tech know that water ("gravity" or no) doesn't stick to convex surfaces.
What's your excuse?
And no, it doesn't matter to me where the sphere is question is hollow or solid.
To answer the other question, I'm clean and sober. Don't even drink alcohol or caffeine. Been that way since early college, where I realized the drugs they gave me to "help me concentrate" were making me weird and unsociable. I'd rather be weird on my own merits, thank you.
it isnt about sticking to convex/concave surface. it is about flowing to place of least potential. Jack showed that quite nice and i think even a child can understand that
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/702920399201107988/1221922395607269376/cars.png?ex=661456e9&is=6601e1e9&hm=4c37e656ee0ab0c7f1eb0aa0a367db0c5779c74471b304258a2429ff7b657dfa&)
i am struggling to understand your system. it seems you still think using gravity despite claiming it isnt real. There is minimal difference in air (circles) in front and in back of car. I dont think few meters of gradient will push car that much
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/702920399201107988/1221922395607269376/cars.png?ex=661456e9&is=6601e1e9&hm=4c37e656ee0ab0c7f1eb0aa0a367db0c5779c74471b304258a2429ff7b657dfa&)
i am struggling to understand your system. it seems you still think using gravity despite claiming it isnt real. There is minimal difference in air (circles) in front and in back of car. I dont think few meters of gradient will push car that much
Past arguments…
Shrugs..
Air is thinner above, and thicker below. Heavy objects fall from thinner air. High altitudes have thinner air.
No. Air pressure is literal greater at sea level than at 10,000 feet. When air pressure makes flow to move objects, it flows from high pressure to low pressure. In a pipe, air pressure would make a steel ball move from high pressure to low pressure if there was flow.
Air maintains equilibrium for the precise reason that while yes, air does tend to filter to lower pressure, the atmosphere and objects are two different things.
Yes, you are correct. Air pressure is greater at sea level than 10,000 feet up. It is also greater at sea level than six feet off the ground.
Air and water are called mediums. If an object is heavier than a layer of medium (like air six feet off the ground), then it falls through it to a more dense layer. You would need to either make the bottom layer of air so thick that the car or whatever "floats" up the hill, or create a "geyser" effect where air pushes up to a layer above itself.
Learn to read. Please. I am so unbelievably tired of having to explain things to you over and over again.
You tried to dodge the question.
A car on a hill in neutral with no brakes applied and the same mechanical advantage to go up or down from the wheels. Why does the car not roll up into less pressure and resistance. There is still a buoyant force pushing up on the car from greater atmospheric pressure below into lower atmospheric pressure above.
Water has greater pressure than air, does it not?
Let's ask science.
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/2271
Actually, water pressure is generally stronger than air pressure. Think of it this way... if you had a plastic bottle filled with water and you poked a hole in the side, would water squirt out or would air squirt in? If air squirted in, then the air pressure would have to be higher.
Wrong. Though you are right about water being more pressurized than air. While pressure does diffuse higher to lower, you are confusing diffusion with states of matter. Water is flowing out because it is denser than air as a medium, it is also flowing out because water is a liquid and air is a gas. In other words, mediums are also objects, and they float on denser mediums and sink through mediums they are denser than. Air is floating above water, so water pours out. Not because it is weighing it down but because it is a denser medium.
Is it false it takes a force to make an object accelerate. What makes the car on the hill move from standstill to accelerate down when the force of the atmosphere is “buoyancy” that wants to push the car up.
You just conflated energy and force.
-
i am struggling to understand your system. it seems you still think using gravity despite claiming it isnt real. There is minimal difference in air (circles) in front and in back of car. I dont think few meters of gradient will push car that much
If you actually care to understand, it's rather simple.
"Gravity" is a word that "Sir" Isaac Newton (Sir being a title of knighthood added to him for shilling for the Masonic globalist elites of the day) came up with to replace several already existing rules of science.
That is, Isaac Newton didn't discover gravity. He invented it. It's a catch-all of other rules and theories already discovered by other scientists, it isn't logically consistent, and it's basically a series of memes. Starting with the meme about how he wouldn't have known about gravity without an apple falling near him, and continuing with crap about objects in motion staying in motion or equal and opposite forces.
Do you really think it possible that Newton did not know things fall until an apple possibly whacked him on the head? Dude, little toddlers know that things fall. Newton discovered nothing, he just came up with an idea to justify his biases.
Actual scientists for centuries before Newton came up with actual systems for how a number of things worked, without any help from him. Moreover, while his theory of gravity yield no direct inventions (to me, the test of whether a theory is true or not is not whether a group of scientists peer review it, but whether it actually works) to the best of my knowledge, buoyancy not only was not only able to make boats work well before Newton came along, but also a number of balloons. And despite aerodynamics, at least some buoyancy is also involved in planes.
Newton called gravity "causes hitherto unknown," but this was a steaming load of crap. In other words, Newton was among other things, a massive narcissist who thought that nobody in the past ever figured anything out.
Yeah, we knew before you, guy. It was buoyancy. Buoyancy makes things rise and it makes them fall. There is no separate force. Gravity is an invention. Just as 100 years before Newton, a guy named Joseph-Louis Lagrange comes up with something called the
https://www.sciencenordic.com/denmark-forskerzonen-physics/gravity-it-is-all-in-your-head/1453728
On the other hand, Archimedes ran naked through the streets, having discovered displacement, an offset of the principle of buoyancy. What he discover? That as part of buoyancy, heavy objects press down of fluids as they sink into them. Objects, not forces. Archimedes also invented center of mass (now called "center of gravity"), proved the law of the lever, the Archimedes screw, a crane used for ships in battle (Archimedes claw), a heat ray by reflecting sunlight on incoming ships using a mirror system, and instruments of astronomy (I never say I agree with heliocentrism, but he at least invented things, unlike Hawking who just sat around in a chair and made wise-sounding pronouncements).
But outside of Marvel Comics, there aren't gravity weapons, and I haven't heard of any least action devices.
I trust the guy whose theory makes hot air balloons and boats possible.
Every modern equation of buoyancy has (G) in it. But if you had any sense, you'd understand that this is a tacked-on addition that was never in the original equation, because it wasn't until about 1666 or so that Isaac Newton came along with is nonsense, whereas Archimedes sat his fat ass down in a tub in about 200 BC. Buoyancy is a law. Modern buoyancy now uses "gravity" because gravity is a so-called "fundamental force." No. It's not. It's something a newcomer by about 1800 years has plopped into an existing force in order to usurp its position as actual fundamental force.
You can't get very far in a world where planes don't fly, ships don't float, and balloons can't rise up. I fact, you would be utterly stuck if you learned about "gravity" before learning that things float.
The fundamental forces are all usable.
1. Buoyancy allows most transportation. It also is responsible for how most fluids diffuse, and systems like turgor pressure, which is essential for how plants absorb water.
2. Electromagnetism is responsible for much of modern devices, including electricity, compasses, radio, etc.
3. Cohesion is what holds atoms together and what holds similar molecules together (yes, I merged weak attraction and strong attraction together). Cohesion allows nuclear technology, and allows matter to exist.
4. Adhesion is the property of different surfaces to stick. Not only does this allow things like coatings on frypans or different types of glues, but breaking adhesion is the primary goal of nonstick substances. In fact, all chemistry is due to adhesion reactions of a sort.
The universe works because fluids of difference masses sort themselves out. The universe works because electrical energy and magnetism do their thing. It work because atoms and molecules hold together. And it works because of chemical reactions. This is why I chose these four.
Gravity? No applications that cannot be attributed to something else.
-
(http://)
-
I trust the guy whose theory makes hot air balloons and boats possible.
Because gravity causes pressure gradients in liquids and fluids.
What causes the air molecules to bunch up at earth’s surface to make buoyancy a thing?
Back to my jeep wrangler analogy.
I can push my car around in neutral all day long on flat surfaces. The moment I try to push the same car in neutral up hill from greater atmospheric pressure and density into less pressure and density I don’t have the muscle.
If there is no gravity, why can’t I push the car up hill. Where I can push it around all day long on a flat surface.
-
Word salad....
Why wont you answer:
Why did you put the center of the circle OUTSIDE the circle in the concave image?
-
i am struggling to understand your system. it seems you still think using gravity despite claiming it isnt real. There is minimal difference in air (circles) in front and in back of car. I dont think few meters of gradient will push car that much
If you actually care to understand, it's rather simple.
"Gravity" is a word that "Sir" Isaac Newton (Sir being a title of knighthood added to him for shilling for the Masonic globalist elites of the day) came up with to replace several already existing rules of science.
That is, Isaac Newton didn't discover gravity. He invented it. It's a catch-all of other rules and theories already discovered by other scientists, it isn't logically consistent, and it's basically a series of memes. Starting with the meme about how he wouldn't have known about gravity without an apple falling near him, and continuing with crap about objects in motion staying in motion or equal and opposite forces.
Do you really think it possible that Newton did not know things fall until an apple possibly whacked him on the head? Dude, little toddlers know that things fall. Newton discovered nothing, he just came up with an idea to justify his biases.
Actual scientists for centuries before Newton came up with actual systems for how a number of things worked, without any help from him. Moreover, while his theory of gravity yield no direct inventions (to me, the test of whether a theory is true or not is not whether a group of scientists peer review it, but whether it actually works) to the best of my knowledge, buoyancy not only was not only able to make boats work well before Newton came along, but also a number of balloons. And despite aerodynamics, at least some buoyancy is also involved in planes.
Newton called gravity "causes hitherto unknown," but this was a steaming load of crap. In other words, Newton was among other things, a massive narcissist who thought that nobody in the past ever figured anything out.
Yeah, we knew before you, guy. It was buoyancy. Buoyancy makes things rise and it makes them fall. There is no separate force. Gravity is an invention. Just as 100 years before Newton, a guy named Joseph-Louis Lagrange comes up with something called the
https://www.sciencenordic.com/denmark-forskerzonen-physics/gravity-it-is-all-in-your-head/1453728
On the other hand, Archimedes ran naked through the streets, having discovered displacement, an offset of the principle of buoyancy. What he discover? That as part of buoyancy, heavy objects press down of fluids as they sink into them. Objects, not forces. Archimedes also invented center of mass (now called "center of gravity"), proved the law of the lever, the Archimedes screw, a crane used for ships in battle (Archimedes claw), a heat ray by reflecting sunlight on incoming ships using a mirror system, and instruments of astronomy (I never say I agree with heliocentrism, but he at least invented things, unlike Hawking who just sat around in a chair and made wise-sounding pronouncements).
But outside of Marvel Comics, there aren't gravity weapons, and I haven't heard of any least action devices.
I trust the guy whose theory makes hot air balloons and boats possible.
Every modern equation of buoyancy has (G) in it. But if you had any sense, you'd understand that this is a tacked-on addition that was never in the original equation, because it wasn't until about 1666 or so that Isaac Newton came along with is nonsense, whereas Archimedes sat his fat ass down in a tub in about 200 BC. Buoyancy is a law. Modern buoyancy now uses "gravity" because gravity is a so-called "fundamental force." No. It's not. It's something a newcomer by about 1800 years has plopped into an existing force in order to usurp its position as actual fundamental force.
You can't get very far in a world where planes don't fly, ships don't float, and balloons can't rise up. I fact, you would be utterly stuck if you learned about "gravity" before learning that things float.
The fundamental forces are all usable.
1. Buoyancy allows most transportation. It also is responsible for how most fluids diffuse, and systems like turgor pressure, which is essential for how plants absorb water.
2. Electromagnetism is responsible for much of modern devices, including electricity, compasses, radio, etc.
3. Cohesion is what holds atoms together and what holds similar molecules together (yes, I merged weak attraction and strong attraction together). Cohesion allows nuclear technology, and allows matter to exist.
4. Adhesion is the property of different surfaces to stick. Not only does this allow things like coatings on frypans or different types of glues, but breaking adhesion is the primary goal of nonstick substances. In fact, all chemistry is due to adhesion reactions of a sort.
The universe works because fluids of difference masses sort themselves out. The universe works because electrical energy and magnetism do their thing. It work because atoms and molecules hold together. And it works because of chemical reactions. This is why I chose these four.
Gravity? No applications that cannot be attributed to something else.
Hah... *sighs*
Ok, do want me to, like, teach you highschool physics concepts one on one? There are so many things fundamentally wrong with how you think. Buoyancy is not a force. Ok, well, maybe it is, but is the consequences of another force, namely the attractive force between any two masses in the universe. Now I could go on and on about how and why you are wrong, but let's not. Cause I have something else to address.
You're telling me Newton discovered *nothing*? Regardless of our disagreement between gravity, he discovered that light is composed of many colours, introduced the three laws of motion, invented calculus (well, Leibniz did too, but still), formulated the law of cooling (which does not hold under huge difference but yeah) and made many other important mathematical discoveries. To call Newton a pretentious prick is to call yourself ignorant of the history of sciences.
Now taking into account the article you've linked to is a good one. The writer clearly knows what he's dealing with. And yet, I believe he's wrong. But I could be wrong too. As I see it, it is indeed true undeniable that "all masses in the universe attract one other". Now what you call this attraction is left entirely upto you. There is just two problems with your statement, and it is that "Gravity is an invention." is completely taken out of context and two, you lack the ability to comprehend articles. Hopefully though, you will be able to comprehend my reply.
EDIT: I did say that writer of the article you've linked to is wrong, but not completely. Namely, the things that I disagree on is the existence of gravity, and the fact that the principal of least action cannot be used alone without the force of gravity in predicting the trajectory of a mechanical system.
-
and the fact that the principal of least action cannot be used alone without the force of gravity in predicting the trajectory of a mechanical system.
Yeah, we knew before you, guy. It was buoyancy. Buoyancy makes things rise and it makes them fall. There is no separate force. Gravity is an invention. Just as 100 years before Newton, a guy named Joseph-Louis Lagrange comes up with something called the
https://www.sciencenordic.com/denmark-forskerzonen-physics/gravity-it-is-all-in-your-head/1453728
This is where if bulmabriefs144 had a leg to stand on. The individual would accurately and reliably model bullet trajectories and heaver than air flight without gravity.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
-
Yeah, we knew before you, guy. It was buoyancy. Buoyancy makes things rise and it makes them fall.
Buoyancy only exists in a body of a fluid.
We can remove the atmosphere from a chamber to the point atmosphere is negligible or meaningless. And yet objects still accelerate down. And as the atmosphere is removed that provides the medium for buoyancy, items weigh more.
So things have weight and accelerate down to earth when the medium that provides buoyancy is removed.
Will Helium Filled Balloons Float or Sink In a Vacuum Chamber?
-
"Gravity" is a word that "Sir" Isaac Newton (Sir being a title of knighthood added to him for shilling for the Masonic globalist elites of the day) came up with to replace several already existing rules of science.
No, that is just your strawman.
Gravity was is use before Newton. Newton came up with an explanation for gravity, as mass attracting mass, rather than a magical downwards force proportional to mass.
That is all.
That then allowed other things to be explained with it.
It follow quite simple rules (in the low energy limit) and works to explain things quite well.
it isn't logically consistent
You keep repeating this, but the only attempts you have to demonstrate the inconsistency are outright lies.
You cannot show a single contradiction.
continuing with crap about objects in motion staying in motion or equal and opposite forces.
Entirely separate to gravity, and backed up by mountains of evidence.
Do you really think it possible that Newton did not know things fall until an apple possibly whacked him on the head? Dude, little toddlers know that things fall.
As above, they knew that things fell, and had a magical downwards force proportional to mass.
Newton proposed the idea that it wasn't a magical force, instead it was a force of attraction between masses.
And that worked.
Moreover, while his theory of gravity yield no direct inventions
Except things like gravimeters used to detect things like underground oil deposits.
buoyancy
Was nothing like the delusional BS you are presenting.
Even Archimedes recognises what you are saying is BS.
Buoyancy, as per Archimedes, is an UPWARDS FORCE based upon the WEIGHT of fluid displaced.
That relied upon gravity, i.e. weight.
It is not the fundamental force you pretend it is.
Buoyancy relies upon gravity.
This causes the pressure gradient.
This pressure gradient pushes things up.
You lying wont save you.
Every modern equation of buoyancy has (G) in it.
And the previous ones had it in disguise.
Again, Archimedes makes it clear, an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed UPWARDS by a force equal to the WEIGHT of the fluid displaced.
No weight, no buoyancy.
And this should make any honest, sane person realise that buoyancy is NOT a fundamental force.
But I guess that excludes you.
Buoyancy is a law.
Just like gravity. Yet you reject both laws, and instead replace it with delusional BS.
The law for buoyancy is quite simple F_B=W_fluid
The fundamental forces are all usable.
Just like gravity, and nothing like buoyancy without gravity.
The universe works because fluids of difference masses sort themselves out.
But why do they?
Gravity? No applications that cannot be attributed to something else.
That would be buoyancy that has nothing which cannot be attributed to something else.
Buoyancy is nothing more than a manifestation of gravity and electromagnetism.
You lying about that wont change it.
Buoyancy cannot explain why there is a pressure gradient in fluids.
It cannot explain why that pressure gradient remains.
It cannot explain why that pressure gradient is proportional to the density of the fluid.
It cannot explain why this doesn't magically push everything up in addition to your magic buoyancy.
But gravity can.
Gravity directly explains why there is a pressure gradient.
It explains why this is proportional to the density of the fluid.
It explains why this pressure does push everything up as the force known as buoyancy.
Buoyancy CANNOT be a fundamental force.
If you want to reject gravity and have any hope of coming even close to being logical, still to the ancient, inexplicable idea of weight.
-
Bruh Archimedes and Newton both must be turning in their graves lol
-
Newton and Archimedes must be rolling in their graves.
Archimedes might be honored. Newton can go fuck himself.
Hah... *sighs*
Ok, do want me to, like, teach you highschool physics concepts one on one? There are so many things fundamentally wrong with how you think. Buoyancy is not a force. Ok, well, maybe it is, but is the consequences of another force, namely the attractive force between any two masses in the universe. Now I could go on and on about how and why you are wrong, but let's not. Cause I have something else to address.
You're not in a position to teach me anything. When you look up buoyancy, it repeatedly calls it an upward force.
You're telling me Newton discovered *nothing*? Regardless of our disagreement between gravity, he discovered that light is composed of many colours,
Something that any idiot holding a crystal while the sun is up well before him discovered. Newton was not a scientist. He was what is called a natural philosopher. And no, that's not a "for his time" substitute. He was basically a dude who sat around and made pompous pronouncements. A narcissist. I've had enough of narcissists in my life, I certainly know one when I see one.
introduced the three laws of motion,
Which are memes. But we'll talk about that later.
invented calculus (well, Leibniz did too, but still),
You see? He's like Einstein in that Family Guy episode.
formulated the law of cooling (which does not hold under huge difference but yeah) and made many other important mathematical discoveries. To call Newton a pretentious prick is to
have the correct assessment of the man.
Any idiot can discover that things cool. But it takes genius to write laws of thermodynamics.
Let's talk about these memes.
Newton said,
1. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an external force acts upon it. Similarly, if the object is at rest, it will remain at rest unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.
2. When a force acts on an object, it will cause the object to accelerate
3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Now, you may not have noticed this, but all three of these (probably self-proclaimed) "laws" of motion have a sort of snappy patter sound to them. Similar to if I'm trying to sell a book or advertise something. They are more concerned with sounding memorable than being right, which is why I call them memes. But let's examine how right they are...
(Continued)
-
1. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an external force acts upon it. Similarly, if the object is at rest, it will remain at rest unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.
If I were to knock a series of balls tied to a string, it would seem like this "law" that things stay in motion would mean this process never stops. But this is in violation to real scientific laws, those of the laws of thermodynamics. Motion does indeed wind down, as energy is gradually lost through conversion. Only a rare few things exist in perpetual motion. The sun, the moon, the tides. Stuff like that exist as long as there is an Earth.
Similarly, objects change despite themselves when left in stasis. They gather dust or cobwebs, people set on a couch forever either become morbidly obese (whereupon the couch collapses and from staying at rest, they are suddenly in motion) or they starve to death and have to be moved due to the stench.
2. When a force acts on an object, it will cause the object to accelerate
Not all forces are forces of motion. When entropy acts on an object, it generally causes it to lose energy (slow down)
3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
More snappy patter words to sell nonsense theories. Newton was a marketeer and a plagiarist, not a scientist. Is there always equal reaction? Is it always opposite? And how can he possibly say for every action?
In fact, he actually did self-proclaim these The Laws of Motion.
https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/NATP00105
They weren't laws because of scientific method. They weren't laws because of peer review. They were laws because of practical usage.
They were laws because "Sir" Isaac Newton said so. And everyone went along with what he said. Excuse me, Newton, but you're no knight. I hereby undub thee Sir Isaac Newton. You are now "Just Some Hack."
-
Ugh you guys distract him....
Focus up.
Why did bulmba draw the gravitational center outside the southern concave half of the globe?
-
If I were to knock a series of balls tied to a string, it would seem like this "law" that things stay in motion would mean this process never stops. But this is in violation to real scientific laws, those of the laws of thermodynamics.
Why would an object slow down and stop if there is no forces acting on it? What law does that violate?
But we know there is friction.
Now address the issues.
What causes air molecules to bunch up at earths surface and create a pressure gradient.
When you throw a ball straight up, what causes the ball to slow down faster than what can be attributed to air resistance. What makes the ball stop mid air. Makes the ball turn the direction of travel 180 degrees to fall back to earth. And not only fall back to earth but accelerate, and accelerate in to increasingly more pressure, density, and resistance.
Why can I take a car in neutral that I can push around all day on a flat surface, but not push it up hill in any meaningful way. What force fights me pushing a car up hill. Same wheels, same mechanical advantage.
Show how you can better model the trajectory of a bullet more accurately by ignoring gravity and using “buoyancy”.
Why for stable flight, the center of gravity for a rocket or an airplane must be ahead of the center of pressure.
The resultant of the aerodynamic forces acts on a different point, the center of pressure. The design of the aircraft will determine the relative location of the center of pressure and the center of gravity. The lower diagram shows two cases that yield different stability behavior. In (a) the center of gravity is in front of the center of pressure and small yaw or pitch motions produce an aerodynamic force that tends to restore the system to its initial orientation - an aerodynamically stable situation. When the center of pressure is in front of the center of mass, the aerodynamic forces due to small yaw or pitch deflections increase these deflections and the system is aerodynamically unstable.
(https://www.princeton.edu/~maelabs/hpt/mechanics/y4a-3.gif)
https://www.princeton.edu/~maelabs/hpt/mechanics/stability.htm
There is every indication something is working on mass that isn’t atmosphere. And that is called gravity.
-
Ugh
Again
Why you confuse/ overly complicate the situation!
-
Ugh you guys distract him....
Sorry dude, very little can distract me if I don't want to be distracted. I've had years to learn how to concentrate without medication.
Why did bulmba draw the gravitational center outside the southern concave half of the globe?
The center of mass, you mean.
Also, I simply cut the thing in half then carved it out like a pumpkin, tossing all those seeds and pulp into the compost.
You're the one that thinks it needs a gravity center. I couldn't care less about that.
Why you confuse/ overly complicate the situation!
Sorry kabool, Data is undependable.
I've learned over the years that he's full of crap.
-
1. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an external force acts upon it. Similarly, if the object is at rest, it will remain at rest unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.
If I were to knock a series of balls tied to a string, it would seem like this "law" that things stay in motion would mean this process never stops. But this is in violation to real scientific laws, those of the laws of thermodynamics. Motion does indeed wind down, as energy is gradually lost through conversion. Only a rare few things exist in perpetual motion. The sun, the moon, the tides. Stuff like that exist as long as there is an Earth.
Similarly, objects change despite themselves when left in stasis. They gather dust or cobwebs, people set on a couch forever either become morbidly obese (whereupon the couch collapses and from staying at rest, they are suddenly in motion) or they starve to death and have to be moved due to the stench.
2. When a force acts on an object, it will cause the object to accelerate
Not all forces are forces of motion. When entropy acts on an object, it generally causes it to lose energy (slow down)
3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
More snappy patter words to sell nonsense theories. Newton was a marketeer and a plagiarist, not a scientist. Is there always equal reaction? Is it always opposite? And how can he possibly say for every action?
In fact, he actually did self-proclaim these The Laws of Motion.
https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/NATP00105
They weren't laws because of scientific method. They weren't laws because of peer review. They were laws because of practical usage.
They were laws because "Sir" Isaac Newton said so. And everyone went along with what he said. Excuse me, Newton, but you're no knight. I hereby undub thee Sir Isaac Newton. You are now "Just Some Hack."
"They were laws because of practical usage." You said it yourself. Everything else you said is garbage, but you managed to debunk your own garbage with this one sentence of truth.
Just another fumbled attempt by a flat earther to discredit an esteemed scientist.
-
Ugh
Again
Why you confuse/ overly complicate the situation!
Please, I'm not the one over complicating stuff
-
Directed at data
-
Ugh you guys distract him....
Sorry dude, very little can distract me if I don't want to be distracted. I've had years to learn how to concentrate without medication.
Why did bulmba draw the gravitational center outside the southern concave half of the globe?
The center of mass, you mean.
Also, I simply cut the thing in half then carved it out like a pumpkin, tossing all those seeds and pulp into the compost.
You're the one that thinks it needs a gravity center. I couldn't care less about that.
Why you confuse/ overly complicate the situation!
Sorry kabool, Data is undependable.
I've learned over the years that he's full of crap.
But the earth globe model doestn have a hollow inside.
So representing it as hollow, then claiming the model doesnt work, is ridiculous.
If 2+2=4
yet i say
"2-2 = 4 is wrong.seeseee its wrong.
all math is wrong."
Does that make sense?
Are you ridiculous?
-
I've learned over the years that he's full of crap.
Really.
Then explain for a car in neutral with the same tires and mechanical advantage that I can physically push around all day by muscle on a flat surface, but can’t push it up hill into less dense atmospheric pressure and density. With greater pressure and density trying to push it up hill.
What force is preventing me from pushing the car up hill.
-
Data is undependable.
I've learned over the years that he's full of crap.
If the earth is flat. Then why is this dial star atlas for the southern hemisphere accurate, and reliably predict the movement of the constellations in the southern hemisphere.
(https://i.imgur.com/OuU3kzq.jpg)
A 15 dollar star atlas that totally and soundly kills flat earth. Simplest and most obtainable demonstrable proof the heliocentric model is correct.
What flat earth star atlas you got? That works for accurate and reliable predictions of the movements of the constellations?
🤪
-
Newton and Archimedes must be rolling in their graves.
Archimedes might be honored. Newton can go fuck himself.
Hah... *sighs*
Ok, do want me to, like, teach you highschool physics concepts one on one? There are so many things fundamentally wrong with how you think. Buoyancy is not a force. Ok, well, maybe it is, but is the consequences of another force, namely the attractive force between any two masses in the universe. Now I could go on and on about how and why you are wrong, but let's not. Cause I have something else to address.
You're not in a position to teach me anything. When you look up buoyancy, it repeatedly calls it an upward force.
You're telling me Newton discovered *nothing*? Regardless of our disagreement between gravity, he discovered that light is composed of many colours,
Something that any idiot holding a crystal while the sun is up well before him discovered. Newton was not a scientist. He was what is called a natural philosopher. And no, that's not a "for his time" substitute. He was basically a dude who sat around and made pompous pronouncements. A narcissist. I've had enough of narcissists in my life, I certainly know one when I see one.
introduced the three laws of motion,
Which are memes. But we'll talk about that later.
invented calculus (well, Leibniz did too, but still),
You see? He's like Einstein in that Family Guy episode.
formulated the law of cooling (which does not hold under huge difference but yeah) and made many other important mathematical discoveries. To call Newton a pretentious prick is to
have the correct assessment of the man.
Any idiot can discover that things cool. But it takes genius to write laws of thermodynamics.
Let's talk about these memes.
Newton said,
1. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an external force acts upon it. Similarly, if the object is at rest, it will remain at rest unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.
2. When a force acts on an object, it will cause the object to accelerate
3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Now, you may not have noticed this, but all three of these (probably self-proclaimed) "laws" of motion have a sort of snappy patter sound to them. Similar to if I'm trying to sell a book or advertise something. They are more concerned with sounding memorable than being right, which is why I call them memes. But let's examine how right they are...
(Continued)
Indeed, it was presumptuous to assume I could teach you and I apologise. What I believe I meant was if you would like to have a one on one discussion on why certain events occur the way it does and the underlying causes for it.
I thank you for taking the time to go through my reply and to provide arguments regardless of the validity of either of our ideas.
Now as far as Newton's character goes, I hold no opinions. But his book Principia says all there is to it about his intellectual prowess, which we disagree upon. If I may suggest, do read Principia not trying to disprove it but rather as someone with no preconceptions of what is being discussed. You might like it, despite its supposed falseness.
Regarding the Family Man clip you posted, it was funny, true, but don't you think it takes some amount of intelligence to recognise when a paper that would completely revolutionalise the entire world is being published among the thousands of others?
https://www.sciencenordic.com/denmark-forskerzonen-physics/gravity-it-is-all-in-your-head/1453728 - In this article, the writer, albeit wrong, claims that Lagrange's Principal of Least Action can predict the path of a falling apple without relying on the "attraction between any two masses in the universe". This is wrong, as far as my knowledge goes. So my question is, are you familiar enough with Lagrangian Mechanics to provide proof of why the article is correct and I'm wrong? Unless of course, you don't believe Lagrangian Mechanics to be correct.
Now, the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of motion. First, I would like to quote Merovingian here: "It is, of course, the way of all things. You see, there is only one constant, one universal, it is the only real truth: causality. Action – reaction; cause – and effect."
skip to 1:19
If you haven't, I suggest you watch the Matrix series.
But coming back, I agree with you - Newton's laws of motion are entirely unnecessary. They are true, yes, but unnecessary. Every other mechanical system has its own model which gives you information on how the system behaves as time progresses. How you develop this model is independent (well, maybe not completely?) of the tools you used to design it.
For example, if I drop a pen from, say, height H metres, it always takes a time of √(H/4.9) seconds. In fact, feel free to verify the correctness of my equation.
But what I disagree with is the fact that gravity is unnecessary for deriving such models.
Not to be taken seriously but,
have to be moved due to the stench.
explain mummies.
P.S. You seem to pay no attention to the fact where I pointed out you lack reading comprehension. It is because you stated that "Lagrange was born before Newton" despite the Nordic article saying that it is the other way around. In fact, Lagrange was born some 10 years after Newton died.
-
You lack reading comprehension...
https://www.sciencenordic.com/denmark-forskerzonen-physics/gravity-it-is-all-in-your-head/1453728
Lagrange actually lived 100 years after Newton
I misread one word. And since I couldn't be bothered to care that much, it seemed logical to be that he would predate Newton since everyone has heard of Lagrange and nobody heard of Newton.
(Let's test your reading comprehension ;) )
But don't you think it takes some amount of intelligence to recognise when a paper that would completely revolutionalise the entire world is being published among the thousands of others?
Biden must be brilliant then. Many of his speeches in early politics are quite literally just parroting other people.
Parrots are stupid, they can only repeat without understanding.
Human beings are intelligent. Humans are intelligent, because they can make Starry Night
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/53/09/89/530989f494f4dc63d01473987df89bf4.jpg)
or Moonlight Sonata
or the Laws of the Sun. It takes a first rate creative mind to come up with this nonsense.
-
the globe model has rain falling towards teh center.
WHY WOULD YOU REPRESENT A HOLLOWED OUT EARTH THEN HAVE NORTH POLE RAIN ON THE INSIDE OF THE SOUTH POLE?
WHY WOULD SOUTH POLE RAIN COLLECT ON THE INSIDE SURFACE?
-
Parrots are stupid, they can only repeat without understanding.
Then what force acts on air molecules to overcome their tendency to spread away from each other to bunch up at the earth’s surface.
For stable flight, why must the center of gravity be ahead of the center of pressure.
For a car I can push around all day on a flat surface, why is it impossible for me to push the car up hill.
What causes objects to accelerate down to earth from lower atmospheric pressure, density, resistance at higher altitudes into greater atmospheric pressure, density, resistance at lower altitudes. Why not fall up?
There is another force that works on mass and is separate from atmosphere.
-
You lack reading comprehension...
https://www.sciencenordic.com/denmark-forskerzonen-physics/gravity-it-is-all-in-your-head/1453728
Lagrange actually lived 100 years after Newton
I misread one word. And since I couldn't be bothered to care that much, it seemed logical to be that he would predate Newton since everyone has heard of Lagrange and nobody heard of Newton.
(Let's test your reading comprehension ;) )
But don't you think it takes some amount of intelligence to recognise when a paper that would completely revolutionalise the entire world is being published among the thousands of others?
Biden must be brilliant then. Many of his speeches in early politics are quite literally just parroting other people.
Parrots are stupid, they can only repeat without understanding.
Human beings are intelligent. Humans are intelligent, because they can make Starry Night
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/53/09/89/530989f494f4dc63d01473987df89bf4.jpg)
or Moonlight Sonata
or the Laws of the Sun. It takes a first rate creative mind to come up with this nonsense.
One word marks the difference between life and death, truth and falsehood, reality and fiction.
That said, your response is indeed witty but beside the point. It seems not that your reply contains anything of substance to disprove the presence of gravity. I'd say it's quite a waste of time to talk about the creative nature of mankind in a debate about the existence of gravity, is it not?
-
I'd say it's quite a waste of time to talk about the creative nature of mankind in a debate about the existence of gravity, is it not?
It’s not even the topic of this thread.
The topic of this thread is, “How can you dismiss all the space footage?”
But that’s how the lot like bulmabriefs144, keep FE on live support in their minds. Vague answers wrapped in what-about-isms with changing the subject to derail threads.
Great example, the topic of this thread. Another example, the flat earth community can’t even provide a working model with a named distance to the sun. We just get this well, it might be 300 miles above earth or it might be 3,000 miles.
FE has to be vague so it’s harder to get flat earthers to commit to a model which would be easier to specifically prove wrong.
-
One word marks the difference between life and death, truth and falsehood, reality and fiction.
That said, your response is indeed witty but beside the point. It seems not that your reply contains anything of substance to disprove the presence of gravity. I'd say it's quite a waste of time to talk about the creative nature of mankind in a debate about the existence of gravity, is it not?
Yes, it's a waste of time to talk to you.
That one word is buoyancy not gravity. Buoyancy holds the heavens and the earth up, gravity crushes everything under Newton's pessimist musings. Before gravity, we didn't have this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
Or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
This is what happens when there is too much gravity.
2. Grave consequence; seriousness or importance.
3. Solemnity or dignity of manner.
Everyone is convinced things are about to end.
Lighten up!
As for the rest, this is exactly the point. Globalism as a worldview cannot see the joy and the beauty in humanity. It is a mindset fundamentally preoccupied with the idea that even when humans breath out, they are releasing carbon. It is a poverty mindset, that fixates on the idea that for people to even be alive is a sin, and that the sooner were are all wiped out, the better for all nature. Sorry, but that is just not true. Well before humans, there were five extinction level events, some of which wiped out 85% of all life. If you cannot see the beauty and worth of human life, talking to you is senseless.
-
That one word is buoyancy not gravity.
Gravity bunches up air molecules at earth’s surface to drive the density of atmosphere that results in the pressure gradient that gives the buoyancy witnessed to where a helium balloon will rise until it gets in the pressure gradient that best matches the density of the balloon.
We know there is a separate force from atmosphere because for stable flight the center of gravity needs to be ahead of the center of pressure of the atmosphere working on the object in flight.
-
Yes, it's a waste of time
Still see you using that totally debunked video with the false claim the sun supposedly sets before it has an apparent size change.
If the earth was flat. The sun wouldn’t set. The sun would visibly curve overhead in its circular orbit above earth. The sun would appear small at “sunrise”, seems to hang there getting larger, then zoom overhead, then get smaller and smaller in apparent size, and slow down.
With you still having no explanation what forces keep the sun in orbit in air and change the diameter of its orbit throughout the year.
-
But this is in violation to real scientific laws, those of the laws of thermodynamics. Motion does indeed wind down, as energy is gradually lost through conversion. Only a rare few things exist in perpetual motion. The sun,
So. How does the sun have “perpetual” motion in a flat earth atmosphere and not violate the laws of thermodynamics?
Makes more sense and fits what is witnessed to have the earth orbit the sun in free fall in the vacuum of space.
Your perpetual motion of the sun in earth’s atmosphere vs the fundamental force of gravity with the earth in free fall around the sun?
-
One word marks the difference between life and death, truth and falsehood, reality and fiction.
That said, your response is indeed witty but beside the point. It seems not that your reply contains anything of substance to disprove the presence of gravity. I'd say it's quite a waste of time to talk about the creative nature of mankind in a debate about the existence of gravity, is it not?
Yes, it's a waste of time to talk to you.
That one word is buoyancy not gravity. Buoyancy holds the heavens and the earth up, gravity crushes everything under Newton's pessimist musings. Before gravity, we didn't have this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
Or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
This is what happens when there is too much gravity.
2. Grave consequence; seriousness or importance.
3. Solemnity or dignity of manner.
Everyone is convinced things are about to end.
Lighten up!
As for the rest, this is exactly the point. Globalism as a worldview cannot see the joy and the beauty in humanity. It is a mindset fundamentally preoccupied with the idea that even when humans breath out, they are releasing carbon. It is a poverty mindset, that fixates on the idea that for people to even be alive is a sin, and that the sooner were are all wiped out, the better for all nature. Sorry, but that is just not true. Well before humans, there were five extinction level events, some of which wiped out 85% of all life. If you cannot see the beauty and worth of human life, talking to you is senseless.
Yes... no. I believe humans to be very remarkably brilliant, creative, diverse and interesting. But that is not the topic of our discussion, nor is it at all entirely relevant when compared to the happenings of the universe we want to understand.
Everything is pointless. It does not matter if I can convince you to believe in gravity nor if you can convince me otherwise. But we do so regardless, as we've done until now.
I keep trying to bring you back on topic and yet you choose to expand upon completely unrelavant points. So let me completely rephrase and reiterate my questions, hoping to get direct answers:
A mathematical model of a mechanical system is a close approximation which, with reasonable accuracy, predict the state of said system in the near or even far future. So let's take a simple mechanical system anyone can build at home - a simple pendulum.
1) Tie an object of appreciable mass (say 50 grams) to a string exactly 1 metre long. Now suspend the string like a pendulum and swing it. Measure the time it takes to make one full back and forth swing called the Time Period.
Now, without using said gravity, can you come up with an equation to predict the Time Period for a pendulum of arbitrary string length, say L? If so, how? In fact you don't even need Newton's laws of motion to do this.
If you can't answer this question, then you can either propose a question yourself, but it must be entirely quantifiable or you can have me explain the answer, but that would involve gravity and Newton's laws of motion so do your best!
-
Archimedes might be honored. Newton can go fuck himself.
Considering you are blatantly lying about buoyancy, going directly against what he said, why would be honoured with your dishonest BS?
Again, the Archimedes principle is quite simple.
An object immersed in a fluid is buoyed UPWARDS by a force equal to the WEIGHT of the fluid displaced.
He fully recognises that buoyancy is an upwards force only.
He fully recognises that it is NOT a fundamental force.
He fully recognises that buoyancy is a result of weight, a consequence of weight.
Yet here you are lying by pretending buoyancy is a fundamental force which causes weight.
You're not in a position to teach me anything. When you look up buoyancy, it repeatedly calls it an upward force.
Yet here you go ignoring that, pretending it is a downwards force.
So I guess that means you aren't in a position to teach anyone anything.
I've had enough of narcissists in my life
Then have you considered no longer being one?
have the correct assessment of the man.
No, it is to have an irrational hatred of reality and those that show your fantasy is wrong.
1. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an external force acts upon it. Similarly, if the object is at rest, it will remain at rest unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.
2. When a force acts on an object, it will cause the object to accelerate
3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Which kills your fantasy so you hate it.
Now, you may not have noticed this, but all three of these (probably self-proclaimed) "laws" of motion have a sort of snappy patter sound to them.
Just like the Archimedes principle.
This has nothing to do with them being right or wrong, and is just you not liking them.
If I were to knock a series of balls tied to a string, it would seem like this "law" that things stay in motion would mean this process never stops.
Only if you do it in a frictionless vacuum, with no other energy losses.
Ignoring forces acting on it just demonstrates your dishonesty.
Motion does indeed wind down, as energy is gradually lost through conversion.
And that conversion requires a force.
Similarly, objects change despite themselves when left in stasis. They gather dust or cobwebs
Seriously?
Your argument is so pathetic you need to resort to dust falling on it or spiders crawling over it laying a web.
That is not an object being left in stasis.
Not all forces are forces of motion. When entropy
entropy is not a force.
Is there always equal reaction? Is it always opposite? And how can he possibly say for every action?
YES.
If you don't have this you have invented a perpetual motion machine, you will have created energy from no where.
This law can be restated as a product of the law of conservation of momentum or conservation of energy.
Consider some object moving along at some speed.
It has some velocity, and it collides with another object.
Now what happens?
Well it provides a force to accelerate that object.
Now, if you don't have an equal and opposite force acting to slow it down, you have just increased the momentum of the system.
Now design a system where instead of doing that, it is spinning around an axis, and the object it collides with does so as well.
Have a bunch of them, like a gear.
Then have the one being hit magically gaining momentum from nothing get hooked up to a generator.
And just to make sure it keeps going, hook the other one up to a motor.
Now this magical increase in momentum will create more power than is put in, and you have infinite energy and a perpetual motion machine.
This doesn't work in reality for the very reason that there is an equal and opposite force.
Any momentum imparted to the hit object is taken away from the object hitting.
This is done by a force pair acting on each.
A force from the hitting object acting on the hit object to accelerate it, simultaneously with a force from the hit object on the hitting object to slow it down.
They weren't laws because of scientific method. They weren't laws because of peer review. They were laws because of practical usage.
They were laws based upon experimental observations and tests.
That sure sounds like the scientific method.
They are laws, which have been peer reviewed and found to work just fine until you get to the quantum world where strange things happen.
And yes, they have practical usage, i.e. usage in practice to do things.
They work, unlike your delusional BS.
You're the one that thinks it needs a gravity center. I couldn't care less about that.
Because you aren't actually trying to show a fault with the RE model, because you know you can't.
Instead you are just spouting whatever dishonest, delusional BS you can think of to pretend there is a problem.
That one word is buoyancy not gravity. Buoyancy holds the heavens and the earth up
No, buoyancy holds things up, BECAUSE OF GRAVITY!
Before gravity, we didn't have this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
Or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Yet the heat death of the universe is NOT due to gravity.
It is due to entropy.
The Big Crunch provides a way out, and wont be happening for billions of years.
Meanwhile, you religious BS has had the end of the world happening "soon" for the past 2 thousand years.
As for the rest, this is exactly the point. Globalism as a worldview cannot see the joy and the beauty in humanity.
No, your pathetic strawman can't.
Now again, care to address the pressure gradient?
-
i am struggling to understand your system. it seems you still think using gravity despite claiming it isnt real. There is minimal difference in air (circles) in front and in back of car. I dont think few meters of gradient will push car that much
A bunch of nonsense.
I have a simple experiment anyone can do that proves acceleration, as in gravity is the source of buoyancy.
Get a good sized helium balloon.
Tie it to the passenger seat next to.
Roll up all the windows.
Now stomp on the accelerator.
You'll see the balloon move forward due to buoyancy.
Now hit the brakes.
The balloon will move backwards.
Opposite of what intuition tells you.
Gravity is a fundamental force of nature, not buoyancy,
Gravity is well proven experimentally over and over.
Cohesion is not a fundamental force either, it's an electromagnet interaction.
Come dude, up your game.
-
Now, without using said gravity, can you come up with an equation to predict the Time Period for a pendulum of arbitrary string length, say L? If so, how? In fact you don't even need Newton's laws of motion to do this.
I don't see what time has to do with gravity.
But the thing is, I could do the same with a helium balloon, by swinging it off to the side and watching it float back to straight above me.
Same exact reaction in a reversed direction.
(https://clipart-library.com/img/1874392.png)
(https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/hand-holding-a-red-helium-balloon-picture-id471443975?k=6&m=471443975&s=612x612&w=0&h=a-LL0X2OuqVeHbN9TP2neLiRnFvT2jLQBaocmKiWltQ=)
-
Again, the Archimedes principle is quite simple.
An object immersed in a fluid is buoyed UPWARDS by a force equal to the WEIGHT of the fluid displaced.
He fully recognises that buoyancy is an upwards force only.
He fully recognises that it is NOT a fundamental force.
He fully recognises that buoyancy is a result of weight, a consequence of weight.
Yet here you are lying by pretending buoyancy is a fundamental force which causes weight.
I highly doubt that at the time, the idea of fundamental forces was even a consideration, so that's out.
Yes, weight affects displacement. But Archimedes had no dishonesty about how the weight of objects is its own.
Mass is weight, and weight is mass. Newton disguised this, by pretending that the weight of objects is somehow dependent on force. No. Mass is inherent to objects themselves.
Buoyancy is a fundamental force that applies to all of existence (unlike "gravity" which doesn't even behave the same way inside and outside of Earth). And it affects whether things sink or float by their mass as compared to the medium that surrounds it. Weight doesn't affect buoyancy. It affects displacement. That is, when a bit of rock is plopped into water by a crow, the crow doesn't bother believing gravity. It knows it can fly. It understands buoyancy and by extension displacement, solving the puzzle.
-
Buoyancy is a fundamental force
It’s not a fundamental force. it’s only applicable if a meaningful amount of fluid is present. If you remove the atmosphere from a chamber, things still accelerate down when dropped.
Also. A helium ballon only rises until its density matches the density of a pressure gradient up in the thinner atmosphere.
Added.
And again.
For stable flight, the center of gravity must be ahead of the center of pressure of the atmosphere working on a rocket.
It’s obvious that buoyancy is dependent on something acting on a fluid atmosphere and there is some other force that is independent of atmosphere working on mass of objects.
-
1) Tie an object of appreciable mass (say 50 grams) to a string exactly 1 metre long. Now suspend the string like a pendulum and swing it. Measure the time it takes to make one full back and forth swing called the Time Period.
Now, without using said gravity, can you come up with an equation to predict the Time Period for a pendulum of arbitrary string length, say L? If so, how? In fact you don't even need Newton's laws of motion to do this.
I don't see what time has to do with gravity.
To model the system mathematically to make accurate predictions you need a force of acceleration ie gravity to get to units of time.
-
Buoyancy is a fundamental force that applies to all of existence (unlike "gravity" which doesn't even behave the same way inside and outside of Earth). And it affects whether things sink or float by their mass as compared to the medium that surrounds it.
No. The density of a fluid vs the density of an object and how much is displaces drives buoyancy.
Added. Air molecules want to equal distance themselves. Spread out as far as possible from one another. The reason the atmosphere provides buoyancy as witnessed is due to the fact gravity overcomes the tendency of air molecules to spread out and bunches them up at earth’s surface.
Again, a helium balloon can only rise until its density matches the lower density of one of the pressure gradients in the upper atmosphere.
Effectively take the atmosphere out of a chamber until there is no fluid atmosphere, a helium ballon sinks.
Will Helium Filled Balloons Float or Sink In a Vacuum Chamber?
-
the globe model has rain falling towards teh center.
WHY WOULD YOU REPRESENT A HOLLOWED OUT EARTH THEN HAVE NORTH POLE RAIN ON THE INSIDE OF THE SOUTH POLE?
WHY WOULD SOUTH POLE RAIN COLLECT ON THE INSIDE SURFACE?
-
Now, without using said gravity, can you come up with an equation to predict the Time Period for a pendulum of arbitrary string length, say L? If so, how? In fact you don't even need Newton's laws of motion to do this.
I don't see what time has to do with gravity.
But the thing is, I could do the same with a helium balloon, by swinging it off to the side and watching it float back to straight above me.
Same exact reaction in a reversed direction.
(https://clipart-library.com/img/1874392.png)
(https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/hand-holding-a-red-helium-balloon-picture-id471443975?k=6&m=471443975&s=612x612&w=0&h=a-LL0X2OuqVeHbN9TP2neLiRnFvT2jLQBaocmKiWltQ=)
I have asked for a mathematical model, i.e., an equation, of the pendulum's time period. Now, if you believe that it does not have any relation to a gravity, that's well and good. But unfortunately I believe that gravity and the time period of a pendulum have a correlation. So, unless you can provide an equation for said pendulum, all while deriving it without accounting for gravity, it's not possible to convince anyone of the absence of gravity.
And do refrain from using sophistry to steer the conversation away from the topic at hand.
As for the helium balloon, it is neither a quantifiable experiment [unless, of course, you can suggest a method to quantify it] nor is it stated with a proper intent of building a mathematical model.
-
On that matter, bulmabriefs144, you speak of things like weight when talking about buoyancy.
What is weight?
-
@earthisroudn
well now you've put yourself in the same pool as data.
you'er confusing and overly complicating things.
you're asking the guy to put together a model a formula?! when he can't even locate the center of a circle.
this guy who thinks pi is a made up number.
you're aksing about bouyancy and momentum?
come now...
focus up
WHERE"S THE CENTER OF THE CIRCLE!
ref
Ugh
Again
Why you confuse/ overly complicate the situation!
Please, I'm not the one over complicating stuff
Directed at data
-
@earthisroudn
well now you've put yourself in the same pool as data.
you'er confusing and overly complicating things.
you're asking the guy to put together a model a formula?! when he can't even locate the center of a circle.
this guy who thinks pi is a made up number.
you're aksing about bouyancy and momentum?
come now...
focus up
WHERE"S THE CENTER OF THE CIRCLE!
ref
Ugh
Again
Why you confuse/ overly complicate the situation!
Please, I'm not the one over complicating stuff
Directed at data
I know, I was trying not to, but then every single question I ask is answered by bringing up completely different topic.
I talk about Newton's gravity, he brings up buoyancy. I talk about gravitational force, he brings up entropy. Entropy! How does entropy even come up here? I talk about Newton's laws of motion, he brings up thermodynamics.
If I don't give a real, quantifiable experiment, our debate will just go nowhere.
-
you're going to find it very interesting dealing with him, turbo, and sceppy.
they LOOOOVE to go round and round and round on "abstract" concepts and will ignore basic geometry.
focus up.
bulbmba here literally claimed the globe model doesn't make sense because rain on the north pole would result in pooling on the underside of the south pole.
-
bulbmba here literally claimed the globe model doesn't make sense because rain on the north pole would result in pooling on the underside of the south pole.
Okaaay... That clarifies almost everything. So bulma's mental model of spherical earth looks somewhat like this:
(https://i.ibb.co/VSRhhwN/Untitled15.png) (https://ibb.co/nc9VVP0)
And hence concludes that earth is not round instead of this model:
(https://i.ibb.co/JnS5Myw/Untitled16.png) (https://ibb.co/WnRgYP4)
-
I highly doubt that at the time, the idea of fundamental forces was even a consideration, so that's out.
No, it isn't out.
He recognises it is a result of weight. That means it is NOT a fundamental force.
It isn't based upon the volume displaced.
It is the WEIGHT of the fluid displaced.
Yes, weight affects displacement. But Archimedes had no dishonesty about how the weight of objects is its own.
You mean he didn't know what caused it.
But notice how he fully recognised buoyancy is a result of weight.
He did not pretend anything like your delusional BS.
Mass is weight, and weight is mass.
No it isn't.
The fact that the weight of an object varies with location but the mass doesn't, demonstrates they are different.
Lying wont save you.
Wilful ignorance of reality will not save you.
Buoyancy is a fundamental force
Repeating the same dishonest BS while ignoring the refutation of it will not save you.
Even Archimedes would recognise that is BS.
Even Archimedes recognised buoyancy is a result of weight.
The actual physics of the situation clearly demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that buoyancy is a result of the pressure gradient in a fluid.
A pressure gradient which is caused by gravity.
If you want to claim it is a fundamental force you need to explain how it manages to sustain a pressure gradient exactly as you would expect a downwards force proportional to mass to do, and why objects are not additionally affected by this pressure gradient.
"gravity" which doesn't even behave the same way inside and outside of Earth
Yes, it does.
Again, repeating the same dishonest BS will not save you.
Weight doesn't affect buoyancy.
Go tell that to Archimedes.
Weight directly determines the pressure gradient, which in turn determines the upwards, buoyant force.
the crow doesn't bother believing gravity. It knows it can fly. It understands buoyancy and by extension displacement, solving the puzzle.
Pure BS.
You have no basis to claim the crow understands buoyancy, any more than anyone else would have a basis to claim it understands gravity.
You are just making shit up to pretend you are right.
I don't see what time has to do with gravity.
It isn't time, it is the pendulum, which can be used to measure time.
Gravity is the thing making it go down, that thing you can't explain.
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1123593550983090283/1220569410238943242/PayUp.png?ex=660f6ad8&is=65fcf5d8&hm=2873ba91fdf50693160b71e4f900f8140ad58ec4d88b36ac9caf6e3296c6010e&)
(https://i.ibb.co/VSRhhwN/Untitled15.png) (https://ibb.co/nc9VVP0)
Perfect
Bulma agrees or not?
-
Congratulations. Welcome to the Hollow Earthers.
Cloud is likely inside all that, though. On account that you can see it inside the atmosphere.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bd/d9/92/bdd992c1fb887b80ee16f6f721f08f3e.jpg)
Hmmmm, being tossed around like a ball kills you...
People reading old texts hearing the word "circle" and being like "Aha, even ancient ppl knew the Earth is a sphere!"
Hint: unless they said "sphere", they might not mean sphere.
Also, notice the word tent or canopy.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH8Pwoysb6W7kcNdHF2EVmUMVGGK4pfkfedpMheyp2HMOOh9gwArmZBoorK0ZKUqaU5mFWwIWHiXpMf-hTmbJOMoRm5VXomxu3ef2yFy5U_ipMZmnJQwgtASWbntTDdTTDR9Ymfw-B4m3w/s640/hebrew_conception_of_the_universe2.jpg)
Clouds are inside, see?
-
Round Earthers: shows real pictures [that is supposedly fake] of earth taken by satellites and spacecrafts in the 21st century AD
Flat Earthers: shows Adobe Illustrator images of flat earth made by flat earthers according to models given by high prophets in 69 century BC
-
Hmmmm, being tossed around like a ball kills you...
Then why are these accurate for Star gazing
(https://i.imgur.com/EQBVj4s.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/OuU3kzq.jpg)
Simple dial atlases for the norther and southern hemispheres. Kills flat earth.
If the earth was flat, there would be no need of the many different map projections of earth.
-
does the round earth model have a hollow center?
bulmba responds with a model of the globe and presents it as hollow to show that the globe doesn't match reality.
and sees NO PROBLEM WITH THAT?
-
Hmmmm, being tossed around like a ball kills you...
Fleeing from the subject yet again.
Yes, being TOSSED around kills you.
And again, all you do by showing the Bible says Earth is flat is show the Bible is wrong.
Now again, care to address the massive flaws with your BS claims about buoyancy?
-
If I were to knock a series of balls tied to a string, it would seem like this "law" that things stay in motion would mean this process never stops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction#:~:text=Friction%20is%20the%20force%20resisting,elements%20sliding%20against%20each%20other.
-
Congratulations. Welcome to the Hollow Earthers.
Cloud is likely inside all that, though. On account that you can see it inside the atmosphere.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bd/d9/92/bdd992c1fb887b80ee16f6f721f08f3e.jpg)
Hmmmm, being tossed around like a ball kills you...
People reading old texts hearing the word "circle" and being like "Aha, even ancient ppl knew the Earth is a sphere!"
Hint: unless they said "sphere", they might not mean sphere.
Also, notice the word tent or canopy.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH8Pwoysb6W7kcNdHF2EVmUMVGGK4pfkfedpMheyp2HMOOh9gwArmZBoorK0ZKUqaU5mFWwIWHiXpMf-hTmbJOMoRm5VXomxu3ef2yFy5U_ipMZmnJQwgtASWbntTDdTTDR9Ymfw-B4m3w/s640/hebrew_conception_of_the_universe2.jpg)
Clouds are inside, see?
https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-8.htm
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
you know the rest
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/702920399201107988/1222823331108229161/Screenshot_2024-03-28_012054.png?ex=66179df9&is=660528f9&hm=9796e6966dfb50cbc9c67dbbbe8191384638318bd85e13674deb0f888733cf7c&)
so how do you explain 12 000 km visibility? You flatties jump and scream when you manage to get Mountain to Mountain 500 km "impossible shot"?
almost as if interpreting Bible literaly leads to intellectual suicide
-
almost as if interpreting Bible literaly leads to intellectual suicide
Funny why people that literally translate the Bible don’t question why they can’t go to “the” mountain and video tape all the kingdoms of the world? Or the four corners? Or whatnot?
-
Revelation 7:1-3
King James Version
7 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth,
Isaiah 11:12
King James Bible
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
?????
Then the Bible literally states the earth is a rectangle or square?
Hey bulmabriefs144, point to the four corners of the earth Isaiah was referring to?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bd/d9/92/bdd992c1fb887b80ee16f6f721f08f3e.jpg)
-
so how do you explain 12 000 km visibility? You flatties jump and scream when you manage to get Mountain to Mountain 500 km "impossible shot"?
How do you explain what now?
The longest confirmed line of sight is 275 miles. Well beyond where we are supposed to have curvature, yet all vision eventually ends.
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/66661-longest-line-of-sight-on-earth
If you want to ask me how I explain something, shouldn't you get something real?
Round Earthers: shows real pictures [that is supposedly fake] of earth taken by satellites and spacecrafts in the 21st century AD
Flat Earthers: shows Adobe Illustrator images of flat earth made by flat earthers according to models given by high prophets in 69 century BC
Actually, your pictures are done by professional artists. The difference is that our artists are amateurs, and draw what they know, while your artists are contracted by government to keep up an illusion.
On the topic of Adobe Stock art.
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/01/62/97/30/1000_F_162973025_WADse4fjM9keIlkL42PnYNoc17MdrNME.jpg)
Hey bulmabriefs144, point to the four corners of the earth Isaiah was referring to?
He means the edges. East, west, north, and south as far as you can go.
But strictly speaking, that's not right.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1222928423081480212/bdd992c1fb887b80ee16f6f721f08f3e.jpg?ex=6617ffd8&is=66058ad8&hm=4b59af71a63f34e722b9ad005ce091426e3048a28cf0e69de93385c18a5aaad4&)
North = towards the center
West/East = clockwise and counterclockwise
South = away from center
As for Revelation, I have no comment.
Fleeing from the subject yet again.
Yes, being TOSSED around kills you.
So then, you admit that Earth can't rotate 1000+ mph and orbit 60,000+ mph?
I fled from nothing.
But you walked into that.
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1123593550983090283/1220569410238943242/PayUp.png?ex=660f6ad8&is=65fcf5d8&hm=2873ba91fdf50693160b71e4f900f8140ad58ec4d88b36ac9caf6e3296c6010e&)
(https://i.ibb.co/VSRhhwN/Untitled15.png) (https://ibb.co/nc9VVP0)
Perfect
Bulma agrees or not?
-
so how do you explain 12 000 km visibility? You flatties jump and scream when you manage to get Mountain to Mountain 500 km "impossible shot"?
How do you explain what now?
The longest confirmed line of sight is 275 miles. Well beyond where we are supposed to have curvature, yet all vision eventually ends.
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/66661-longest-line-of-sight-on-earth
If you want to ask me how I explain something, shouldn't you get something real?
Round Earthers: shows real pictures [that is supposedly fake] of earth taken by satellites and spacecrafts in the 21st century AD
Flat Earthers: shows Adobe Illustrator images of flat earth made by flat earthers according to models given by high prophets in 69 century BC
Actually, your pictures are done by professional artists. The difference is that our artists are amateurs, and draw what they know, while your artists are contracted by government to keep up an illusion.
On the topic of Adobe Stock art.
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/01/62/97/30/1000_F_162973025_WADse4fjM9keIlkL42PnYNoc17MdrNME.jpg)
Hey bulmabriefs144, point to the four corners of the earth Isaiah was referring to?
He means the edges. East, west, north, and south as far as you can go.
But strictly speaking, that's not right.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1222928423081480212/bdd992c1fb887b80ee16f6f721f08f3e.jpg?ex=6617ffd8&is=66058ad8&hm=4b59af71a63f34e722b9ad005ce091426e3048a28cf0e69de93385c18a5aaad4&)
North = towards the center
West/East = clockwise and counterclockwise
South = away from center
As for Revelation, I have no comment.
Fleeing from the subject yet again.
Yes, being TOSSED around kills you.
So then, you admit that Earth can't rotate 1000+ mph and orbit 60,000+ mph?
I fled from nothing.
But you walked into that.
Which was possible and debated many times
As for reflection i wouls recommend walking at bridge when its raining. You see same thing. But think for a Moment. The waves will have more "curvature" than actual Earths curvature over few Km straight reflection is visible.
-
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/01/62/97/30/1000_F_162973025_WADse4fjM9keIlkL42PnYNoc17MdrNME.jpg)
holycrapballs this is spectacular
are you saying that if you standing infront of me i can see you
then if you take 1step to the left, suddenly i'll only see half of you?
amazing!
and if Code were standing to MY right, he wouldn't see you at all?!
see, the problem with your diagram is that:
1.
Left image of moon vs Right image of moon fails to take into account the 1,000s of ripples and waves in water.
the Left image of light rays is 1ripple showing the scattering of a reflection.
So when multiplied 1,000s of times, the effect is seen as shown in the Right image of moon.
2.
light ray diagrams show the extremes.
in your Left image of moon you randomly show the top of the Moon hitting the Top of the wave.
and randomly the Bottom of the moon hitting the Bottom of the wave.
taht makes no sense the way it was done like that because for the purpose of your diagarm, you want to show what the orange Dot would see.
so you need to draw lines from the Top of the moon to the Dot.
and teh Bottom of the moon to the dot.
that's what the Dot will see.
you failed to draw those specific lines.
so ALL your lines are meaning less except for the one that crosses the Dot.
That is as per 1. showing a reflection that the Dot would see in the water.
3.
note your Right Light Ray image doesn't even have the rays for top and bottom of moon.
Absolutely stupid.
so stupid.
so dumb.
-
I think you are missing his argument
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/702920399201107988/1223006465745223942/EyOnA0XUYAQtnCf.jpg?ex=66184887&is=6605d387&hm=0040bc1fc8659845d43233cdfb780eb3704d905df3aa0913b76549ebc872f37b&)
Essentially we should see a spot on globe, not a line. He ignores its out of scale and that on globe actual distance between horizon and observer is less than between two red lines, assuming bridge is equal physical curvature of Earth. And also keep in mind most lights in cars are angled downwards. Also from where did you get this? I assume flat earthers cant draw nicely like that. Btw stop jumping from topic to topic :heart
-
I think you are missing his argument
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/702920399201107988/1223006465745223942/EyOnA0XUYAQtnCf.jpg?ex=66184887&is=6605d387&hm=0040bc1fc8659845d43233cdfb780eb3704d905df3aa0913b76549ebc872f37b&)
Essentially we should see a spot on globe, not a line. He ignores its out of scale and that on globe actual distance between horizon and observer is less than between two red lines, assuming bridge is equal physical curvature of Earth. And also keep in mind most lights in cars are angled downwards. Also from where did you get this? I assume flat earthers cant draw nicely like that. Btw stop jumping from topic to topic :heart
oh look
a horizon created at the top of the CURVED bridge.
and the cars are appearing/ disappearing BOTTOM->up.
amazing!
-
How do you explain what now?
The longest confirmed line of sight is 275 miles. Well beyond where we are supposed to have curvature,
Because refraction and mirage.
As explained thousands of times.
Then how does the sun physically become blocked from view on a flat earth?
Anyway.
It’s been posted and discussed. Like Chicago in the below. And why isn’t Chicago always visible from across Lake Michigan. Why do you have to climb a 200 foot plus tall hill to see the bottom of Chicago’s buildings physically blocked from view? When all of Chicago should be visible all the time on clear days.
Part one. First refraction.
Refraction over simplified leads to how much of a distance target can be seen through mirage. The new well known example is Chicago.
Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage
https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline
To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.
Flat earther’s ignore certain factors when using the Chicago skyline. Such as, the pictures used are often from Tower Hill.
The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon
https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage
And atmospheric conditions that change the amount of atmospheric refraction will change how much of the Chicago’s skyline that can be seen. Seen as in the visible length of buildings.
On a normal sunny day, say in summer you can only see a dozen or so of Chicago’s tallest buildings from southwest Michigan. Yes, you can see Chicago, just not all of it.
“Anything more than that, especially when you get above 10 or 12, something's happening, because that's not usually there," Nowicki said.
That something is a strong temperature inversion, warmer air above colder air, that causes light to bend.
“A mirage is just a case of atmospheric refraction, it’s caused by the fact you have temperature variations in the atmosphere and these cause density variations.” says Doctor Mark Rennie, an associate professor in areo-optics at the University of Notre Dame. “So literally the speed of light varies within the air. And this variation of the speed of light has the effect of bending light rays."
https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage
The fact you need to stand on a 250 foot hill, and the changing visibility of building lengths is strong evidence the earth is curved. And refraction is a factor that can’t be ignored, and most be factored for.
If you doubt refraction, do you believe this is a real double decker ship?
(https://i.imgur.com/4R48hgl.jpg)
So. bulmabriefs144. You can’t disprove evidence of space travel, and manmade objects collecting data and actively transmitting as they orbit in space around the earth.
Then you try to derail the thread with gravity.
Then you want to derail the thread with long range photography, while ignoring very real refraction and mirage. But then have no credible explanation how the sun a single light source becomes physically blocked from view by the curvature of a spherical earth.
-
almost as if interpreting Bible literaly leads to intellectual suicide
Depends how you do it.
In order for Christianity to make any sense, at least some parts need to be literal.
Otherwise, it is just all fiction, including God and Jesus.
If you take everything which isn't presented as fiction as literal, and use it to accept the Bible is wrong, then there is no intellectual suicide there.
Taking the Bible as true, either as literal or just cherry picking which parts should be literal vs which parts shouldn't be, is intellectual suicide.
How do you explain what now?
The longest confirmed line of sight is 275 miles.
Considering you are using a shitty ancient book to pretend Earth must be flat, explain the BS line in that book which allows a much longer distance to be seen.
Or do you accept your shitty old book is pure BS?
If you want to ask me how I explain something, shouldn't you get something real?
So you accept your bible is fiction?
Well beyond where we are supposed to have curvature, yet all vision eventually ends.
Wrong again.
Well beyond where your STRAWMAN of curvature has vision magically end.
In reality, the distance you can see depends on the height of the observer and the object.
This was a picture of a very high object (the peak of a mountain) from a very high observer (on the peak of another mountain).
No issues with curvature here.
But of course, that wont stop liars like you from pretending.
Actually, your pictures are done by professional artists.
You claim this, because you are desperate to pretend they are.
But you can't show any fault with the images.
On the topic of Adobe Stock art.
You yet again spout pure nonsense.
Your "explanation" of why, doesn't even match. See how your lines showing where the light is go completely past the moon?
Why not try an honest one?
For a perfect flat surface, you get a reflection of the moon, just like a mirror.
For a round surface, you also get a reflection of the moon, but either shrunk or stretched depending on the direction of the curve.
But the curvature of Earth over that distance is so tiny, it would not produce a significant difference.
The distance to the horizon, for an observer height of 2 m, is 5 km. That gives a change in orientation of the surface of 0.045 degrees.
What causes this view is the ripples in the water, where the surface changes angles.
He means the edges. East, west, north, and south as far as you can go.
Then why did he say corners?
If he meant edges and not corners, then how do you know he didn't mean sphere not circle?
But strictly speaking, that's not right.
i.e. you accept the Bible is wrong?
So then, you admit that Earth can't rotate 1000+ mph and orbit 60,000+ mph?
No, as that is not being tossed.
In reality, it isn't the toss that kills you, it is the sudden stop when you hit the ground.
You can even model this with an egg.
Toss it really fast, and see that it is fine, until it hits something.
This is where it is required to transfer a force through it which exceeds its yield strength, so it fails.
This does not happen with the smooth motion Earth is undergoing.
I fled from nothing.
You have, yet again.
You fled from the refutation of your lies about the sidereal day.
You fled from the refutation of your lies regarding buoyancy.
Even in this post of yours now, you fled from a simple question showing your Bible is BS.
You continually flee, as you know you can't defend your pathetic BS.
-
https://community.snapwire.co/photo/detail/551aa36d5ecaa3a21b7b23c6
Look at the scattering of the womans reflection.
That is the moon on wter
-
And now that I have had some time, I decided to do some simple simulations in PoV-Ray.
This is what a perfectly smooth flat surface would look like:
(https://i.imgur.com/uXAc78I.png)
Notice it is just a circle as the reflection.
A large round surface would look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/sfjgP1J.png)
Basically the same.
A small round surface would look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/uOwjzfW.png)
Where now the circle appears squashed and distorted.
In all cases, this smooth surface provides a small reflection, at most slightly shrunk.
This is what happens when you add ripples to the surface:
(https://i.imgur.com/FGygS4l.png)(https://i.imgur.com/iGoX8BB.png)(https://i.imgur.com/iuEXRHe.png)
The ripples are what make the image spread out, not the surface being flat.
If you are interested, this is the code that was used, with various parts commented out to get different effects, and with radius set to either 63.71 or 6371.
#version 3.7;
global_settings{ assumed_gamma 1.0 }
#include "colors.inc"
#include "textures.inc"
#include "metals.inc"
//camera
camera {
angle 45
location <0.0 , 1.0 ,-3.0>
right x*image_width/image_height
look_at <0.0 , 1.0 , 0.0>
}
//sun
light_source{<1500,2500,-2500> color White}
//Moon
sphere{ <0,500,4000>, 200
texture{
pigment{ color White*0.9 }
normal { bumps 1.5 scale 20}
finish { ambient 0.8 diffuse 0.2 phong 1 }
}
}
#declare fearth = plane{ <0,1,0>, 0
texture{
Polished_Chrome
//normal { crackle 0.2 scale <1,2,1> turbulence 4 }
finish { reflection 1.0 }
}
}
#declare rad=63.71;
#declare rearth = sphere{ <0,-rad,0>, rad
texture{
Polished_Chrome
normal { crackle 0.2 scale <1,2,1> turbulence 4 }
finish { reflection 1.0 }
}
}
//object {fearth}
object {rearth}
-
As for reflection i wouls recommend walking at bridge when its raining. You see same thing. But think for a Moment. The waves will have more "curvature" than actual Earths curvature over few Km straight reflection is visible.
You aren't really thinking. Like a computer that is programmed with the wrong information, garbage in garbage out is in full effect.
You mean this?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1223076361657385041/New_Bitmap_Image.png?ex=661889a0&is=660614a0&hm=fa66ed2946fa48bb893014b479f6e071257d0bd1af78e20006ed937ec234779e&)
Have you ever experienced real curvature in the sea? That is, on a completely still calm day, if curvature were a real thing, for every mile at sea, you ought to be climbing an 8 inch mound of water. Ain't no such thing, though.
You look at random stuff like a bridge obscuring view at its peak, and decide it means something. If as a very young kid, I convinced you that left was right and red was green, another teacher would have to work on you, or you would be messed up. In the same way, if all of your teachers told you RE nonsense, you'd increasingly be resistant to people telling you otherwise.
You are still under the illusion that I somehow haven't been educated. Dude, went to primary school. Went to high school, went to community college, went to college, took a few extra courses in viticulture and marketing. Had a different education as a result of the extra courses and the pieces together stuff, but very definitely learned everything you did.
The difference is that outside of college, I gradually learned my "professors" were full of shit. They learned the material from other teachers without checking the material, or in some cases they were propagandists. In still other cases, the material was right only for certain circumstances, like the grammar teacher who corrects for rules but never bothers to tell you that certain situations the rule isn't valid.
Even if we accept that gravity is a thing, this guy explains situations where it outright does not work. They talk about how on a black hole situation, it just doesn't work, and for weak things like between two people, we don't know whether it's right or wrong. Hardly a law, hardly a universalized force.
Garbage in, garbage out. If you are told nonsense as a child, it is or framework for solving problems as an adult. Unless, like me, you ditched this framework when it no longer suited a reasonable purpose.
-
You aren't really thinking. Like a computer that is programmed with the wrong information, garbage in garbage out is in full effect.
You are projecting yet again.
Have you ever experienced real curvature in the sea?
Yes.
I have seen the horizon.
I have seen how this curved water obscures the bottom of distant vessels.
I have seen how when I get higher, I can see further around the curve.
I have seen how as I move around on that surface, the portion I can see moves with them.
These all match what is expected for a curved surface.
for every mile at sea, you ought to be climbing an 8 inch mound of water.
No, you shouldn't.
That is just another pathetic FE lie, no better than those claiming planes need to constantly descend.
You aren't climbing or descending. You are remaining level.
You look at random stuff like a bridge obscuring view at its peak, and decide it means something.
Yes, it shows what curvature does.
Just like what happens in reality.
We can also look at what surfaces do, and see they don't magically block the view.
But that bridge was meant to show the stupidity of your claim regarding reflections.
You are still under the illusion that I somehow haven't been educated.
No, you have clearly rejected that education and any semblance of intelligence that comes with it.
The difference is that outside of college, I gradually learned my "professors" were full of shit.
You should have put "learned" in quotes.
As you clearly didn't actually learn that, you just fooled yourself into thinking that, and instead chose to reject reality and spout pure BS as you do all the time.
Even if we accept that gravity is a thing, this guy explains situations where it outright does not work. They talk about how on a black hole situation, it just doesn't work, and for weak things like between two people, we don't know whether it's right or wrong. Hardly a law, hardly a universalized force.
You mean they point out that in certain situations approximations break down and in some situations the effect is negligible and unmeasurable.
That isn't saying it is wrong.
That isn't saying your blatant lies about reality are true.
-
As for reflection i wouls recommend walking at bridge when its raining. You see same thing. But think for a Moment. The waves will have more "curvature" than actual Earths curvature over few Km straight reflection is visible.
You aren't really thinking. Like a computer that is programmed with the wrong information, garbage in garbage out is in full effect.
You mean this?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1223076361657385041/New_Bitmap_Image.png?ex=661889a0&is=660614a0&hm=fa66ed2946fa48bb893014b479f6e071257d0bd1af78e20006ed937ec234779e&)
Have you ever experienced real curvature in the sea? That is, on a completely still calm day, if curvature were a real thing, for every mile at sea, you ought to be climbing an 8 inch mound of water. Ain't no such thing, though.
You look at random stuff like a bridge obscuring view at its peak, and decide it means something. If as a very young kid, I convinced you that left was right and red was green, another teacher would have to work on you, or you would be messed up. In the same way, if all of your teachers told you RE nonsense, you'd increasingly be resistant to people telling you otherwise.
You are still under the illusion that I somehow haven't been educated. Dude, went to primary school. Went to high school, went to community college, went to college, took a few extra courses in viticulture and marketing. Had a different education as a result of the extra courses and the pieces together stuff, but very definitely learned everything you did.
The difference is that outside of college, I gradually learned my "professors" were full of shit. They learned the material from other teachers without checking the material, or in some cases they were propagandists. In still other cases, the material was right only for certain circumstances, like the grammar teacher who corrects for rules but never bothers to tell you that certain situations the rule isn't valid.
Even if we accept that gravity is a thing, this guy explains situations where it outright does not work. They talk about how on a black hole situation, it just doesn't work, and for weak things like between two people, we don't know whether it's right or wrong. Hardly a law, hardly a universalized force.
Garbage in, garbage out. If you are told nonsense as a child, it is or framework for solving problems as an adult. Unless, like me, you ditched this framework when it no longer suited a reasonable purpose.
Garbage in garbage out gave you this incofrect notion of how a globe works and where the center of circles are.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1123593550983090283/1220569410238943242/PayUp.png?ex=660f6ad8&is=65fcf5d8&hm=2873ba91fdf50693160b71e4f900f8140ad58ec4d88b36ac9caf6e3296c6010e&)
(https://i.ibb.co/VSRhhwN/Untitled15.png) (https://ibb.co/nc9VVP0)
Perfect
Bulma agrees or not?
-
so how do you explain 12 000 km visibility? You flatties jump and scream when you manage to get Mountain to Mountain 500 km "impossible shot"?
How do you explain what now?
The longest confirmed line of sight is 275 miles. Well beyond where we are supposed to have curvature, yet all vision eventually ends.
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/66661-longest-line-of-sight-on-earth (https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/66661-longest-line-of-sight-on-earth)
If you want to ask me how I explain something, shouldn't you get something real?
Round Earthers: shows real pictures [that is supposedly fake] of earth taken by satellites and spacecrafts in the 21st century AD
Flat Earthers: shows Adobe Illustrator images of flat earth made by flat earthers according to models given by high prophets in 69 century BC
Actually, your pictures are done by professional artists. The difference is that our artists are amateurs, and draw what they know, while your artists are contracted by government to keep up an illusion.
On the topic of Adobe Stock art.
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/01/62/97/30/1000_F_162973025_WADse4fjM9keIlkL42PnYNoc17MdrNME.jpg)
Hey bulmabriefs144, point to the four corners of the earth Isaiah was referring to?
He means the edges. East, west, north, and south as far as you can go.
But strictly speaking, that's not right.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1222928423081480212/bdd992c1fb887b80ee16f6f721f08f3e.jpg?ex=6617ffd8&is=66058ad8&hm=4b59af71a63f34e722b9ad005ce091426e3048a28cf0e69de93385c18a5aaad4&)
North = towards the center
West/East = clockwise and counterclockwise
South = away from center
As for Revelation, I have no comment.
Fleeing from the subject yet again.
Yes, being TOSSED around kills you.
So then, you admit that Earth can't rotate 1000+ mph and orbit 60,000+ mph?
I fled from nothing.
But you walked into that.
Have you completely given up on answering my questions about the Pendulum?
-
Have you ever experienced real curvature in the sea?
Yes. I was in the navy and went to the beach quite often. Tides too.
Watched boats go out to sea over the horizon blocked bottom up. To navigation, targeting, and estimating the distance of ships.
From a 1943 blue jackets manual. It’s the introductory guide / survival manual for entering the navy.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZDmcaLb.jpeg)
Another page from the blue jackets manual from 1943
(https://i.imgur.com/br0h5Az.jpeg)
Close up of a specific passage.
(https://i.imgur.com/Z05UVWk.jpeg)
You look at random stuff
And yet I can cite guides that give a quick and fairly accurate estimate on distance and how far away a ship is based on its position on the horizon, or over the horizon.
Or these..
Then why are these accurate for Star gazing
(https://i.imgur.com/EQBVj4s.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/OuU3kzq.jpg)
Simple dial atlases for the norther and southern hemispheres. Kills flat earth.
Atlases that accurate and practically help find constellations month by month, hour by hour. The constellations are like a roads map that helps a person locate specific stars, star groups, nebulas, where the planets of our solar system are in relation to the night sky, and distant galaxies.
The simple dial star atlas for the southern hemisphere is practical to, accurate showing where something like the southern cross is from hour to hour. It would be meaningless and not usable if the east was flat. It would not be a standard for star gazers and amateur astronomers.
Flat earth is dead.
-
Have you completely given up on answering my questions about the Pendulum?
Standard modus operandi of bulmabriefs144. Or flat earthers in general. When it gets obvious an aspect of bulmabriefs144 world model is useless and junk science, time to run to another of bulmabriefs144’s lies. Lay down flack and change the subject.
-
Garbage in, garbage out.
Like why a celestial South Pole works on a spherical earth and is meaningless on a flat earth for what is actually witnessed in the night sky.
-
As for reflection i wouls recommend walking at bridge when its raining. You see same thing. But think for a Moment. The waves will have more "curvature" than actual Earths curvature over few Km straight reflection is visible.
You aren't really thinking. Like a computer that is programmed with the wrong information, garbage in garbage out is in full effect.
You mean this?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1223076361657385041/New_Bitmap_Image.png?ex=661889a0&is=660614a0&hm=fa66ed2946fa48bb893014b479f6e071257d0bd1af78e20006ed937ec234779e&)
Have you ever experienced real curvature in the sea? That is, on a completely still calm day, if curvature were a real thing, for every mile at sea, you ought to be climbing an 8 inch mound of water. Ain't no such thing, though.
You look at random stuff like a bridge obscuring view at its peak, and decide it means something. If as a very young kid, I convinced you that left was right and red was green, another teacher would have to work on you, or you would be messed up. In the same way, if all of your teachers told you RE nonsense, you'd increasingly be resistant to people telling you otherwise.
You are still under the illusion that I somehow haven't been educated. Dude, went to primary school. Went to high school, went to community college, went to college, took a few extra courses in viticulture and marketing. Had a different education as a result of the extra courses and the pieces together stuff, but very definitely learned everything you did.
The difference is that outside of college, I gradually learned my "professors" were full of shit. They learned the material from other teachers without checking the material, or in some cases they were propagandists. In still other cases, the material was right only for certain circumstances, like the grammar teacher who corrects for rules but never bothers to tell you that certain situations the rule isn't valid.
Even if we accept that gravity is a thing, this guy explains situations where it outright does not work. They talk about how on a black hole situation, it just doesn't work, and for weak things like between two people, we don't know whether it's right or wrong. Hardly a law, hardly a universalized force.
Garbage in, garbage out. If you are told nonsense as a child, it is or framework for solving problems as an adult. Unless, like me, you ditched this framework when it no longer suited a reasonable purpose.
you wouldnt be climbing anything since its always 90 relative to zenith. I actually did my own curvature experiment, I can download pics form my phone if you want
-
Have you ever experienced real curvature in the sea?
Yes. I was in the navy and went to the beach quite often. Tides too.
Watched boats go out to sea over the horizon blocked bottom up. To navigation, targeting, and estimating the distance of ships.
From a 1943 blue jackets manual. It’s the introductory guide / survival manual for entering the navy.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZDmcaLb.jpeg)
Another page from the blue jackets manual from 1943
(https://i.imgur.com/br0h5Az.jpeg)
Close up of a specific passage.
(https://i.imgur.com/Z05UVWk.jpeg)
You look at random stuff
And yet I can cite guides that give a quick and fairly accurate estimate on distance and how far away a ship is based on its position on the horizon, or over the horizon.
Or these..
Then why are these accurate for Star gazing
(https://i.imgur.com/EQBVj4s.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/OuU3kzq.jpg)
Simple dial atlases for the norther and southern hemispheres. Kills flat earth.
Atlases that accurate and practically help find constellations month by month, hour by hour. The constellations are like a roads map that helps a person locate specific stars, star groups, nebulas, where the planets of our solar system are in relation to the night sky, and distant galaxies.
The simple dial star atlas for the southern hemisphere is practical to, accurate showing where something like the southern cross is from hour to hour. It would be meaningless and not usable if the east was flat. It would not be a standard for star gazers and amateur astronomers.
Flat earth is dead.
I thought globe was invented in 50s by Rockashilds
-
I thought globe was invented in 50s by Rockashilds
I thought it was NASA and its elite team of ninja astrophysicists to guard the ice wall?
-
As for reflection i wouls recommend walking at bridge when its raining. You see same thing. But think for a Moment. The waves will have more "curvature" than actual Earths curvature over few Km straight reflection is visible.
You aren't really thinking. Like a computer that is programmed with the wrong information, garbage in garbage out is in full effect.
You mean this?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1223076361657385041/New_Bitmap_Image.png?ex=661889a0&is=660614a0&hm=fa66ed2946fa48bb893014b479f6e071257d0bd1af78e20006ed937ec234779e&)
Have you ever experienced real curvature in the sea? That is, on a completely still calm day, if curvature were a real thing, for every mile at sea, you ought to be climbing an 8 inch mound of water. Ain't no such thing, though.
You look at random stuff like a bridge obscuring view at its peak, and decide it means something. If as a very young kid, I convinced you that left was right and red was green, another teacher would have to work on you, or you would be messed up. In the same way, if all of your teachers told you RE nonsense, you'd increasingly be resistant to people telling you otherwise.
You are still under the illusion that I somehow haven't been educated. Dude, went to primary school. Went to high school, went to community college, went to college, took a few extra courses in viticulture and marketing. Had a different education as a result of the extra courses and the pieces together stuff, but very definitely learned everything you did.
The difference is that outside of college, I gradually learned my "professors" were full of shit. They learned the material from other teachers without checking the material, or in some cases they were propagandists. In still other cases, the material was right only for certain circumstances, like the grammar teacher who corrects for rules but never bothers to tell you that certain situations the rule isn't valid.
Even if we accept that gravity is a thing, this guy explains situations where it outright does not work. They talk about how on a black hole situation, it just doesn't work, and for weak things like between two people, we don't know whether it's right or wrong. Hardly a law, hardly a universalized force.
Garbage in, garbage out. If you are told nonsense as a child, it is or framework for solving problems as an adult. Unless, like me, you ditched this framework when it no longer suited a reasonable purpose.
Bul, you not being highly educated is no illusion. Only you know what subjects you undertook in high school and college, but none of them appear to have been science based or improved your ability to think critically.
You haven't undertaken university level education like I have, Jack Black has, and most of the other globers here have. So on the education front, yours is less than ours. It's a proven fact that people less educated are more susceptible to being sucked in by misinformation and are more gullible to scams like the flat earth movement.
I'm not trying to make you feel inadequate to be participating in these debates, but your education level is something you could improve.
I have experienced real curvature out at sea. Just get in a boat and start heading out from shore. Around the 5km mark, you will notice the buildings and landscape in general at the shoreline disappearing from the bottom up. That is experiencing curvature at sea.
Have you abandoned your flat earth proof being the world record for the longest line of sight here on Earth?
-
Belittle and discredit. That's how the so-called modern world avoids dealing with people who threaten the orthodoxy.
Sorry guy.
1. Not homeschooled by fundamentalists.
2. Did not start out believing in flat Earth, came to that conclusion years after college.
3. Did not have some strange gap in my science education.
4. Was not brainwashed by some cult.
5. Not stupid or insane (mostly anyway, I do have ADD and social issues).
2000 years ago, I'd be another person nailed to a cross or stoned to death. Now you just try to convince me I belong in an institution. Sorry, you belong in an institution, like most of those liberal now applying for welfare. Prior to about the 70s or 80s, such places were filled, then the powers that be decided it was better for the insane to be homeless.
I took history and minored in horticulture (for those who don't know, that's a science minor). Switched minors at organic chemistry (the subject that does in a great deal of would-be students in science). I have no interest in genetic engineering or in making drugs chemicals for plants, I wanted to study plants themselves, and got fed up with not learning all that much about the subject itself.
You haven't undertaken university level education like I have...
Let me stop you there.
From my experience, university students dwell on their education, never realizing that what they actually experience is indoctrination. Oh yes, I am certain university-level work seems hard. This is because the professors hard core are trying to brainwash students.
Education is nothing to boast about. I notice you aren't boasting about your knowledge. You see, knowledge is something that requires initiative. Actually going out and looking things up yourself. Is it something you do? No, not from my observation. If you weren't taught it in the past by your esteemed professors in a lecture, you are arrogant to the point of no new knowledge penetrating those thick skulls of yours.
Is Higher Education Making Students Dumb and Dumber? (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajes.12372)
Turns out Harvard Students Aren't That Smart After All (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/17/harvard-university-students-smart-iq)
(Wherein in says the biggest qualifier for universities like Harvard is not merit, but having parents who went or deep pockets)
Why University Makes People Stupid (https://medium.com/lost-but-coding/why-university-makes-people-stupid-799c840f903)
No, I didn't get university education. But from my 20s when I graduated college to today, I have not stopped learning. I read papers, I study at libraries, and I do independent research. Your education is shit. I've known it was shit by the fact that rather than debating properly, you guys pull education rank on me (ask an employer whether they value degrees (https://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?documentid=408102)), and because I struck by how often I have to repeat the same damned points with virtually zero comprehension.
All you learned from university was how to be woke Marxists, how to utterly fail at basic understanding of what I'm saying, and how to parrot dumbassed mutterings while you struggle to pay off debts while you feel superior about nothing.
Have you abandoned your flat earth proof being the world record for the longest line of sight here on Earth?
Because your fine universary degree left you with the inability to listen (I have ADHD, and I still remember what you have said before), you failed to notice that I have said that light and other wavelengths have a limit whereafter they tend to scatter. You have failed to notice that I already mentioned this distance. You have failed to notice that I've mentioned that height increases distance of sight, that angles cause the capping of distance, and that at ground level, sight line should be only about 3 to 11 miles, but you can actually see across the bay to Chicago
If you actually got over yourself and your so-called education, and adopted the barest level of humility needed to learn things, you'd remember that I said all of this. But since you think university education is a silver bullet to replace common sense, this is the latest in a number of times that I've had to repeat one or more of these points, and I have never at any point said that either line of sight or light wavelengths continue forever.
But I remember you guys have.
I said repeatedly that they operate as though under a parabola in terms of light range, angle, etc. Much like lifting a giant umbrella from the ground to quite a distance above. Jack Black with his university education (or was it Data? I don't care about either of you enough to keep you straight) suggested flipping the parabola, completely missing the point.
That's right, even though I cannot tell you people apart (you all start to run together), I know that I've heard similar to this said. "If the Earth is flat, then you should be able to see the sun on the other side of the Earth."
(https://warisanlighting.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/brick-wall-lights-photo-9.jpg)
If light really continued like you say...
Why is the light from lightbulb A not brightening lightbulb B? The energy ought to transfer much like a pool ball hitting another pool ball.
(https://scienceprojectideasforkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Energy-transfer-pool-balls.jpg)
This extra energy has been converted from electrical energy to light energy, so no powering the bulb, but the light ought to be just as bright. But of course, it is not. Because what you have been told about electromagnetic wavelengths is garbage.
gullible to scams like the flat earth movement
RE is a scam that costed the taxpayer...
Since its inception the United States has spent nearly US$650 billion (in nominal dollars) on NASA
$650 billion since it started. FE by contrast has cost me nothing.
In fact, halting all space exploration should save taxpayers $24 billion a year, and since every state in the union spends on NASA, this is a massive tax cut.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/NASA_dollars.jpg)
"Boost the economics," my ass. More like contribute to public poverty.
Explain to me what a scam that costs the conned person nothing has in terms of purpose?
You see, I am a pragmatist. If something costs me something that I don't want to pay, I don't use it.
You fall for these scams, and you project your gullibility.
-
I see you are now just entirely fleeing from your previous arguments and resorting to pathetic insults and more BS.
Belittle and discredit.
That does seem to be your status quoe.
Happy to dismiss anyone who calls out your BS as a shill, and ignore the points they make.
But we can't forget your other big tactics, deflect and flee like the lying coward you are.
5. Not stupid or insane (mostly anyway, I do have ADD and social issues).
And the only way this is possible is if you are knowingly lying to everyone here.
Otherwise, your actions show the opposite.
From my experience, university students dwell on their education, never realizing that what they actually experience is indoctrination.
You mean from your experience, they realise you are spouting pure BS, and you don't like that so pretend they are indoctrinated to dismiss them.
Education is nothing to boast about. I notice you aren't boasting about your knowledge.
Education provides knowledge.
Something you clearly lack.
But from my 20s when I graduated college to today, I have not stopped learning.
Learning how to lie to people?
Learning how to be a dishonest POS?
I struck by how often I have to repeat the same damned points with virtually zero comprehension.
You mean how often you repeat the same points, only to flee from the refutation of them, just to bring up the same refuted BS later?
You have failed to notice that I've mentioned that height increases distance of sight
The problem is you have absolutely no justification for it.
I said repeatedly that they operate as though under a parabola in terms of light range, angle, etc.
And the question is WHY?
What magic causes this?
The other big question is why does this cause objects to magically vanish from the bottom up?
How does this allow us to see things above the horizon so much further away?
Your parabola simply doesn't work.
You have had this explained to you repeatedly. Yet you ignore it.
You have no response, so you flee by either entirely leaving the thread, or changing topic.
Conversely, the RE model does work to explain it.
Jack Black with his university education (or was it Data? I don't care about either of you enough to keep you straight) suggested flipping the parabola, completely missing the point.
Quite the opposite.
I suggested flipping the parabola, because that would be a much better match for reality.
By flipping the parabola, you have objects disappear from the bottom up, just like in reality. You also have objects much higher being able to be seen from much further away.
It still doesn't work entirely, but it works a lot better than your delusional BS.
If light really continued like you say...
Why is the light from lightbulb A not brightening lightbulb B?
We can see lightbulb B, so it clearly is.
What it can't do is heat up bulb B enough for it to glow.
The energy ought to transfer much like a pool ball hitting another pool ball.
Why?
This is yet another example of you being entirely incapable of defending your dishonest BS, so you just invent a strawman to attack.
but the light ought to be just as bright.
Why?
Stop just asserting pure BS, and try explaining it.
RE is a scam that costed the taxpayer...
RE is based upon reality, and is a model which actually works to describe reality.
But for the most part, it does nothing to the taxpayer.
NASA is based upon exploring space, not RE.
But if you want to include NASA, it has resulted in plenty of technology, including the camera in your phone.
In fact, halting all space exploration should save taxpayers $24 billion a year, and since every state in the union spends on NASA, this is a massive tax cut.
Or they just reallocate it to elsewhere.
But why not express it more honestly as a fraction of the US budget, 0.48%.
So that "massive tax cut" would be 0.48%.
Does that really sound massive?
If you paid $10 000 in tax, that would be $48.
Explain to me what a scam that costs the conned person nothing has in terms of purpose?
How much time have you put into it?
How many stupid FE videos have you watched, and watched the ads on, paying them money based upon your time?
But as well as that, you are advertising for them, to try get more fools to join in and do stupid things like buy their books, or get more ad revenue for their crappy videos.
-
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense
A Chewbacca Defense is a way of "winning" a debate through methods other than logic and reasoned argument. The essence of it is that if you get your opponent to give up, then you "win".
The False Dichotomy: If the other side is wrong about anything, no matter how irrelevant, they're wrong about everything — and you're right about everything.
The Ad Hominem: If you can do anything to make the other side look bad, you win. This is usually accomplished by misrepresenting their side entirely. Extra effective if you can compare them to Hitler.
The Red Herring: If you can get your opponent to talk about something other than the key points, you win. It can be easily combined with the Ad Hominem attack by accusing your opponent of supporting or opposing something totally irrelevant to the argument, in such a way that they have to address it.
Quality by Popular Vote: If you can show that your side is the more popular argument, you win, regardless of whether your side is the correct argument.
The Broken Record: If you repeat the same point over and over again, you win — because obviously, the other side didn't address it if you won't shut up about it. Extra effective if you keep repeating a catchy soundbite or buzzword.
The "Gish Gallop": Hit your opponent with as many arguments as you can in as short a timespan as you can. If they don't address every single one to your satisfaction, you win. And it's practically impossible for them to do that because they have no time to prepare and are not going to pay attention to everything you're vomiting out there.
This is what you learned at university. Not how to employ real logic or reason, but a number of fallacies to employ instead of logic and reason. The Gish Gallop is particularly used, as FAS has a text limit after which I simply cannot post without a 503 error. "Well what do you think of my nine points over here?" I think that I have answered them in the past, will probably think for new answers, and that you probably aren't listening to my answers in the first place.
Even accusing your opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense is itself a form of Chewbacca Defense. This means it's bad form to make such an accusation, which in turn leads to what's known as "Chewbacca's Dilemma" — first, you can't defend yourself from an actual Chewbacca Defense, and second, no matter how intelligently and clearly you make your point, certain opponents will always perceive your argument as a Chewbacca Defense.
:giggles:
So are you hoping that if you go on repeating the same crap over and over again, that I'll believe you? Because it's not right, today, tomorrow, or ten years from now.
How can I dismiss all space footage? Because I know better. Simple as that.
-
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense
Telling us what you are doing are you?
Not how to employ real logic or reason, but a number of fallacies to employ instead of logic and reason.
The one continually appealing to fallacies here is you.
You continually set up strawmen to attack, and when your lies are refuted you just abandon ship and jump on another topic.
Just look at what you have done in this thread alone. Look at how many pathetic lies against the RE model you have made, had refuted, and then fled from like the lying coward you are?
Look at you here now, not even attempting to defend any of your lies and instead resorting to more insults.
The Gish Gallop is particularly used
By you, continually jumping topics and spamming as much pure BS as you can to pretend you are right.
I think that I have answered them in the past
You haven't.
You have fled from the questions because they show you are full of shit.
So are you hoping that if you go on repeating the same crap over and over again, that I'll believe you?
The one repeating the same crap over and over again is YOU!
Because when your crap is refuted, you flee like the lying coward you are, only to bring it up again later to get it refuted again.
Grow up.
Stop jumping around topics.
Pick an argument, and stick to it, and deal with the refutation of your lies.
How can I dismiss all space footage? Because I know better. Simple as that.
It is even simpler:
Because it shows you are wrong and have no interest in admitting you are wrong.
You cling to your fantasy like a safety blanket.
-
:giggles:
Out of prideful ignorance.
If the earth was flat, the below highly useful dial atlas would be useless and not meaningful in any way.
(https://i.imgur.com/OuU3kzq.jpg)
-
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense
A Chewbacca Defense is a way of "winning" a debate through methods other than logic and reasoned argument. The essence of it is that if you get your opponent to give up, then you "win".
The False Dichotomy: If the other side is wrong about anything, no matter how irrelevant, they're wrong about everything — and you're right about everything.
The Ad Hominem: If you can do anything to make the other side look bad, you win. This is usually accomplished by misrepresenting their side entirely. Extra effective if you can compare them to Hitler.
The Red Herring: If you can get your opponent to talk about something other than the key points, you win. It can be easily combined with the Ad Hominem attack by accusing your opponent of supporting or opposing something totally irrelevant to the argument, in such a way that they have to address it.
Quality by Popular Vote: If you can show that your side is the more popular argument, you win, regardless of whether your side is the correct argument.
The Broken Record: If you repeat the same point over and over again, you win — because obviously, the other side didn't address it if you won't shut up about it. Extra effective if you keep repeating a catchy soundbite or buzzword.
The "Gish Gallop": Hit your opponent with as many arguments as you can in as short a timespan as you can. If they don't address every single one to your satisfaction, you win. And it's practically impossible for them to do that because they have no time to prepare and are not going to pay attention to everything you're vomiting out there.
This is what you learned at university. Not how to employ real logic or reason, but a number of fallacies to employ instead of logic and reason. The Gish Gallop is particularly used, as FAS has a text limit after which I simply cannot post without a 503 error. "Well what do you think of my nine points over here?" I think that I have answered them in the past, will probably think for new answers, and that you probably aren't listening to my answers in the first place.
Even accusing your opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense is itself a form of Chewbacca Defense. This means it's bad form to make such an accusation, which in turn leads to what's known as "Chewbacca's Dilemma" — first, you can't defend yourself from an actual Chewbacca Defense, and second, no matter how intelligently and clearly you make your point, certain opponents will always perceive your argument as a Chewbacca Defense.
:giggles:
So are you hoping that if you go on repeating the same crap over and over again, that I'll believe you? Because it's not right, today, tomorrow, or ten years from now.
How can I dismiss all space footage? Because I know better. Simple as that.
Umm, don't you mean you can dismiss all space footage because you know less? Like I said, I have university education, so you know less about thinking critically than I do, don't you? Which means you know less about thinking critically than JB, data, Tiemeup, and pretty much every other glober on here. It's an unfair advantage we have, and I'm all about fairness.
That's the real reason you can dismiss all space footage - because you know less.
Professors at university do exactly the opposite to what you say they do. You think professors brainwash their students to the orthodoxy when in actual fact, professors teach students to think critically.
Thinking critically is what you are sadly lacking, which is why flat earth videos like from Phuket World, make total sense to you. Believe me, even the locals in the jungles around Phuket who he tries to brainwash, think he's as smart as a box of rocks. But he's a genius in his own mind.
The only way I can see we can even up the critical thinking in these debates is if you undertake some sort of science study at university level, and pass. Buy hey, if that happened, you wouldn't be a flat earther anymore, sprouting your lack of education, now would you?
-
I assume you failed out.
You also said you were a janitor at a school...
Doesnt qualify as "attending" school
And like an incel who lacks the social selfawareness and blames everything onnthe liberal woman, - circles and triangles are not indoctrination.
You not understanding how theybwork doesnt mean theyre fake.
And
When you continue to dodge dorect questions and deflect into n9nsense tangents it is obvious.
So any pers9nal attacks is not ad hom.
Is it justified callong you out on your BS.
if you want creditibility, show some and stay on topic.
-
and why don't you try raising money to buy a rocket of your own to prove earth looks flat from space?
as pointed out in https://archive.is/umT7M, the first photograph of Earth from outer space was taken from a modified V-2 rocket in 1946.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_No._13
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1946-11-21_White_Sands_NM_V-2_rocket.ogg
(https://i.imgur.com/kB4UCKL.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/KwzHlvH.png)
I'm not in the practice of believing what is uttered through the idiot box. Are you?
-
and why don't you try raising money to buy a rocket of your own to prove earth looks flat from space?
as pointed out in https://archive.is/umT7M, the first photograph of Earth from outer space was taken from a modified V-2 rocket in 1946.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_No._13
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1946-11-21_White_Sands_NM_V-2_rocket.ogg
(https://i.imgur.com/kB4UCKL.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/KwzHlvH.png)
I'm not in the practice of believing what is uttered through the idiot box. Are you?
How is flat earth helpful to anyone that is a star gazer / amateur astronomer?
-
I assume you failed out.
You also said you were a janitor at a school...
Doesnt qualify as "attending" school
And like an incel who lacks the social selfawareness and blames everything onnthe liberal woman, - circles and triangles are not indoctrination.
You not understanding how theybwork doesnt mean theyre fake.
This is the fruit of university education. Inability to argue without ad hominem, inability to remember the simplest things, and inability to grasp concepts.
I said I graduated. Not with honors, but maybe an A/B average for most courses. I was not exceptional but hardly a C student. I also took additional courses in marketing and vitculture.
I also said that my first job out of college was working as a janitor. I said this to point out how different this life was from the college life. I quickly learned that although I knew about literature and science, and everything my liberal arts education could afford, I quickly realized that I had never been taught how to manage and run a business. My first boss was (by all accounts in terms of education) "dumber than me". I suspect he was dyslexic and probably a dropout, as he'd often tell me his eyes weren't that good and ask me to read things for him. Yet, you know what? He knew how to run a business and manage its finances. I knew literature and science... which was worth practically nothing in term of the daily tasks of the business. I had it fill water for his industrial steam vacuum and apply the occasional Goo-Gone.
Anyway, even were you convinced I was the janitor's helper at the school, that just shows your own entitlement. People who do that? They're poor. They put themselves through school working hard while also studying. You're a dumb snob. Should I also ask you if you maybe got into a university through your parents rather than your own intelligence?
But no, that is not my history. This is a major point of topic, as if you can't even be bothered to remember something simple about another person, how can I trust you to understand concepts?
I attended school. I graduated. I learned absolutely nothing useful for holding a job, and spent the next 15 years floundering, working at gardening jobs, volunteer stuff, self-employed jobs, or just internships. My student loan was paid of by my folks. Thank God for them. I never would have got anywhere on my own.
Yes, the accusation that I am an incel is spot on, and yes liberal women are fucked up in the head. I spent multiple years getting nowhere with the opposite sex. It would be a mercy if they rejected me outright. But I was their "gay friend" (hint: I was trans, not gay) while they instead fell for people who supported their bullshit. After a girl no matter how much I worried about her getting stuck in what appeared to be a sketchy relationship where she was saving all of her money to meet the guy (who never helped in this endeavor), I decided I had enough.
Again, none of this has anything to do with the fact that the model of space exploration doesn't work. You tell me to stay on topic, yet you fail utterly to even accuse me properly, forgetting things I've already told you. If I were to accuse myself, I'd have a valid case for talking about absolute shit job record, or how I didn't graduate with honors.
If I employed the same level of misunderstanding, I'd probably come up with all sorts of wild backstories for you.
So any pers9nal attacks is not ad hom.
Is it justified callong you out on your BS.
That's exactly what it is. Ad hominem, from "to the person", for things that involve attacks not on someone's argument or their logic, but instead their face, or their education level, or their family, or marital status. Me supposedly being full of BS doesn't make a fallacy non-fallacious or ad hominem suddenly not ad hominem. I can attack your spelling (learn to spell "direct", "personal", and "calling") because it is part of your diction. I can attack your logic too. But the moment I start saying "I bet you're a fat bitter woman who got conned into marrying a soyboy, and was shocked to see that he didn't want to raise kids, so you aborted yours," that's ad hominem territory. Justifications don't matter.
And for the record, circles and triangles don't actually exist in nature. The Platonic model of forms used for most math is based on theoretical ideas. There is no such thing as a 2D circle, square or triangle, except that you drew it. It is a tool to understanding and measuring. It doesn't exist in nature. Mountains are mostly triangular, and the horizon if you were to spin around would appear mostly a circle. But mostly isn't actually, and attempts to measure a mountain by math this way wind up as estimates.
That you don't understand math is not real when its founders would be careful to tell you it's only a tool means that your math and science is basically delusion territory. You don't possess the sense needed to separate mere ideas from things that can be seen, heard, or touched.
Anyone who thinks a circle or triangle is real is at the same level as someone who fawns over anime characters.
(https://fineartmultiple.com/media/wysiwyg/Images/Magritte_This_Is_Not_A_Pipe_1935.jpg)
This is a drawing of a pipe, not a pipe itself.
(https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc0NDczMTM3OTEwNDU3OTkw/calculator-techniques-for-circles-and-triangles-in-plane-geometry.png)
Unlike the pipe, there is no "real" triangle.
-
This is the fruit of university education.
Which has nothing to do with this thread.
All you can do is flack a thread bulmabriefs144, and derail it. Or you flee from topics.
And the fact flat earth is a con, with no meaningful use for amateur or professional astronomers.
-
Umm, don't you mean you can dismiss all space footage because you know less?
On the contrary. The more I learn about ignition, thermodynamics, buoyancy, mass, propulsion, the more implausible the idea becomes.
The science of propulsion (quite literally rocket science) falls apart because it asks us to ignore what we see in reality, that is that a simple balloon filled with helium has a height limit. Planes have a height limit. After a certain point, air is too thin for much of anything to fly.
If space travel were actually real, the ship would use the main shuttle to very precisely boost itself and the reserves tanks into space. But that's not what happens, is it? Nope, instead it guzzles all of its fuel from those big tanks to get into the thin air zone, dumps the big tanks to apparently slingshot into space...
AND THEN WHAT?
Without oxygen there can be no ignition. Without oxygen, you have no propulsion. Space is supposed to be a giant vacuum. You have nothing to push off of. You dumped the big tank when you could maybe use it to push off in empty space.
Yes, I know better.
This propulsion idea would be similar to heading to school on foot, and then tossing your books behind you to give you that "extra momentum" to get into class.
Teacher: Open your books to Chapter 5, page 115.
Student: Teacher, I don't have my books, I needed them for added propulsion.
Teacher: Oh, okay. I suppose it was difficult to reach escape velocity.
Those big tubes, were space travel possible, would be to boost you ahead when there is no air. But since they aren't used in space, I know immediately that the entire rocket science is built upon fraud.
-
The more I learn about ignition, thermodynamics, buoyancy, mass, propulsion, the more implausible the idea becomes.
But you contradictory believe the sun is a perpetual motion machine. Have no explanation why the sun would orbit above earth in atmosphere. What different forces causes the sun and moon to change speeds and diameters of orbits through the year for a flat earth delusion. And have no explanation why the sun sets and becomes physically blocked from view by earth’s curvature, yet much farther away and fainter stars are visible at night. And you have no explanation for the pressure gradient of earth’s atmosphere. And you have no explanation for a car in neutral I can push around all day long on a flat surface, but can’t push it up hill in any meaningful way.
-
The science of propulsion (quite literally rocket science) falls apart because it asks us to ignore what we see in reality, that is that a simple balloon filled with helium has a height limit. Planes have a height limit. After a certain point, air is too thin for much of anything to fly.
Rockets literally hold and expel their own atmosphere to react it in a controlled explosion to creat thrust.
Helium balloons only rise to the point their density effectively is equal to a pressure gradient in the upper atmosphere. Killing buoyancy is a fundamental force, but dependent on a force acting on air molecules.
Airplanes and jets use a combustion process that relies on enough oxygen in the atmosphere to act as oxidizer with their fuel. The oxygen concentration and atmospheric density becomes too thin in the upper atmosphere to support how they burn fuel. Why supercharging an aircraft’s internal combustion engine helps.
Rockets don’t have such limits because they carry their own fuel and have carry their oxidizer which is usually liquid oxygen. Unless it’s a solid rocket fuel. And muscle their way up with thrust, and don’t rely on wings to create lift.
-
No
Ad jom is when
: This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.
Since you did not defend your position, it is not an ad hom fallacy.
Because attscking your lack of intellect is not to deflect away from the points made.
Because you made no points.
Got it?
Probably not...
-
I know immediately that the entire rocket science is built upon fraud.
Because across at least three threads you ignored the repeated explanations and examples how rocket engines work, and how they carry their own fuel and oxidizer. And how they create thrust.
Only then can it accelerate for a while whilst the fuel is thrusting against the atmosphere.
That bullshit again.
Why does a rocket need atmosphere to thrust against.
The rocket produces thrust that pushes it forward by the created atmosphere of expanding gasses from burning fuel that pushes out the rocket motor nozzle.
It’s been extensively covered here…
It actually has everything to do with it.
Which of your BS statements?
You
No. That's incomplete combustion. With more oxygen, you may be able to get a complete combustion. But combustion relies on three things: heat, fuel, and oxygen. But in space, two of the three are missing.
Back to the liquid nitrogen video..
We know from the videos the rocket motors are going through a complete burn because the motors are actuating their end of burn ejection charges.
Now.. look!
(https://i.imgur.com/XijGDRv.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/wU30EOC.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/q3ZrW9O.jpg)
The fuel and oxidizer are having no trouble creating the reaction that is fire under the blanket of liquid nitrogen.
You
A vacuum tube itself is not a chamber of zero gravity,
What is that you quote about the fire triangle? It’s actually the fire tetrahedron now..
(https://media.cdn.lexipol.com/20180510_FR1_Fire_Tetrahedron_w_title.png?w=680&format=jpg&quality=70&crop=0%2C0%2C800%2C824)
so we're not seeing in addition to zero gravity (which I don't believe in, but devil's advocate) the airless condition.
Hmm. Nothing about gravity or pressure in the fire tetrahedron.
You
This is the reality of outer space, stripped of all your smoke and mirrors. The rocket has nothing to hold onto. Nothing to push against. It is moving across a void.
So?
This is the simplification of how rockets work.
In a vacuum, you have nothing to move against. No ground, no water, no air.
The rocket fuel burns, expands, and exerts forward momentum to the rocket through this process as the gasses exit the nozzle.
The rocket fuel burning, creating gases that take up tens to thousands times the space of the fuel, with kinetic energy is providing the “matter”..
It’s a controlled explosion.
(http://www.braeunig.us/space/pics/fig1-01.gif)
Figure 1.1 shows a combustion chamber with an opening, the nozzle, through which gas can escape. The pressure distribution within the chamber is asymmetric; that is, inside the chamber the pressure varies little, but near the nozzle it decreases somewhat. The force due to gas pressure on the bottom of the chamber is not compensated for from the outside. The resultant force F due to the internal and external pressure difference, the thrust, is opposite to the direction of the gas jet. It pushes the chamber upwards.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm
The rocket engine provides it own fuel and oxidizer. Through a controlled explosion providing the mass to push it along in the form of a large expanding gas bubble at the nozzle.
I know why "science" (really scientism) likes to make this claim. Because of this passage.
You haven’t shown any scientific evidence of your stance.
You
Well sorry but at the end of the day, you have no means of traveling anywhere in the outer darkness (but through God), 360k mph or 15 mph.
You understand comets are real? What makes them go about the solar system. We should be able to obtain similar speeds then glide about like a comet? Why could we not travel around the solar system at speeds and in a manner similar to comets?
Comet Encke has a perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) of 0.336 AU (50.3 million km; 31.2 million mi). At perihelion Comet Encke passes the Sun at 69.9 km/s (252,000 km/h). Of the numbered comets less than 321P, only 96P/Machholz gets closer to the Sun.[12]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Encke#Orbit
Why does it have to work?
It only has to not explode in front of millions of people.
And then produce everything which it is meant to.
i.e. all the things which come from satellites.
Because most people are convinced by an angled ascent, leveling off and then descending, because it is explained away by curvature. I am not.
You mean most people are convinced by a continued ascent, while you aren't because you are desperate to pretend it is fake, so you repeat the same that it is a descent, even though you cannot demonstrate that at all, and have no rational justification or evidence to support it.
And I just showed a video where the shuttle descended after leveling off.
You are so deep in denial you saw something on a video without having seen it.
Here's a rocket that shot straight up 351,000 feet (about 66 miles). It can do that because, if you actually cared to understand orbital mechanics in RE as opposed to just being a sheeple to FE, it wax not trying to orbit.
(https://i.imgur.com/MRiTURR.png)
How deep in denial are you that you can't see a rocket going up straight 66 miles abover the earth?
Meanwhile, someone else showed me a video where a rocket burned in a vacuum, and I focused on the fact that it only technically burned less than a second without slo motion.
Totally different. ;)
You missed the point entirely again. Doesn't matter if it lasted a second or an hour. A 2 inch rocket engine actually ignited and produced thrust in a...that's right...in a vacuum. Your claim is that it can't do that. It did do that.
You are so deep in denial you don't see something on a video that everyone else can clearly see.
- Ignition - See the flame?
- Thrust- See the spring move?
- In a vacuum
(https://i.imgur.com/i8i3uhK.gif)
-
No
Ad hominem is when
: This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.
Classic Facebook re-definition. Let's say that "fascism is (like what Donald Trump is, without really saying it directly)". Let's say that ad hominem (you're confusing ad hoc whenever you try to abbreviate this) is only attacks on a person when the circumstances are just right.
I suppose next you'll redefine capitalism as:
A system where greedy rich people prey on the poor by forcing them to do work for money.
Ad hominem is ad hominem. I can change definitions of terms (like buoyancy), but you don't get to. This is because my definition change is an expansion of original concept whereas yours is a distortion. When I do it, it's totally okay.
Whether I made any points or not, the fallacy continues to be fallacy, just as I did a double-standard fallacy just now.
-
Classic Facebook re-definition.
What are you babbling about. Rocket engines/motors have extensively been explained to you by multiple people in multiple threads, with repeated demonstrations how they provide their own mass, fuel, oxidizer, and release energy from the explosive reaction. While your delusion requires a perpetual motion machine that you labeled the sun in the flat earth delusion which would violate the very “laws” you’re complaining about to keep the sun in orbit in atmosphere above a flat earth.
-
I know immediately that the entire rocket science is built upon fraud.
Because across at least three threads you ignored the repeated explanations and examples how rocket engines work, and how they carry their own fuel and oxidizer. And how they create thrust.
Only then can it accelerate for a while whilst the fuel is thrusting against the atmosphere.
That bullshit again.
Why does a rocket need atmosphere to thrust against.
The rocket produces thrust that pushes it forward by the created atmosphere of expanding gasses from burning fuel that pushes out the rocket motor nozzle.
It’s been extensively covered here…
It actually has everything to do with it.
Which of your BS statements?
You
No. That's incomplete combustion. With more oxygen, you may be able to get a complete combustion. But combustion relies on three things: heat, fuel, and oxygen. But in space, two of the three are missing.
Back to the liquid nitrogen video..
We know from the videos the rocket motors are going through a complete burn because the motors are actuating their end of burn ejection charges.
Now.. look!
(https://i.imgur.com/XijGDRv.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/wU30EOC.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/q3ZrW9O.jpg)
The fuel and oxidizer are having no trouble creating the reaction that is fire under the blanket of liquid nitrogen.
For about three seconds.
Have you watched the video?
They talk about oxidized fuel too.
The thing is, being able to burn fuel for a few seconds is far different from being totally surrounded by a vacuum on all sides. This is like if you said, "Look, I can make rocket fuel ignite underwater!" Bully for you! But is the underwater atmosphere suited for burning fuel? No, it is not. Just as maybe you can make vacuum ignition sorta happen for a few fractions of a second, when I put slow motion to 1/16 second. But when you burn it in real time and it fizzles out into smoke, is this an actual test? No, it is not! "I just need to add more oxygen." When you threw away the boosters, you invalidated everything. The boosters are your source of oxygen, and you can use them to press forward even if no other oxygen exists. That's not how any of this works, to quote an old lady in a kinda funny commercial. They burn all the reserves and putter around with sorta oxidized fuel.
Stop pretending as though you answered the question! Again, if space flight is real, in an airless environment, you would want to bring the boosters. They leave them behind. There simply isn't enough fuel to last them months in space, and when they run out, unlike a car, they can't walk to the nearest filling station. They are utterly stranded.
-
For about three seconds.
What. The amount of time the rocket can “burn” is based on how much fuel it carries, at what rate the fuel is burnt.
There is no magical “three seconds” limit.
Have you watched the video?
.
Why. Others and I have already extensively posted about rocket fuel and oxidizer. You can’t even refute what’s already been posted and demonstrated.
The thing is, being able to burn fuel for a few seconds is far different from being totally surrounded by a vacuum on all sides.
Has nothing to do with the relatively large amounts of fuel carried into space where the fuel burns, filling the rocket nozzle with atmosphere/ gas / mass.
The rate of burn is based on how fast you can pump fuel and oxidizer into what size combustion chamber and the mass exits out through the nozzle. Or the area of reaction for a solid fuel rocket engine.
This is like if you said, "Look, I can make rocket fuel ignite underwater!" Bully for you! But is the underwater atmosphere suited for burning fuel?
How do you think they cut metal underwater. They do it with a cutting torch for a long time with larger tanks of fuel and oxidizer which feed the cutting torch that can burn several minutes under water until the tanks run low on pressure. Or the process is stopped.
Same principles as a rocket using a fuel and oxidizer.
(https://i.imgur.com/2KS2PWf.jpeg)
No, it is not. Just as maybe you can make ignition sorta happen for a few fractions of a second, when I put slow motion to 1/16 second.
If you’re referring to the model rocket engine, you have a complete misunderstanding of the model rocket engine. The engine does an initial thrust. Then burns a timer fuse that releases tracking smoke, then a charge at top basically explodes to push out a parachute in normal model rocket applications. That means the rocket motor burnt from the bottom, toward the top through a timer fuse to ignite the ejection charge. That means the whole rocket burnt through its entire matrix. If the solid fuel matrix is damage, it will burn faster than normal. Like this.
(https://i.imgur.com/XA63dz6.jpeg)
All it takes for the fuel matrix to be damaged is drop the rocket motor.
The boosters are your source of oxygen,
If you’re referring to the space shuttle. The boosters are solid fuel rocket engines.
The large tank that is left after the boosters fall away still has liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. It’s firing the large rocket engines behind the shuttle.
(https://i.imgur.com/gd9d0ER.jpeg)
like always, you butcher everything bulmabriefs144.
Did you watch a video?
There simply isn't enough fuel to last them months in space,
What are you referring too. Take the space shuttle. The launch system of solid boosters on each side of the large liquid tank fall away. Then after the large tank with compartments for liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fall away, the space shuttle is in free fall orbit around the earth. It has momentum to maintain its orbit without burning fuel. It has pressurized gas on the shuttle itself for orbit correction. And ultimately at the end of mission to decay the free fall orbit to place it in a course to return to earth. Why do you think re-entry into the atmosphere was at high speeds?
-
This is like if you said, "Look, I can make rocket fuel ignite underwater!" Bully for you! But is the underwater atmosphere suited for burning fuel? No, it is not.
Are you referring to this video?
For this engine?
(https://i.imgur.com/RopTCt7.jpeg)
An Estes D12-5 motor.
This is the thrust time for the D12-5
(https://estesrockets.com/cdn/shop/products/D12-Thrust-Curve_8b470ba0-8335-46f6-b275-4087bedf3496.jpg?v=1678818706&width=1206)
https://estesrockets.com/products/d12-5-engines
Not even 1.75 seconds.
But the 5 from D12-5 indicates the rocket engine has a time delay fuse of 5 seconds that burns then sets off the ejection charge at the opposite end of the rocket motor than the rocket nozzle.
This is the rough sequence of the rocket burn. From start to ejection charge.
(https://i.imgur.com/r92xJ96.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/P3kr2lX.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/yyyuYmj.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/vgNlAke.jpg)
So, start of burn before 2:41 in the video. The the ejection charge broke the tank some time after 2:46 mark.
So the engine burn was at least 5 seconds long. We know the engine did a complete burn because it did its initial thrust impulse, burnt through its 5 second delay fuse emitting that black tracking smoke, and ultimately ignited its ejection charge out the top end some time after 2:46 to break the tank. All possible because the fuel and oxidizer are mixed together in the solid fuel matrix totally not dependent on atmospheric oxygen. And totally independent.
-
Bulma talking about gish gallop is priceless
-
This is the fruit of university education. Inability to argue without ad hominem, inability to remember the simplest things, and inability to grasp concepts.
No, that is the fruit of your lack of education and intelligence.
See how you continually fail to grasp concepts, or just lie about them, and then throw out insults like you have done yet again.
That's exactly what it is.
Not quite.
You can call someone a moron without it being an ad hom.
The ad hom is when you call them a moron, to dismiss their argument.
Like you have done often.
Now again, care to stop with the insults and deflections and try defending your blatant lies, or being honest for once in your life and admitting they are lies?
On the contrary. The more I learn about ignition, thermodynamics, buoyancy, mass, propulsion, the more implausible the idea becomes.
You mean the more convoluted BS you think up while ignoring reality.
You cannot show anything implausible about it.
You were even provided examples of ignition in a vacuum, which you ignored.
The science of propulsion (quite literally rocket science) falls apart because it asks us to ignore what we see in reality
No, it doesn't.
Your objections do.
a simple balloon filled with helium has a height limit. Planes have a height limit.
This line of complete absence of reasoning is like saying cars drive along roads, so planes can't be real.
A rocket is not a balloon nor a plane.
It does not fly like them.
A limit on them says nothing for a rocket.
If space travel were actually real, the ship would use the main shuttle to very precisely boost itself and the reserves tanks into space.
No, it wouldn't.
This is not you making a rational objection, this is you spouting pure BS with no justification at all.
If sending objects to orbit in space is real, the object would be burning fuel very rapidly, and ditching as much useless weight as possible.
To get into low earth orbit, it requires the object to be going at roughly 8 km/s. That will require a quite substantial amount of fuel to do. And there is no point in carrying around empty fuel tanks when you do so.
And yes, that is the main energy cost.
Assuming it starts at the rotational velocity of Earth, some ~450 m/s at the equator, and goes to a LEO at 8000 m/s, that is change in specific energy of ~32 MJ/kg.
To get up into space at 400 km altitude, ignoring the reduction in g, is a mere ~3.9 MJ/kg, or ~10%.
So they are using that fuel to go fast.
And once the tank is empty, that is dead mass to carry around.
Without oxygen there can be no ignition.
And they carry their own oxygen supply, so here you are spouting BS again.
You have nothing to push off of.
Except the exhaust gas coming out of the engine at very high speed.
If you want to say there is nothing to push off in space, then that is saying that if you have a tube full of highly compressed air, with one end open, it will magically stay put because there is nothing to push off.
Yes, I know better.
Then why do you continue to spout this pathetic BS which could easily be refuted by a child?
But since they aren't used in space, I know immediately that the entire rocket science is built upon fraud.
Correction, you hate the idea of space because it shows your fantasy is wrong, so you look for pathetic BS to attack it, even though that BS has been refuted before.
If you know anything about space, it is that you are intentionally lying about it.
You have yet again demonstrated either your dishonesty or your stupidity.
I can change definitions of terms
No, you can't. That is just more dishonesty from you.
This is because my definition change is an expansion of original concept whereas yours is a distortion.
PURE BS!
Your pathetic attempt to change the definition goes directly against the original definition.
The original definition of buoyancy, which entirely matches the modern understanding complete with gravity, is an upwards force which is a result of weight.
Your delusional BS is nothing like that that and instead wishes to pretend that weight is just buoyancy.
You want to be able to change it, because you are a lying coward that cannot face reality.
For about three seconds.
Because of the limited fuel and oxidiser supply.
If your delusional BS was true, it shouldn't light at all.
Have you watched the video?
Why should we waste our time watching a crappy video likely full of already refuted lies, when you put no effort in at all?
How about this, admit all your claims have been blatant lies and then maybe we will?
is this an actual test?
Yes, it is.
It demonstrates that you don't need oxygen from the surrounding environment, and the vacuum tests demonstrate that you can ignite in a vacuum.
Again, if your blatant lies were true, they wouldn't ignite at all.
When you threw away the boosters, you invalidated everything.
No, they didn't.
They only thing invalid is your pathetic strawman.
The boosters are your source of oxygen
They are 1 source, not the only one.
you can use them to press forward even if no other oxygen exists.
Or you can use the fuel and oxygen in the main craft, ignite it and use that to push foward.
That's not how any of this works
Your strawman certainly isn't.
Stop pretending
The only one pretending here is you.
if space flight is real, in an airless environment, you would want to bring the boosters.
Why?
What point is there in bringing this dead mass?
There simply isn't enough fuel to last them months in space
What are they using fuel for months for?
-
Umm, don't you mean you can dismiss all space footage because you know less?
On the contrary. The more I learn about ignition, thermodynamics, buoyancy, mass, propulsion, the more implausible the idea becomes.
The science of propulsion (quite literally rocket science) falls apart because it asks us to ignore what we see in reality, that is that a simple balloon filled with helium has a height limit. Planes have a height limit. After a certain point, air is too thin for much of anything to fly.
If space travel were actually real, the ship would use the main shuttle to very precisely boost itself and the reserves tanks into space. But that's not what happens, is it? Nope, instead it guzzles all of its fuel from those big tanks to get into the thin air zone, dumps the big tanks to apparently slingshot into space...
AND THEN WHAT?
Without oxygen there can be no ignition. Without oxygen, you have no propulsion. Space is supposed to be a giant vacuum. You have nothing to push off of. You dumped the big tank when you could maybe use it to push off in empty space.
Yes, I know better.
This propulsion idea would be similar to heading to school on foot, and then tossing your books behind you to give you that "extra momentum" to get into class.
Teacher: Open your books to Chapter 5, page 115.
Student: Teacher, I don't have my books, I needed them for added propulsion.
Teacher: Oh, okay. I suppose it was difficult to reach escape velocity.
Those big tubes, were space travel possible, would be to boost you ahead when there is no air. But since they aren't used in space, I know immediately that the entire rocket science is built upon fraud.
This is exactly where education level has some bearing. Your inability to grasp how propulsion works just indicates a lack of practical insights and education.
From your argument, a propeller aeroplane flies because the propeller is pushing air against air and propelling the plane forward. This is exactly your definition for rockets, that the rocket exhaust is pushing against air in the atmosphere to propel forward or upward. This is simply a misunderstanding of propulsion due to lack of education, that's all.
It can be easily corrected.
-
Bulma talking about gish gallop is priceless
Data is doing the gishing.
-
(http://This is exactly where education level has some bearing. Your inability to grasp how propulsion works just indicates a lack of practical insights and education.)
So like, in science class we learned that solids, liquids, and gases (let's ignore plasma for now) are not only more energetic as we go up the state of matter, but less condensed.
(https://primaryleap.co.uk/images/wikileap/post_levels/thumb_orignal/ebb88f2a6eda0f442eb5d0f7216bbc75e913b167tc.jpg)
(https://teachkidschemistry.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/States-of-Matter-scaled-1-2048x1366.jpg)
This means if we were to drop a liquid (say: water) on a solid (say: metal), it would do a fairly good job of holding it, for awhile anyway.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1223808024485957732/HowMoleculesWork.png?ex=661b330a&is=6608be0a&hm=5903ede3918bc981a74d876eb2498bc77cfc8660d5db1c6be20eded10dc31886&)
As molecules get less and less dense, to quote the video, propulsion becomes more and more like "doing pushups on water." Are you Jesus? No? Then why should we take it on faith that you can manage this sort of propulsion on thin air? And when you get into an outright vacuum, we get into "Whatchu talking 'bout Willis?" territory when you suggest such a thing.
Now, what you could do after leaving the atmosphere is this...
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1223811941810835466/HowMoleculesWork2.png?ex=661b36b0&is=6608c1b0&hm=1bca2434542292b384c40e91a9d2419afe7e70f21ede16a62aee0dfd38c98128&)
Exported air pressing against other air (or other gas) to make a sort of step ladder in midair. But with no boosters (you tossed them), not enough gas to make this work. Even that is a stretch, but once you talk about "separating boosters" from the shuttle because you've used all the fuel, you are talking nonsense. It quite literally is leaving behind your only remote chance of moving in a vacuum.
You haven't been educated. You've been indoctrinated. If you were educated, you'd understand that this is a literal vacuum when ignition works for moments only, and propulsion works not much at all, and that you would be wasting oxidized fuel or concentrated oxygen like crazy. This same stuff you wasted and threw back to Earth.
You can create propulsion by increasing the density of air below you and decreasing density inside the boosters. But this is costly, and wouldn't get you very far outside Earth, as it's not like oxygen is a renewable resource in the vacuum of space. Short of being able to construct oxygen (which is impossible if the Conservation of Matter is correct), you have not enough oxygen gas to make it any great distance. Bigger boosters equals more mass to push towards space. Smaller boosters means less reserves. It isn't possible to continue once in space for any distance. It's impossible, short of God himself allowing it. There isn't enough thrust, there isn't enough fuel, there isn't enough molecules for contact.
What part about this is showing your superior education?
This is simply a misunderstanding of propulsion due to lack of education, that's all. It can be easily corrected.
I am under no such delusions that I can easily correct your thinking. Ignorance is something you can address simply by learning more. Arrogance refuses to correct any ignorance that exists, because it thinks it is right. You think you have been educated, but have not asked where those educators got their knowledge (other educators, other educators, all the back to... well, either it ends with "nowhere, they made it up" or it ends with someone legit figuring things out, but I am not hopeful).
I know that I don't know enough about propulsion, and probably could find out more. But this is quite different from trusting literal rocket scientists when even I can tell there isn't enough pressure to push against what you suggest. Big boosters or tiny thrusters? Yeah I'd pick the giant containers which increase surface area of the rocket emissions. Too bad they tossed them back to Earth.
I know what I know, and what I don't know. I am not misunderstanding anything. I am in total understanding that this model of propulsion, despite its fancy math, is talking about pressure away when there is air too thin to push against. And they proceed to tell us that certain satellites have been able to see distant stars and planets, when they have neither fuel nor momentum. Nope, they would have gone nowhere.
Once again, look at my signature. In the same way as you cannot get anywhere without books in a classroom, you would have to export oxygen into space (thereby starving humans living on Earth) to press hard against thicker areas of air, and then to press against previous air. It also might not be enough. You could not ever stop doing it, either, or you would run out of things to press against.
Education is overrated when you haven't learned how to apply what you know. This was a hard lesson for me, but I learned it from a dyslexic and somewhat abusive janitor who probably never went to college. What I learned is enough to convince me.
-
(http://This is exactly where education level has some bearing. Your inability to grasp how propulsion works just indicates a lack of practical insights and education.)
So like, in science class we learned that solids, liquids, and gases (let's ignore plasma for now) are not only more energetic as we go up the state of matter, but less condensed.
(https://primaryleap.co.uk/images/wikileap/post_levels/thumb_orignal/ebb88f2a6eda0f442eb5d0f7216bbc75e913b167tc.jpg)
(https://teachkidschemistry.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/States-of-Matter-scaled-1-2048x1366.jpg)
This means if we were to drop a liquid (say: water) on a solid (say: metal), it would do a fairly good job of holding it, for awhile anyway.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1223808024485957732/HowMoleculesWork.png?ex=661b330a&is=6608be0a&hm=5903ede3918bc981a74d876eb2498bc77cfc8660d5db1c6be20eded10dc31886&)
As molecules get less and less dense, to quote the video, propulsion becomes more and more like "doing pushups on water." Are you Jesus? No? Then why should we take it on faith that you can manage this sort of propulsion on thin air? And when you get into an outright vacuum, we get into "Whatchu talking 'bout Willis?" territory when you suggest such a thing.
Now, what you could do after leaving the atmosphere is this...
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1223811941810835466/HowMoleculesWork2.png?ex=661b36b0&is=6608c1b0&hm=1bca2434542292b384c40e91a9d2419afe7e70f21ede16a62aee0dfd38c98128&)
Exported air pressing against other air (or other gas) to make a sort of step ladder in midair. But with no boosters (you tossed them), not enough gas to make this work. Even that is a stretch, but once you talk about "separating boosters" from the shuttle because you've used all the fuel, you are talking nonsense. It quite literally is leaving behind your only remote chance of moving in a vacuum.
You haven't been educated. You've been indoctrinated. If you were educated, you'd understand that this is a literal vacuum when ignition works for moments only, and propulsion works not much at all, and that you would be wasting oxidized fuel or concentrated oxygen like crazy. This same stuff you wasted and threw back to Earth.
You can create propulsion by increasing the density of air below you and decreasing density inside the boosters. But this is costly, and wouldn't get you very far outside Earth, as it's not like oxygen is a renewable resource in the vacuum of space. Short of being able to construct oxygen (which is impossible if the Conservation of Matter is correct), you have not enough oxygen gas to make it any great distance. Bigger boosters equals more mass to push towards space. Smaller boosters means less reserves. It isn't possible to continue once in space for any distance. It's impossible, short of God himself allowing it. There isn't enough thrust, there isn't enough fuel, there isn't enough molecules for contact.
What part about this is showing your superior education?
It can be easily corrected.
I am under no such delusions that I can easily correct your thinking. Ignorance is something you can address simply by learning more. Arrogance refuses to correct any ignorance that exists, because it thinks it is right.
Bulma, you still erroneously are of the belief propulsion is like sitting on your office chair on wheels and pushing yourself away from a wall, using your legs. You seem to think a propeller plane moves forward by throwing air against a wall of air, a jet plane moves forward by throwing air against a wall of air, and likewise a rocket moves upward or forward by throwing exhaust against a wall of air.
The propeller plane and jet plane can only go so high because both rely upon sucking air in front of the aircraft through either the propeller blades or jet engine. If they go too high, the air is too thin to sufficiently suck through and expel out the back, to continue to propel the craft forward.
Rockets don't have the same limits because all the fuel being ejected and causing thrust, is contained inside the craft. This is why they can continue to propel upward at altitudes planes with propeller or jet propulsion cannot. This is also why a rocket can continue moving forward in the relative vacuum of space requiring less fuel to thrust, because it is no longer moving forward against the force of Earth's gravity or through air resistance.
The moment you grasp this, your inability to accept all space footage will begin to evaporate.
Familiarise yourself with Newton's third law of motion which says every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That's how planes fly and how rockets work in earth atmosphere and the vacuum of space.
-
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense
A Chewbacca Defense is a way of "winning" a debate through methods other than logic and reasoned argument. The essence of it is that if you get your opponent to give up, then you "win".
The False Dichotomy: If the other side is wrong about anything, no matter how irrelevant, they're wrong about everything — and you're right about everything.
The Ad Hominem: If you can do anything to make the other side look bad, you win. This is usually accomplished by misrepresenting their side entirely. Extra effective if you can compare them to Hitler.
The Red Herring: If you can get your opponent to talk about something other than the key points, you win. It can be easily combined with the Ad Hominem attack by accusing your opponent of supporting or opposing something totally irrelevant to the argument, in such a way that they have to address it.
Quality by Popular Vote: If you can show that your side is the more popular argument, you win, regardless of whether your side is the correct argument.
The Broken Record: If you repeat the same point over and over again, you win — because obviously, the other side didn't address it if you won't shut up about it. Extra effective if you keep repeating a catchy soundbite or buzzword.
The "Gish Gallop": Hit your opponent with as many arguments as you can in as short a timespan as you can. If they don't address every single one to your satisfaction, you win. And it's practically impossible for them to do that because they have no time to prepare and are not going to pay attention to everything you're vomiting out there.
This is what you learned at university. Not how to employ real logic or reason, but a number of fallacies to employ instead of logic and reason. The Gish Gallop is particularly used, as FAS has a text limit after which I simply cannot post without a 503 error. "Well what do you think of my nine points over here?" I think that I have answered them in the past, will probably think for new answers, and that you probably aren't listening to my answers in the first place.
Even accusing your opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense is itself a form of Chewbacca Defense. This means it's bad form to make such an accusation, which in turn leads to what's known as "Chewbacca's Dilemma" — first, you can't defend yourself from an actual Chewbacca Defense, and second, no matter how intelligently and clearly you make your point, certain opponents will always perceive your argument as a Chewbacca Defense.
:giggles:
So are you hoping that if you go on repeating the same crap over and over again, that I'll believe you? Because it's not right, today, tomorrow, or ten years from now.
How can I dismiss all space footage? Because I know better. Simple as that.
Now I could answer your questions. But that would lead to more questions. So instead, let me reiterate: How would you, if you can, answer my question about forming an equation for a pendulum? Or have you completely and utterly given up on even attempting to anwser a question that could have been answered by anyone who studied in a university, and accept to the fact that your theories matter not to the universe for it continues to be as it has been since the beginning and agree that you haven't paid attention to any mathematics or physics classes since you were in school? And, if you take up problem with my wording, try refuting me not by arguments but answering my questions. Even if you cannot, try to, at the very least, come up with something with the meager intelligence someone who cannot explain a pendulum would possess.
P.S. dataoverflow, what browser are you using on android? I hope it's android.
-
and why don't you try raising money to buy a rocket of your own to prove earth looks flat from space?
as pointed out in https://archive.is/umT7M (https://archive.is/umT7M), the first photograph of Earth from outer space was taken from a modified V-2 rocket in 1946.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_No._13 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_No._13)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1946-11-21_White_Sands_NM_V-2_rocket.ogg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1946-11-21_White_Sands_NM_V-2_rocket.ogg)
(https://i.imgur.com/kB4UCKL.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/KwzHlvH.png)
I'm not in the practice of believing what is uttered through the idiot box. Are you?
Well, are you in the practice of believing what is told in the books?
-
Mass flow
If you sat on a wheely chair holding a bucket full of 1lb weights and you start throwing them ine at a time.
You will start to move.
-
So like, in science class we learned that solids, liquids, and gases (let's ignore plasma for now) are not only more energetic as we go up the state of matter, but less condensed.
And your lack of education is showing again.
This applies for a PARTICULAR SUBSTANCE at a particular pressure.
It is also only a general rule, which most people know is violated.
Have you ever heard of this substance called water?
Are you aware that when you freeze it, it expands?
So there goes that simple "education" of yours.
But all you are doing now is showing your desperation, and that you don't care about consistency at all.
Previously your complaint was there was no air, now you are indicating you can't push off air.
We know we can push off air.
That is how rifles work.
That is how small rockets work.
That is how planes work.
That is how fans work.
We know we can push off air, it is just a matter of how much.
Now, what you could do after leaving the atmosphere is this...
Continue pushing off the hot exhaust gas.
After all, how else does it leave?
What is it pushing off to accelerate out of the rocket?
Exported air
HOW?
once you talk about "separating boosters" from the shuttle because you've used all the fuel, you are talking nonsense. It quite literally is leaving behind your only remote chance of moving in a vacuum.
Why?
What magic allows it to push off that, without any source of propulsion, but not off the much greater mass of gas?
You haven't been educated. You've been indoctrinated. If you were educated, you'd understand that this is a literal vacuum when ignition works for moments only, and propulsion works not much at all, and that you would be wasting oxidized fuel or concentrated oxygen like crazy.
Quite the opposite.
You have been indoctrinated by FE conmen and yourself into believing so much utter BS you can't defend.
You can create propulsion by increasing the density of air below you and decreasing density inside the boosters. But this is costly, and wouldn't get you very far outside Earth
It accelerates you which allows you to continue moving.
which is impossible if the Conservation of Matter is correct
And another thing like that is conservation of momentum.
Unless something stops you, you keep going.
So with an initial push, you can go quite far.
What part about this is showing your superior education?
That it is vastly superior to yours given the BS you spout.
I am under no such delusions that I can easily correct your thinking.
Because you accept you are spouting pure BS and not even attempting to correct things?
Arrogance refuses to correct any ignorance that exists, because it thinks it is right.
And that's your problem?
You are too arrogant to admit you are wrong, even when you have been refuted countless times?
even I can tell there isn't enough pressure to push against what you suggest.
Except you can't.
You can only claim that.
You can't explain why and instead just need to continually assert the same refuted BS.
Yeah I'd pick the giant containers which increase surface area of the rocket emissions.
Because you have no idea what you are talking about.
I know what I know, and what I don't know. I am not misunderstanding anything.
So you know you are intentionally spouting BS?
Because if not, you don't know.
Once again, look at my signature.
You mean you lying pile of BS?
No thanks.
Education is overrated when you haven't learned how to apply what you know.
And that appears to be where you have entirely failed.
So much so you spout pure BS without any understanding.
-
So like, in science class ugh to convince me.
Holly cow, you still manage to butcher “science”.
The Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25, also known as the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME),[1] is a liquid-fuel cryogenic rocket engine that was used on NASA's Space Shuttle and is used on the Space Launch System (SLS).
Designed and manufactured in the United States by Rocketdyne (later Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and Aerojet Rocketdyne), the RS-25 burns cryogenic liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants, with each engine producing 1,859 kN (418,000 lbf) thrust at liftoff. Although RS-25 heritage traces back to the 1960s, its concerted development began in the 1970s with the first flight, STS-1, on April 12, 1981. The RS-25 has undergone upgrades over its operational history to improve the engine's reliability, safety, and maintenance load.
The engine produces a specific impulse (Isp) of 452 seconds (4.43 kN-sec/kg) in a vacuum, or 366 seconds (3.59 kN-sec/kg) at sea level, has a mass of approximately 3.5 tonnes (7,700 pounds), and is capable of throttling between 67% and 109% of its rated power level in one-percent increments. Components of the RS-25 operate at temperatures ranging from −253 to 3,300 °C (−400 to 6,000 °F).[1]
The Space Shuttle used a cluster of three RS-25 engines mounted at the stern of the orbiter, with fuel drawn from the external tank. The engines were used for propulsion throughout the spacecraft ascent, with total thrust increased by two solid rocket boosters and the orbiter's two AJ10 orbital maneuvering system engines. Following each flight, the RS-25 engines were removed from the orbiter, inspected, refurbished, and then reused on another mission.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25
Once the boosters fell away. The space shuttle being feed by an external tank had a supply of liquid oxygen and hydrogen through a controlled explosion feed three engines that each produced 418,000 lbf of thrust.
The external tank could hold up to 146,181.8 US gal of liquid oxygen. And hold 395,581.9 gallon of liquid hydrogen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_external_tank
-
Bulma, you still erroneously are of the belief propulsion is like sitting on your office chair on wheels and pushing yourself away from a wall, using your legs. You seem to think a propeller plane moves forward by throwing air against a wall of air, a jet plane moves forward by throwing air against a wall of air, and likewise a rocket moves upward or forward by throwing exhaust against a wall of air.
People do not risk their lives for a lie.
When Christians were found out by Romans and Jews, they were often subjected to harsh torture and death. Eaten by lions, crucified like Jesus, or in one case about 50 (former) Roman centurions was forced into a pool of ice cold water for hours.
Tell you what. We'll move you into a room totally devoid of air, and in the three minutes it takes for you to suffocate, you try to launch one of those bottle rockets.
-
Brilliant!
People need to breathe, therefore rockets cant exist.
People need to breathe, therefore edisons (patented) light bulb doesnt exist.
-
Tell you what.
That you’re self centered and have to literally lie.
And ignore everything from satellites in orbit in space, to lack of a better term gravity assist comets in orbit around the sun.
-
As molecules get less and less dense, to quote the video, propulsion becomes more and more like "doing pushups on water." Are you Jesus? No? Then why should we take it on faith that you can manage this sort of propulsion on thin air? And when you get into an outright vacuum, we get into "Whatchu talking 'bout Willis?" territory when you suggest such a thing.
If you have a garden hose with the nozzle going wide open, does the nozzle push against your hand because the water is pushing off the air?
-
People do not risk their lives for a lie.
If they get conned/brainwashed hard enough, they will risk their life for that lie.
If they are in a group, and care about the other members of that group, and know they are already going to die, they would likely not give up that lie.
Tell you what. We'll move you into a room totally devoid of air, and in the three minutes it takes for you to suffocate, you try to launch one of those bottle rockets.
Or how about you use a real rocket, and try that in a vacuum.
You have had it explained to you how it works repeatedly.
You have had simple questions asked of you which show you are spouting pure BS, which you refuse to answer.
-
Bulma, you still erroneously are of the belief propulsion is like sitting on your office chair on wheels and pushing yourself away from a wall, using your legs. You seem to think a propeller plane moves forward by throwing air against a wall of air, a jet plane moves forward by throwing air against a wall of air, and likewise a rocket moves upward or forward by throwing exhaust against a wall of air.
People do not risk their lives for a lie.
When Christians were found out by Romans and Jews, they were often subjected to harsh torture and death. Eaten by lions, crucified like Jesus, or in one case about 50 (former) Roman centurions was forced into a pool of ice cold water for hours.
Tell you what. We'll move you into a room totally devoid of air, and in the three minutes it takes for you to suffocate, you try to launch one of those bottle rockets.
Bulma, I like to give credit where credit is due, and congratulations, this time you are right! Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were people, weren't they? They didn't risk their lives for a lie, did they? The Apollo 11 mission worked and they survived, in part because rockets don't propel forward by pushing off walls of air or walls of anything. That's partly why they were able to travel to the moon and return safely. Because Newton's third law of motion WORKS.
In a very large room totally devoid of air I'll do you two better. I'll release a fully inflated balloon with the end not tied so we can watch it fly around inside the vacuum, AND I'll turn on a hose at full bore and we can watch the hose dance around like a snake. All the while, the expelled air from the balloon and expelled water from the hose not hitting the walls of the very large room. Then I'll exit the room into a depressurisation chamber and breathe in the air with at least 2 minutes to spare.
You may need a vacuum chamber to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt rockets can work in the vacuum of space, but your bedroom will do just fine in proving a rocket dorsn't need a wall of air to propel off of. Just inflate a normal balloon while sitting on your bed, release it, and watch it fly around your room. Unless of course you want to argue there are walls of air in your bedroom?
If your balloon doesn't need a wall of air to propel off, to fly, then it doesn't need an air environment to propel forward and fly, does it? Hence a rocket will work in a vacuum or near vacuum like outer space.
You just proved it using a cheap party balloon.
Are you now starting to see why you shouldn't be dismissing all space footage based off the untruth that rockets cannot work in a vacuum? Because now you can see how rockets can work in a vacuum, can't you?
-
Bulma, I like to give credit where credit is due, and congratulations, this time you are right! Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were people, weren't they? They didn't risk their lives for a lie, did they? The Apollo 11 mission worked and they survived, in part because rockets don't propel forward by pushing off walls of air or walls of anything.
You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set. Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
Flying a space ship is extraordinarily dangerous even if the science did work. The odds of them risking their life is approaching 0%. At low pressure, you die from depressurization sickness. Then there's the fact that when this launch was supposedly done, the average computer was terrible.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1224156767403900988/YeahRight.png?ex=661c77d5&is=660a02d5&hm=da6682727a1ac759da0967a9be41490b15073c199650b5d70e48fe8d64a0b92b&)
And this involved rooms of this crap. Punchcards. Laborious coding. People mostly doing the calculations manually and then coding them into the computer, which had nothing approaching decent AI. As shown in Hidden Figures.
For comparison, a typical NES game cartridge can run actual games in real time, and has up to 1 MB of memory.
They absolutely never risked their lives for a lie. They didn't get into a shuttle (snuck out the back) they didn't go into space, and they weren't on the moon. They didn't risk their asses on the chance that the thing might explode, come crashing down, or not have enough oxygen. This is the gutlessness of this lie.
They talk big, but they didn't do any of this for real.
The director confessing that he helped make the moon landing look real.
I'll release a fully inflated balloon with the end not tied so we can watch it fly around inside the vacuum...
It is releasing the air pressure that is inside of it. That air is dispersing inside the room. And the other one is releasing water under pressure. Once the pressure is gone, it will stop behaving like a regular hose/balloon and flop limply to the ground (notice how quickly that balloon is on the ground). Entropy takes over rather quickly in an airless room. Notice the guy said "it doesn't matter whether you fly a rocket..." when it clearly glided quickly to the ground, while a balloon in real air might even go linger awhile. Yeah, it kinda does. Action Labs, the guy is dishonest but the visuals usually don't lie.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1224170132880883752/NiceTry.png?ex=661c8447&is=660a0f47&hm=df9ddf8f12231ad7d2138f756036aaf9432e3551b1d86a2f82c3f51ac8d19235&)
I also noticed you didn't mention a fully closed helium balloon. Buoyancy doesn't really work in an airless room (helium is heavier than nothing) and propulsion works only until the supply is exhausted (you expect me to believe that a rocket ship has enough fuel to last for months, when only propulsion works because momentum is probably not as described for a vacuum).
Unless of course you want to argue there are walls of air in your bedroom?
More like a scattered matrix of air that other air particles hit against.
You haven't tried to launch the rocket in the vacuum, which has only the bottle itself, as all air inside the bottle was emptied of air in advance, so the only thing it has to press against is the bottle itself. It fizzles immediately after attempting to get out of the bottle.
Then I'll exit the room into a depressurisation chamber and breathe in the air with at least 2 minutes to spare.
And you expect that if your charade works, that I'll release you.
No. I'm a rational person, but not a reasonable one. I don't make deals, and I don't play along with frauds. Actual honesty is the only way to impress me. That or an apology.
Under no circumstances will I let you out, whether success or failure. You have to be prepared to live and die for your words. You expect to convince me, you expect to be able to get out with two minutes to spare. But I will have locked the door on you, with only your recanting of your lie sufficing to release you. You expect to be able to leave after showing a quick trick of propulsion. Nope. Nothing you say will convince me, as I'm notoriously stubborn. You're not getting out unless you confess to your lie or apologize for trying to deceive me.
I'm a believer in Jesus, but I'm more jaded and flawed than many other Christians. I have about as much trouble with mercy as Jonah, which is why I so deeply love Jesus (because I utterly know that I am unworthy of it). If you are willing to recant, then I would open only the pressure normalization chamber. Any trick, and you get conveyor-belted back to the airless room. I might let you to the normalization room several times though. But I won't let you out, not without admitting your lies. Enjoy bathroom time!
Are you prepared to die for it? No, you are not.
When Christ raised from the dead, 300 years of followers were willing to die for him, against people who would not abide any sort of easy "getting out of the room". Ruthless people, worse than me. Christians in many parts of the world are still willing to die for him, against such people.
Not one Freemason is willing to actually go into the airless void of space for globalism. They are plenty willing to fake doing so on a set. But that's hardly the same thing.
-
You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set.
Which is a lie by you.
Apollo 11
The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[18]
A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969.[19]
At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik.[20] At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[21] In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.[22]
Larry Baysinger,a radio amateur (W4EJA) and a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module.[23] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Kaminski, in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) in Houston, Texas, and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the Earth.[18][24]
The Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy, also detected transmissions coming from the mission[25][26] using a 10 meters dish.[27
Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
You can’t analyze yourself out of a paper bag. You only have lies. Sounds like a great thread. You should make one.
Charming conspiracy theorist confused by reflections
Why the Moon photos could not be fake
Basically there was no way to fake the light of the sun on the moon. A very far off, very strong single point light source. And other items.
-
I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
Your idea of a BS test seems to be if it matches your fantasy or not.
You are yet to present any rational objection to any of it.
Flying a space ship is extraordinarily dangerous even if the science did work.
Yes, extraordinarily dangerous compared to more mundane things. But the overall risk of death is still quite low.
At low pressure, you die from depressurization sickness.
What?
The bends is a result of the nitrogen dissolved in your blood coming out as the pressure drops too fast.
This is only a problem if you are a complete moron.
Then there's the fact that when this launch was supposedly done, the average computer was terrible.
By today's standards, yes.
But that doesn't mean it couldn't be done.
They talk big, but they didn't do any of this for real.
That is just your fantasy.
Once the pressure is gone, it will stop behaving like a regular hose/balloon and flop limply to the ground
You mean once it runs out of pressurised gas inside it?
Which isn't a problem for a rocket continually generating that.
Buoyancy doesn't really work in an airless room
Considering it relies upon the surrounding medium to push upwards due to the pressure gradient due to gravity, no.
Not unless by "airless room" you mean one filled with another fluid.
But that isn't how rockets work.
propulsion works only until the supply is exhausted
So again, not a problem for a rocket with large fuel tanks.
you expect me to believe that a rocket ship has enough fuel to last for months
No.
That is your strawman, based upon blatant lies about motion.
Rockets don't need to continue burning for months.
They have an initial boost and then coast.
Unless there is something to slow them down, they keep moving.
You haven't tried to launch the rocket in the vacuum, which has only the bottle itself, as all air inside the bottle was emptied of air in advance
So your latest dishonest BS, is pretending a rocket is just a bottle. Entirely ignoring all the fuel and oxidiser inside it?
I'm a rational person, but not a reasonable one.
You are neither rational nor reasonable.
You just continually spout whatever dishonest BS you can think of to pretend your fantasy is true.
You are the fraud.
Under no circumstances will I let you out, whether success or failure.
So what you are really saying, is that because they show you are wrong, you want to kill them.
Nothing you say will convince me
Which further demonstrates you don't give a shit about the truth.
You have made up your mind and will use whatever dishonest BS you can think of to pretend you are correct.
No matter amount of evidence or rational arguments will have you change your mind, because you aren't an honest person. You are lying, cowardly scum.
All you are doing now is basically admitting that you are lying scum without any concern for the truth.
Not one Freemason is willing to actually go into the airless void of space for globalism.
Plenty of people have gone into space.
Your lies about that will not change it.
-
and propulsion works only until the supply is exhausted (you expect me to believe that a rocket ship has enough fuel to last for months,
They only have to power their way until free fall orbit around earth. Once in orbit, there is no need for continuous firing of rockets.
What keeps your sun in orbit in atmosphere above your delusional flat earth.
You haven't tried to launch the rocket in the vacuum,
Again. A rocket literally releases its own atmosphere and mass to provide thrust.
-
Bulma, I like to give credit where credit is due, and congratulations, this time you are right! Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were people, weren't they? They didn't risk their lives for a lie, did they? The Apollo 11 mission worked and they survived, in part because rockets don't propel forward by pushing off walls of air or walls of anything.
You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set. Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
Flying a space ship is extraordinarily dangerous even if the science did work. The odds of them risking their life is approaching 0%. At low pressure, you die from depressurization sickness. Then there's the fact that when this launch was supposedly done, the average computer was terrible.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1224156767403900988/YeahRight.png?ex=661c77d5&is=660a02d5&hm=da6682727a1ac759da0967a9be41490b15073c199650b5d70e48fe8d64a0b92b&)
And this involved rooms of this crap. Punchcards. Laborious coding. People mostly doing the calculations manually and then coding them into the computer, which had nothing approaching decent AI. As shown in Hidden Figures.
For comparison, a typical NES game cartridge can run actual games in real time, and has up to 1 MB of memory.
They absolutely never risked their lives for a lie. They didn't get into a shuttle (snuck out the back) they didn't go into space, and they weren't on the moon. They didn't risk their asses on the chance that the thing might explode, come crashing down, or not have enough oxygen. This is the gutlessness of this lie.
They talk big, but they didn't do any of this for real.
The director confessing that he helped make the moon landing look real.
I'll release a fully inflated balloon with the end not tied so we can watch it fly around inside the vacuum...
It is releasing the air pressure that is inside of it. That air is dispersing inside the room. And the other one is releasing water under pressure. Once the pressure is gone, it will stop behaving like a regular hose/balloon and flop limply to the ground (notice how quickly that balloon is on the ground). Entropy takes over rather quickly in an airless room. Notice the guy said "it doesn't matter whether you fly a rocket..." when it clearly glided quickly to the ground, while a balloon in real air might even go linger awhile. Yeah, it kinda does. Action Labs, the guy is dishonest but the visuals usually don't lie.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1224170132880883752/NiceTry.png?ex=661c8447&is=660a0f47&hm=df9ddf8f12231ad7d2138f756036aaf9432e3551b1d86a2f82c3f51ac8d19235&)
I also noticed you didn't mention a fully closed helium balloon. Buoyancy doesn't really work in an airless room (helium is heavier than nothing) and propulsion works only until the supply is exhausted (you expect me to believe that a rocket ship has enough fuel to last for months, when only propulsion works because momentum is probably not as described for a vacuum).
Unless of course you want to argue there are walls of air in your bedroom?
More like a scattered matrix of air that other air particles hit against.
You haven't tried to launch the rocket in the vacuum, which has only the bottle itself, as all air inside the bottle was emptied of air in advance, so the only thing it has to press against is the bottle itself. It fizzles immediately after attempting to get out of the bottle.
Then I'll exit the room into a depressurisation chamber and breathe in the air with at least 2 minutes to spare.
And you expect that if your charade works, that I'll release you.
No. I'm a rational person, but not a reasonable one. I don't make deals, and I don't play along with frauds. Actual honesty is the only way to impress me. That or an apology.
Under no circumstances will I let you out, whether success or failure. You have to be prepared to live and die for your words. You expect to convince me, you expect to be able to get out with two minutes to spare. But I will have locked the door on you, with only your recanting of your lie sufficing to release you. You expect to be able to leave after showing a quick trick of propulsion. Nope. Nothing you say will convince me, as I'm notoriously stubborn. You're not getting out unless you confess to your lie or apologize for trying to deceive me.
I'm a believer in Jesus, but I'm more jaded and flawed than many other Christians. I have about as much trouble with mercy as Jonah, which is why I so deeply love Jesus (because I utterly know that I am unworthy of it). If you are willing to recant, then I would open only the pressure normalization chamber. Any trick, and you get conveyor-belted back to the airless room. I might let you to the normalization room several times though. But I won't let you out, not without admitting your lies. Enjoy bathroom time!
Are you prepared to die for it? No, you are not.
When Christ raised from the dead, 300 years of followers were willing to die for him, against people who would not abide any sort of easy "getting out of the room". Ruthless people, worse than me. Christians in many parts of the world are still willing to die for him, against such people.
Not one Freemason is willing to actually go into the airless void of space for globalism. They are plenty willing to fake doing so on a set. But that's hardly the same thing.
Bulma, I wasn't talking about the 1978 hollywood movie, "Capricorn One". That's a work of fiction. I was talking about Apollo 11 specifically, but might as well have referred to all the moon missions. Why don't you watch the documentary, "Apollo 11", and then tell us all it occurred on a movie set. The documentary showcases the thousands of NASA employees at work, and showcases the thousands and thousands of spectators who witnessed the Apollo 11 launch first hand. Then, there are the millions of tv viewers who watched the launch live on their tvs. Do you
consider the entire world to be a movie set?
Have you proven to yourself yet, how propulsion works, using a balloon in your bedroom? I see you admit there are no walls of air for the balloon to push off against, so I am getting somewhere. The expelled air from the balloon would just push the ambient air molecules in your room away. Again, no pushing involved.
As for buoyancy, don't try and change the subject. Buoyancy has nothing to do with this.
As for dying to prove this propulsion in a vacuum, if the science is sound, and I'm wearing a pressurised suit and helmet, what do I have to fear? Even if you were standing on the other side with murderous intentions, do you think I would be stupid enough not to bring my pistol in with me? I'm pretty sure the pressurisation glass isn't bulletproof.
Then, I could demonstrate to you how a gun can fire in a vacuum and a round can be propelled in a vacuum.
Jesus can't help you out of this one, no matter how hard you pray to him. You've lost this argument, haven't you?
-
Jesus can't help you out of this one,
Funny how an individual can invoke the name of Jesus and lie and bear false witness all at the same time. It’s probably a misuse use of the lord’s name also.
-
Bulma, I like to give credit where credit is due, and congratulations, this time you are right! Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were people, weren't they? They didn't risk their lives for a lie, did they? The Apollo 11 mission worked and they survived, in part because rockets don't propel forward by pushing off walls of air or walls of anything.
You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set. Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
Flying a space ship is extraordinarily dangerous even if the science did work. The odds of them risking their life is approaching 0%. At low pressure, you die from depressurization sickness. Then there's the fact that when this launch was supposedly done, the average computer was terrible.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1224156767403900988/YeahRight.png?ex=661c77d5&is=660a02d5&hm=da6682727a1ac759da0967a9be41490b15073c199650b5d70e48fe8d64a0b92b&)
And this involved rooms of this crap. Punchcards. Laborious coding. People mostly doing the calculations manually and then coding them into the computer, which had nothing approaching decent AI. As shown in Hidden Figures.
For comparison, a typical NES game cartridge can run actual games in real time, and has up to 1 MB of memory.
They absolutely never risked their lives for a lie. They didn't get into a shuttle (snuck out the back) they didn't go into space, and they weren't on the moon. They didn't risk their asses on the chance that the thing might explode, come crashing down, or not have enough oxygen. This is the gutlessness of this lie.
They talk big, but they didn't do any of this for real.
The director confessing that he helped make the moon landing look real.
I'll release a fully inflated balloon with the end not tied so we can watch it fly around inside the vacuum...
It is releasing the air pressure that is inside of it. That air is dispersing inside the room. And the other one is releasing water under pressure. Once the pressure is gone, it will stop behaving like a regular hose/balloon and flop limply to the ground (notice how quickly that balloon is on the ground). Entropy takes over rather quickly in an airless room. Notice the guy said "it doesn't matter whether you fly a rocket..." when it clearly glided quickly to the ground, while a balloon in real air might even go linger awhile. Yeah, it kinda does. Action Labs, the guy is dishonest but the visuals usually don't lie.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1224170132880883752/NiceTry.png?ex=661c8447&is=660a0f47&hm=df9ddf8f12231ad7d2138f756036aaf9432e3551b1d86a2f82c3f51ac8d19235&)
I also noticed you didn't mention a fully closed helium balloon. Buoyancy doesn't really work in an airless room (helium is heavier than nothing) and propulsion works only until the supply is exhausted (you expect me to believe that a rocket ship has enough fuel to last for months, when only propulsion works because momentum is probably not as described for a vacuum).
Unless of course you want to argue there are walls of air in your bedroom?
More like a scattered matrix of air that other air particles hit against.
You haven't tried to launch the rocket in the vacuum, which has only the bottle itself, as all air inside the bottle was emptied of air in advance, so the only thing it has to press against is the bottle itself. It fizzles immediately after attempting to get out of the bottle.
Then I'll exit the room into a depressurisation chamber and breathe in the air with at least 2 minutes to spare.
And you expect that if your charade works, that I'll release you.
No. I'm a rational person, but not a reasonable one. I don't make deals, and I don't play along with frauds. Actual honesty is the only way to impress me. That or an apology.
Under no circumstances will I let you out, whether success or failure. You have to be prepared to live and die for your words. You expect to convince me, you expect to be able to get out with two minutes to spare. But I will have locked the door on you, with only your recanting of your lie sufficing to release you. You expect to be able to leave after showing a quick trick of propulsion. Nope. Nothing you say will convince me, as I'm notoriously stubborn. You're not getting out unless you confess to your lie or apologize for trying to deceive me.
I'm a believer in Jesus, but I'm more jaded and flawed than many other Christians. I have about as much trouble with mercy as Jonah, which is why I so deeply love Jesus (because I utterly know that I am unworthy of it). If you are willing to recant, then I would open only the pressure normalization chamber. Any trick, and you get conveyor-belted back to the airless room. I might let you to the normalization room several times though. But I won't let you out, not without admitting your lies. Enjoy bathroom time!
Are you prepared to die for it? No, you are not.
When Christ raised from the dead, 300 years of followers were willing to die for him, against people who would not abide any sort of easy "getting out of the room". Ruthless people, worse than me. Christians in many parts of the world are still willing to die for him, against such people.
Not one Freemason is willing to actually go into the airless void of space for globalism. They are plenty willing to fake doing so on a set. But that's hardly the same thing.
But you are completely fleeing from my question since you can't answer with what knowledge you have. You haven't even attempted to answer it, except for posting a drawing of a pendulum.
-
Jesus can't help you out of this one, no matter how hard you pray to him. You've lost this argument, haven't you?
The addition of "haven't you" is probably an Britishism, but it strongly implies you aren't sure. Are you? Yes, you aren't sure.
As for dying to prove this propulsion in a vacuum, if the science is sound, and I'm wearing a pressurised suit and helmet, what do I have to fear?
You're getting pressure imported from the other side of the vacuum via tube (like the old time divers). Or you're getting it from a scuba tank (would not recommend with anyone who doesn't intend to let you out, as they will outlast you).
Also, it seems pretty clear that you have verified to me that you're not confident enough in your theory to stake your life on it.
And now you're firing bullets off in a vain attempt to get more air. Yes, as established by the previous video, some propulsion works. But if you're hoping for air pockets, the glass is tempered bulletproof with multiple layers. And in the absence of air, propulsion has a harder time defying "gravity" as shown from the drone and how quickly the balloon dropped.
The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”
Is this the one who relies on the LORD? Then let the LORD save him! If the LORD loves him so much, let the LORD rescue him!”
Jesus is defends me, and in fact you also. "Though a thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand, no harm will come near you."
What then is your argument? You can indeed be allowed to wear a space suit with a steady pump from outside (I'm going to allow it) as the science of air pressure is indeed sound. But not only have you proved that you aren't prepared to die for your science, but you are gonna have to have a damned good waste filtration inside that suit. Have you even seen the film Brazil? The guy in the suit has a blockage in his waste exhaust, and is literally suffocating in his own shit. You'd also need to deal with sweat and urine. You could open your suit, but the pressure difference might hurt you.
It's like Donald Trump said about the homeless. You're swimming in filth. This is the filth of sin of thinking you can exist without Jesus. You need him like... (wait for it) the air you breathe.
-
You hate donald trump but you start quoting him.
Mmmmm
-
And now you're firing bullets off in a vain attempt to get more air.
Mean like how the gunpowder supplies it own oxidized. Similar how a cutting torch works underwater with a supply of oxygen feeding the reaction?
Will a Gun Fire in Space?
https://www.military.com/video/guns/gunfire/will-a-gun-fire-in-space/971339055001
Now. Why would the opposite and equal reaction magically stop working in a vacuum where rocket propulsion would be impossible?
-
You can indeed be allowed to wear a space suit with a steady pump from outside (I'm going to allow it) as the science of air pressure is indeed sound.
What are you babbling about. The original dry suits for diving with the brass helmets are similar to some of the original space walking suits. The space suits are just made not to expand in a vacuum and hold pressure better. Hold pressure like many things. Like a simple latex ballon. Space suits are just complex balloons with life support. Not exactly magic. Added. Something being perfected since the original dry diving suits.
Added added. If you do a little research you see the space suit is the natural evolution of the pressure suit used for high altitude flight. far from myth and magic you stupidly make it out to be.
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1224170132880883752/NiceTry.png?ex=661c8447&is=660a0f47&hm=df9ddf8f12231ad7d2138f756036aaf9432e3551b1d86a2f82c3f51ac8d19235&)
I guess that's a 'yes' to my question?
-
The addition of "haven't you" is probably an Britishism, but it strongly implies you aren't sure.
If you understood it properly, you would understand it means you have lost the argument.
Also, it seems pretty clear that you have verified to me that you're not confident enough in your theory to stake your life on it.
You have made it clear that isn't the issue at all. Instead, it is just your pathetic idea to murder people that show you are wrong, because that is the kind of low life scum you are.
You are so utterly pathetic, without any sense of integrity or morality, that you will happily lie to everyone and want to kill anyone who shows you are wrong.
You are a pathetic excuse for a human.
And in the absence of air, propulsion has a harder time defying "gravity" as shown from the drone and how quickly the balloon dropped.
As explained to you repeatedly, that is only if the propulsion actually relies upon air.
What limited the propulsion of the balloon was the edge of the chamber.
It's like Donald Trump said about the homeless. You're swimming in filth.
As opposed to you, where you are filth.
Now again, care to defend your dishonest BS, with an actual logical argument?
Or will you admit you are just lying scum?
It really is simple.
The rocket brings its own fuel and oxidiser. It combined it and ignites it in a chamber to generate high pressures and temperatures.
These high pressures both push the rocket forwards and pushes the gas out the back at high speed.
And the combustion continues in that chamber at high pressure.
So propulsion will work just fine.
And you have had orbits explained to you repeatedly.
You are unable to show a fault with any of this.
Instead, you resort to insults and wanting to kill people.
-
Jesus can't help you out of this one, no matter how hard you pray to him. You've lost this argument, haven't you?
The addition of "haven't you" is probably an Britishism, but it strongly implies you aren't sure. Are you? Yes, you aren't sure.
As for dying to prove this propulsion in a vacuum, if the science is sound, and I'm wearing a pressurised suit and helmet, what do I have to fear?
You're getting pressure imported from the other side of the vacuum via tube (like the old time divers). Or you're getting it from a scuba tank (would not recommend with anyone who doesn't intend to let you out, as they will outlast you).
Also, it seems pretty clear that you have verified to me that you're not confident enough in your theory to stake your life on it.
And now you're firing bullets off in a vain attempt to get more air. Yes, as established by the previous video, some propulsion works. But if you're hoping for air pockets, the glass is tempered bulletproof with multiple layers. And in the absence of air, propulsion has a harder time defying "gravity" as shown from the drone and how quickly the balloon dropped.
The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”
Is this the one who relies on the LORD? Then let the LORD save him! If the LORD loves him so much, let the LORD rescue him!”
Jesus is defends me, and in fact you also. "Though a thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand, no harm will come near you."
What then is your argument? You can indeed be allowed to wear a space suit with a steady pump from outside (I'm going to allow it) as the science of air pressure is indeed sound. But not only have you proved that you aren't prepared to die for your science, but you are gonna have to have a damned good waste filtration inside that suit. Have you even seen the film Brazil? The guy in the suit has a blockage in his waste exhaust, and is literally suffocating in his own shit. You'd also need to deal with sweat and urine. You could open your suit, but the pressure difference might hurt you.
It's like Donald Trump said about the homeless. You're swimming in filth. This is the filth of sin of thinking you can exist without Jesus. You need him like... (wait for it) the air you breathe.
Bulma, I thought you said you had a strong handle on English vocabulary. How can me asking you a question, be an implication I'm not sure about something? It isn't.
I am getting through to you I see by your admission from watching that video that some propulsion works. How many inflated balloons have you propelled across your bedroom in the last couple of days?
Any luck in finding any walls of air in your bedroom? Any luck finding any walls of air anywhere outside your bedroom? I know you've been looking hard and feeling around for these walls of air and have been unsuccessful. That's because walls of air do not exist and balloons expelling air do not need walls of air anymore than rockets do to be propelled.
Look at you learning this week. We're all very very proud of you!
You dismissing all space footage as fake was built on top of your belief of rockets not being able to operate in a vacuum, and now you know they can!
My argument is balloons expelling air will move in a vacuum just like they do in your bedroom. My argument is a hose releasing high pressure water will snake and turn in a vacuum just like it does in your backyard. My argument is a bullet will fire in a vacuum just like it does in normal air pressure.
A drone works by sucking air down from above like a helicopter, so of course a drone in a vacuum will drop like a stone. It is also obvious with the balloon in the vacuum chamber, that as soon as it has expelled it's air it will drop like a stone, and it did.
You have to remember Action lab dude does all his experiments here on Earth, subjected to Earth's gravity, which is why things fall to the ground. In outer space, away from Earth's gravity, the balloon would keep moving the last direction it was going, before running out of air to expel.
You trying in vain to turn this argument into being about a pressurised suit will also not save you any more than Jesus can. There is no risk in me proving propulsion works in a vacuum. There is only risk to me dying if I'm locked in said vacuum chamber by a flat earth homicidal maniac keen to see the oxygen in my oxygen supply tank expire. Oh, and I'm willing to test your theory the glass of said chamber is tempered and bulletproof particularly with you grinning like a Cheshire cat on the other side. I'd like to see how good you are at catching bullets between your teeth!
-
What happened to bulma? Did he finally achieve nirvana?
-
(https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc0NDc1NjM2NTA3NjgyNDM4/what-is-buddhas-nirvana-is-that-retold-moksha.jpg)
I have returned as a bodhisattva or something.
Also, proof the Buddha was a Nazi.
I sorta kinda was outta town (a sorta religious resort for retired priests with my dad). You guys aren't exactly top priority, since I prefer to talk to people who have more chill.
Funny you should mention this. I was reading a book called Does God Exist? An Answer For Today. It was extremely technical in its explanations but it talked about two topics in particular:
- The idea of whether God is a tyrannical POS
- And what things meant in terms words like nirvana (and other Buddhist terms)
The latter, they basically said that if God is God (He Is), then saying he can't occupy realms of non-being is to limit his power. And to achieve moksha is to be in unity with God.
-
the hindu were around much longer than 90yrs ago.
you had a minor or a major in history?
-
Major.
Not only do you not get jokes, you obviously can't tell religions apart. So there's that.
-
you, a political libertarian, yet accepting God's ultimate Do and Do Not, is about as amazing as every other nonconsistent thought you've presented here.
amazing
-
Major.
Not only do you not get jokes, you obviously can't tell religions apart. So there's that.
poe's law
you've said so much dumbasshsit here, who knows what you're joking about.
specially if you didn't follow it with a "hahahha"
not knowing relgions?
cool
sorry but the buddha came from the hindu.
just like mulsim offshoot christian offhsoot judaeism.
thanks for comign out.
but i did screw up.
after a quick look up it is different - hindi is the language.
u vs i - i thought it was synomymous
-
you, a political libertarian, yet accepting God's ultimate Do and Do Not, is about as amazing as every other nonconsistent thought you've presented here.
amazing
Fun fact. The least free countries have political atheism.
North Korea? Atheist.
South Korea? Shamanism, Buddhism, and Christianity.
Communist Russia? Communist China? Atheist.
And no, I'm not talking about percentages. South Korea has about 60% admitting to no religion. It's about whether the state religion is atheism (e.g. religion is outlawed).
But since were on that topic, most of the secular west shut down under COVID. Most of the secular west went all safety crazy and canceled Christmas in the wake of Muslim terrorism. Hungary and Poland? Not so much.
In order to be politically libertarian means recognizing that the state has no control over my life.
“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything"—but I will not be mastered by anything.
When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders. 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22 The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”
God's rule is anarchy. He even allows the freedom of people to choose a system that enslaves them.
These commandments are there so that we govern ourselves and do not become mastered by anything. Think of it this way. If I were to steal from you, I'd be arrested, I'd have some asshole bothering me about parole. I wouldn't get to live life freely. If I cheated on your wife, you might kill me. These commandments are to keep us free. They are not "Do this, or God will punish you." They are rules set in order to give us freedom. When we disobey God, we instead elect world leaders, who tell us what to do or even try to kill us.
-
I have returned
And has nothing to do why you think the laws of motion would magically stop working in an extremely thin atmosphere.
-
(https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc0NDc1NjM2NTA3NjgyNDM4/what-is-buddhas-nirvana-is-that-retold-moksha.jpg)
I have returned as a bodhisattva or something.
Also, proof the Buddha was a Nazi.
I sorta kinda was outta town (a sorta religious resort for retired priests with my dad). You guys aren't exactly top priority, since I prefer to talk to people who have more chill.
Funny you should mention this. I was reading a book called Does God Exist? An Answer For Today. It was extremely technical in its explanations but it talked about two topics in particular:
- The idea of whether God is a tyrannical POS
- And what things meant in terms words like nirvana (and other Buddhist terms)
The latter, they basically said that if God is God (He Is), then saying he can't occupy realms of non-being is to limit his power. And to achieve moksha is to be in unity with God.
Coincidences. Anyways, now that you have attained buddhahood or something, maybe you can now answer my question about the pendulum?
P.S. Who went and made God a guy? Why can't it be a girl? In fact, why in merlin's name does God even have a gender in the first place?
-
P.S. Who went and made God a guy? Why can't it be a girl? In fact, why in merlin's name does God even have a gender in the first place?
I think the individual stated before Jesus was a woman. I could be wrong.
-
I was reading a book called Does God Exist? An Answer For Today.
Coincidences. Anyways, now that you have attained buddhahood or something, maybe you can now answer my question about the pendulum?
P.S. Who went and made God a guy? Why can't it be a girl? In fact, why in merlin's name does God even have a gender in the first place?
I can. But you didn't ask if I would. ;D
Also in the above theological tome. Just after the tyrannical part, btw.
Here you go! (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/785264927174295553/1225505022238789764/DoesGodExist.pdf?ex=66215f7e&is=660eea7e&hm=67b28e62fa9015b7b00ecdd6731dfdebd5b2a9274a660f3c1a6f42be51d8eed8&)
Or you can watch Joan of Arcadia for the teenage version.
-
you, a political libertarian, yet accepting God's ultimate Do and Do Not, is about as amazing as every other nonconsistent thought you've presented here.
amazing
Fun fact. The least free countries have political atheism.
North Korea? Atheist.
South Korea? Shamanism, Buddhism, and Christianity.
Communist Russia? Communist China? Atheist.
fun fact
the dictator leaders present themselves as god to their peoples.
that's how they hold power.
and your king trump definitely isn't doing that...
the word blasphemy comes to mind
geez
how many 10commandments you gonna let that MF off of?
so
1.
your body belongs to God and you being happy about that but yet when the govt says it, it's totally bad.
2.
you're a walkng contradiction.
3.
no one can tell you're joking because you're a walking contradiction.
good stuff.
-
Here you go
How about the actual topic of the thread?
How can you dismiss all the space footage?
Which is backed by an actual broadcasting international space station orbiting earth in space you can see with your own unaided eyes.
-
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
-
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
Hence Which is backed by an actual broadcasting international space station orbiting earth in space you can see with your own unaided eyes.
-
fun fact
the dictator leaders present themselves as god to their peoples.
that's how they hold power.
This is because "atheism" doesn't exist.
You believe in Luck as your god.
Or you believe in the leader as your god.
Or sports.
Or superstition.
Scotland has very few actual Christians. But when we visited, they had alot of ghost tours. Or crystal/tarot shops.
People say they don't believe in God, but something is their god.
Lil' Kim makes a poor god, though. He is an actual tyrannical POS.
God? He gets blamed for people dying, but you know, no matter how wise or how powerful you are, the fact is we are fragile. Do the pots blame the potter for not making them indestructible?
You know who I call a tyrant? The guy who breaks pots intentionally, who kills people intentionally? Or the guy who creates the universe, but maybe makes things a bit imperfectly? Yeah, the first. The first one, as a result of actual malice, causes harm to others.
Dorothy: You're a very bad man.
Oz: Oh no, my dear. I'm a very good man. Just a... very bad wizard.
-
Which has nothing to do with this thread. You’re running from the truth, fact, science, what can be witnessed as in the moving viewing area for the ISS, what can be measured as in the Doppler shift of the ISS broadcasts.
-
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
Hence Which is backed by an actual broadcasting international space station orbiting earth in space you can see with your own unaided eyes.
this is the part where iv'e told you before - you have a listening problem.
if you want him to understand you, find out where his understanding goes crooked, then discuss those points.
focus up.
shouting and spamming isn't going to get you anywhere.
-
fun fact
the dictator leaders present themselves as god to their peoples.
that's how they hold power.
This is because "atheism" doesn't exist.
no
you once again miss the point - authoritarian and followers.
your claim that dictator-run countries are also atheistic is because to control followers there must be ultimate authority.
so these dictators have made themselves god.
and if a ruler doesn't use a man-god, then a god-God is also useful.
so the commonality is _________
finish the thgouht.
come on.
you can do it.
and hence therefore - you are a walking contradiction in you claim to love libertarianism however bow to absolute authoritarism.
hurray!
you love liberatiianism yet continue to promote alt-right authoritarian govt rule.
hurray!
you love God yet continue to praise a blasphemous Trump
-
I notice you are yet again resorting to spamming religious BS instead of even attempting to deal with satellites which destroy your fantasy.
Fun fact. The least free countries have political atheism.
Fun fact, the least free countries are mostly heavily religious.
E.g. North Korea with its religion worshipping Kim.
Pretty much the entirety of the Middle East with its adherence to Islam.
Russia, with its adherence to Christianity.
In order to be politically libertarian means recognizing that the state has no control over my life.
Libertarianism upholds LIBERTY as a core value, that you can do things without being controlled.
Trying to replace the state with your evil POS doesn't change that.
God's rule is anarchy.
No, God's rule is tyranny. You do what he says or he murders and/or torments you.
They are not "Do this, or God will punish you."
That is precisely what they are.
Such as the poor guy who was put to death for collecting firewood on the Sabbath.
Or considering you love quoting the Bible so much, what about this one:
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Sure sounds like a command to murder those who don't obey.
This is because "atheism" doesn't exist.
Yet you seem happy boldly proclaiming it does exist and makes people not free.
Atheism is merely the absence of a delusional belief.
You believe in Luck as your god.
Or you believe in the leader as your god.
Or sports.
Or superstition.
No, that would still be theism.
Atheists don't believe in a god.
They don't an imaginary fiend.
But because that is such a horrible concept for you and your abusive relationship with your imagination, you need to repeat these pathetic lies.
You know who I call a tyrant? The guy who breaks pots intentionally, who kills people intentionally? Or the guy who creates the universe, but maybe makes things a bit imperfectly? Yeah, the first. The first one, as a result of actual malice, causes harm to others.
So you are saying your allegedly perfect god screwed up?
Or did it intentionally make things imperfect to intentionally cause harm, because it gets off on suffering?
-
this is the part where iv'e told you before - you have a listening problem.
Your just a fruit.
The ISS actively broadcasts from space.
It actively Broadcasts footage from space.
The ISS can be seen from the ground.
The ISS can be verified as being in space by the wide area it can been as it travels the sky.
Added. It literally is a man made object in orbit is space that can be verified by simply taking the time to look when it passes overhead.
The speed at which the ISS travels can be varied by the active Doppler shift in its broadcast frequency as it passes over head.
The ISS proves the earth is curved because it is physically blocked by the earth’s curvature after it passes beyond the horizon.
You bitch I don’t “listen”. Yet bulmabriefs144 turns off senses and sense to believe a delusion through lies that are soundly debunked.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
-
a light in the sky doesn't prove the videos aren't CGI.
see the part where you didn't debunk all video is CGI?
literally using the christian arguemtn - God is real because the Bible says so.
you're no better tahn bulma
blocked by earth's curvature?
the guy believes in parabolic views and things shrink bottom up.
so...listening....
-
a light in the sky doesn't prove the videos aren't CGI.
see the part where you didn't debunk all video is CGI?
The ISS isn’t just a light in the sky is it.
So you have to create a false narrative.
-
see the part where you didn't debunk all video is CGI?
You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set.
Which is a lie by you.
Apollo 11
The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[18]
A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969.[19]
At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik.[20] At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[21] In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.[22]
Larry Baysinger,a radio amateur (W4EJA) and a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module.[23] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Kaminski, in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) in Houston, Texas, and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the Earth.[18][24]
The Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy, also detected transmissions coming from the mission[25][26] using a 10 meters dish.[27
Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
You can’t analyze yourself out of a paper bag. You only have lies. Sounds like a great thread. You should make one.
Charming conspiracy theorist confused by reflections
Why the Moon photos could not be fake
Basically there was no way to fake the light of the sun on the moon. A very far off, very strong single point light source. And other items.
I guess Themightykabool, you don’t understand that much of “space footage” is literally third party verified with documented evidence. Various “Space footage” is verified and proven. Why do I have to retry the case when the evidence and facts are already established. For someone who literally is blind, deaf, and dumb by their delusion. And embraces lies they regurgitate. So. Who isn’t listening?
-
your claim that dictator-run countries are also atheistic is because to control followers there must be ultimate authority. so these dictators have made themselves god.
Look up the term "state atheism" and cross-reference it with "authoritarianism".
Then if you still don't get it, look up about "Nimrod" and the "Tower of Babel". You'll find this passage.
Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power... Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than any one could expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water.
And this:
Those who gave counsel to build the tower, for they whom thou seest drove forth multitudes of both men and women, to make bricks; among whom, a woman making bricks was not allowed to be released in the hour of child-birth, but brought forth while she was making bricks, and carried her child in her apron, and continued to make bricks.
They were not just in defiance of God, but their defiance caused them to elect a god-emperor who led them to legitimate enslavement. Did you notice that bit about women in pregnancy having to continue making bricks even while their water was breaking and they were having labor pains?
Atheism is literal taking credit for what is obviously God's doing.
-
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
Hmm. Were you “listening” Themightykabool?
Is that what bulmabriefs144 claimed regarding the Apollo space mission footage and active live broadcasts.
-
L
Atheism
Which isn’t the topic of this thread.
If you think the Apollo Space Footage is fake.
Why is the lighting prefect match for sunlight in the footage.
Why is there third party verification of live transmissions from the moon during the Apollo missions.
-
fun fact
the dictator leaders present themselves as god to their peoples.
that's how they hold power.
This is because "atheism" doesn't exist.
You believe in Luck as your god.
Or you believe in the leader as your god.
Or sports.
Or superstition.
Scotland has very few actual Christians. But when we visited, they had alot of ghost tours. Or crystal/tarot shops.
People say they don't believe in God, but something is their god.
Lil' Kim makes a poor god, though. He is an actual tyrannical POS.
God? He gets blamed for people dying, but you know, no matter how wise or how powerful you are, the fact is we are fragile. Do the pots blame the potter for not making them indestructible?
You know who I call a tyrant? The guy who breaks pots intentionally, who kills people intentionally? Or the guy who creates the universe, but maybe makes things a bit imperfectly? Yeah, the first. The first one, as a result of actual malice, causes harm to others.
Dorothy: You're a very bad man.
Oz: Oh no, my dear. I'm a very good man. Just a... very bad wizard.
If you want to rant about God, there are sections of the forum for that. Stop bothering us with it in this thread. It's of-topic. I has nothing to do with dismissing all space footage. Even Jesus knew more about stars in the night sky than you do, by virtue of one leading the 3 wise men to him upon his birth.
Meanwhile, not only do I not know which God you worship nor care, I also don't know which pronouns I can use with you, without offending you.
-
Then if you still don't get it,
You bulmabriefs144 being a prolific and proven a blatant liar on the simplest of things think you have the right to lecture on matters of spiritually?
You're a rotter, Mr. Grinch. You're the king of sinful sots! Your heart's a dead tomato splotched With moldy purple spots, Mr. Grinch.
Your soul is an appalling dump heap
Overflowing with the most disgraceful assortment of deplorable rubbish imaginable Mangled up in tangled up knots!
https://www.scholastic.com/content/dam/teachers/blogs/genia-connell/migrated-files/mr._grinch.pdf
-
a light in the sky doesn't prove the videos aren't CGI.
see the part where you didn't debunk all video is CGI?
The ISS isn’t just a light in the sky is it.
So you have to create a false narrative.
congratulations.
you're a moron who doesn't listen.
-
your claim that dictator-run countries are also atheistic is because to control followers there must be ultimate authority. so these dictators have made themselves god.
Look up the term "state atheism" and cross-reference it with "authoritarianism".
They were not just in defiance of God, but their defiance caused them to elect a god-emperor who led them to legitimate enslavement. Did you notice that bit about women in pregnancy having to continue making bricks even while their water was breaking and they were having labor pains?
still not listening - god emporer is what you're doing if you elect trump and the magahat GOP.
dictator trump.
removing social security on the sick and elderly.
work until you're dead and if you're sick and can't work, you lose healthcare (which kind of defeats the purpose of healthinsurance).
means testing the poor on benefits.
congratulations.
you just proved you're stupid (again).
also
last word on this back to you, because as pointed out, it's offtopic
-
congratulations.
you're a moron who doesn't listen.
Now now Themightykabool. That doesn’t answer the post below.
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
Hmm. Were you “listening” Themightykabool?
Is that what bulmabriefs144 claimed regarding the Apollo space mission footage and active live broadcasts.
-
who doesn't listen.
Who’s the one not paying attention to the thread? You?
Or bulmabriefs144 that makes themselves completely oblivious to the evidence presented by many different people from many different sources, by various means.
-
still not listening - god emporer is what you're doing if you elect trump and the magahat GOP.
dictator trump.
removing social security on the sick and elderly.
work until you're dead and if you're sick and can't work, you lose healthcare (which kind of defeats the purpose of health insurance).
means testing the poor on benefits.
Read what I said earlier on asking for kings. The US was set up (supposedly because democracy is a noble goal) to vote for leaders. Either we accept the leaders that God picks or if the goal is to get out of it, we can only do that by pushing things to the bitter end (i.e. where everyone votes to abolish the presidential system, because you and I agree finally agree that all these politicians are scumbags).
It's off-topic. I has nothing to do with dismissing all space footage
Oh stop kidding all of us. When I actually talk about space footage, you talk all about other stuff to redirect the topic. Then when theology becomes uncomfy, you act all offended because of religion. Where was any of this when you guys said stuff like "Jesus can't help you out of this one, no matter how hard you pray to him. You've lost this argument, haven't you?" You initiate this stuff then when you're called out on it, you try to claim it's off-topic.
Actually, the argument was DOA by the time that you said that. I already explained that the rules of buoyancy and propulsion don't work for that. You ignored that argument and acted like you had proved something.
evidence presented by many different people from many different sources
"Evidence."
So while we're talking about listening, I believe a page or two ago, I asked for the Apollo 11 footage, and that I would analyze shots from it. I'm seeing no videos of that when I look over previous pages.
I guess that's a 'yes' to my question?
It's a no. Pressure from a greater volume simply diffuses to a lesser volume. But unlike your fantasy of perpetual motion in a vacuum or the idea that rockets shoot off in a vacuum, the balloon after shooting off flops to the ground. This is quite different from how a balloon behaves in air.
(In air)
(In vacuum. Notice the sag)
(In vacuum. Not rising)
(Balloon "flies" immediately to the ground)
Propulsion works. Buoyancy does not work, because all physical objects are heavier.
Therefore, leaving the atmosphere is impossible. You can temporarily boost yourself, maybe, but this is quite different from "launching through space".
Yup, I predict you guys will suddenly not care about "off-topic" things.
-
congratulations.
you're a moron who doesn't listen.
Now now Themightykabool. That doesn’t answer the post below.
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
Hmm. Were you “listening” Themightykabool?
Is that what bulmabriefs144 claimed regarding the Apollo space mission footage and active live broadcasts.
Taking posts out of context to try and make yourself right.
How clearly not not not dishonest you are.
Oh right youve done that before...
You thinks when i said 'cgi'meant i was reaponding to your future claim about "moon walk" and definitely not to your earlier claim about "live feed"?
Youve got about as much honesty as bulmbes here.
-
Oh stop kidding all of us. When I actually talk about space footage, you talk all about other stuff to redirect the topic.
You posted this.
Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
I posted this…
Third party verification
Apollo 11
The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[18]
A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969.[19]
At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik.[20] At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[21] In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.[22]
Larry Baysinger,a radio amateur (W4EJA) and a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module.[23] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Kaminski, in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) in Houston, Texas, and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the Earth.[18][24]
The Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy, also detected transmissions coming from the mission[25][26] using a 10 meters dish.[27
You can’t analyze yourself out of a paper bag. You only have lies. Sounds like a great thread. You should make one.
Charming conspiracy theorist confused by reflections
Why the Moon photos could not be fake
Basically there was no way to fake the light of the sun on the moon. A very far off, very strong single point light source. And other items.
Then when theology becomes uncomfy,
You lie too much for anyone to have you preach any spirituality to anyone. And nobody gives a damn about your theology.
I already explained that the rules of buoyancy
No. You butchered buoyancy. Failed to explain or prove how it’s a fundamental force when it relies on air density and air molecules with you having no explanation what causes air molecules to over come their tendency to distance themselves and bunch up at earth’s surface to create a pressure gradient.
and propulsion don't
No. You ignore that rocket fuel carries its own fuel and oxizer, and doesn’t need free oxygen from an atmosphere to burn.
You ignored from another thread that something like C-4 doesn’t even need an atmosphere to react. A shock wave causes the highly energetic chemical bonds to breakdown in the C-4 molecules, the C-4 decomposes to create gasses and heat that expands initially at something like 24,000 ft/Sec. Are you saying a C-4 explosion of gasses wouldn’t expand in a vacuum?
With rockets being propelled essentially by a controlled explosion, you haven’t explained why the laws of motion particularly opposite and equal reaction magical stops in an extreme low density atmosphere.
Rockets literally release their own atmosphere of rapidly expanding hot gases and mass. The result is like the equal and opposite movement of firing a shotgun. Nothing like the drone propellers that can’t release their own gasses from a controlled explosion, trying to create thrust in a vacuum.
So while we're talking about listening, I believe a page or two ago, I asked for the Apollo 11 footage, and that I would analyze shots from it. I'm seeing no videos of that when I look over previous pages.
Literally in this post.
You can’t analyze yourself out of a paper bag. You only have lies. Sounds like a great thread. You should make one.
Charming conspiracy theorist confused by reflections
Why the Moon photos could not be fake
Basically there was no way to fake the light of the sun on the moon. A very far off, very strong single point light source. And other items.
Pressure from a greater volume simply diffuses to a lesser volume.
Volume isn’t pressure. It’s how much you have in space in something like cubic feet.
Which in no way explains why the earth’s atmosphere is bunched up at the surface at a greater pressure, and why it doesn’t equalise to the upper atmosphere with more volume, less density, less pressure in your dome delusion.
How does the less density and pressure of the upper atmosphere trap higher pressure in place at the earth’s surface.
But unlike your fantasy of perpetual motion in a vacuum
How is rocket fuel burning, creating an on going controlled explosion like a shotgun kicking for an equal and opposite reaction until the fuel runs out in a vacuum “perpetual” motion. It makes sense in an extremely low dense atmosphere with essentially no air resistance.
Vs your perpetual motion machine of a sun in atmosphere circulating above the earth.
While you ignore the reality and existence of comets that orbit the sun in near empty space. As in outer space that offers negligible air resistance.
or the idea that rockets shoot off in a vacuum, the balloon after shooting off flops to the ground.
Again. Why does the laws of motion magically stop in your delusion. Where in reality we have meteorites, comets that orbit the sun, and manmade objects like the ISS that orbit the earth. And you have the moon that is literally a natural satellite that orbits the earth. You know the moon. The big solid thing of mass that blocks the sun’s radiation during a solar eclipse, and causes tides.
Therefore, leaving the atmosphere is impossible.
And yet you can go outside and watch man made satellites like the ISS orbit the earth at night.
-
You thinks when i said 'cgi'meant i was reaponding to your future claim about "moon walk" and definitely not to your earlier claim about "live feed"?
What future post?
Your post…. Today. April 4, 2024…
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
Smoke Machine post from March 31, 2024…
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were people, weren't they? They didn't risk their lives for a lie, did they? The Apollo 11 mission worked and they survived, in part because rockets don't propel forward by pushing off walls of air or walls of anything.
bulmabriefs144 reply on March 31,
You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set. Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
-
still not listening - god emporer is what you're doing if you elect trump and the magahat GOP.
dictator trump.
removing social security on the sick and elderly.
work until you're dead and if you're sick and can't work, you lose healthcare (which kind of defeats the purpose of health insurance).
means testing the poor on benefits.
Read what I said earlier on asking for kings. The US was set up (supposedly because democracy is a noble goal) to vote for leaders. Either we accept the leaders that God picks or if the goal is to get out of it, we can only do that by pushing things to the bitter end (i.e. where everyone votes to abolish the presidential system, because you and I agree finally agree that all these politicians are scumbags).
It's off-topic. I has nothing to do with dismissing all space footage
Oh stop kidding all of us. When I actually talk about space footage, you talk all about other stuff to redirect the topic. Then when theology becomes uncomfy, you act all offended because of religion. Where was any of this when you guys said stuff like "Jesus can't help you out of this one, no matter how hard you pray to him. You've lost this argument, haven't you?" You initiate this stuff then when you're called out on it, you try to claim it's off-topic.
Actually, the argument was DOA by the time that you said that. I already explained that the rules of buoyancy and propulsion don't work for that. You ignored that argument and acted like you had proved something.
evidence presented by many different people from many different sources
"Evidence."
So while we're talking about listening, I believe a page or two ago, I asked for the Apollo 11 footage, and that I would analyze shots from it. I'm seeing no videos of that when I look over previous pages.
I guess that's a 'yes' to my question?
It's a no. Pressure from a greater volume simply diffuses to a lesser volume. But unlike your fantasy of perpetual motion in a vacuum or the idea that rockets shoot off in a vacuum, the balloon after shooting off flops to the ground. This is quite different from how a balloon behaves in air.
(In air)
(In vacuum. Notice the sag)
(In vacuum. Not rising)
(Balloon "flies" immediately to the ground)
Propulsion works. Buoyancy does not work, because all physical objects are heavier.
Therefore, leaving the atmosphere is impossible. You can temporarily boost yourself, maybe, but this is quite different from "launching through space".
Yup, I predict you guys will suddenly not care about "off-topic" things.
What do you mean, "I asked for Apollo 11 footage to analyse?"
Do I look like your personal secretary? I already told you to watch the Apollo 11 documentary or you can cough up your own clips from youtube on Apollo 11 as you see
fit.
Once again, Jesus can't help you. The sooner you accept that, the better.
-
I was reading a book called Does God Exist? An Answer For Today.
Coincidences. Anyways, now that you have attained buddhahood or something, maybe you can now answer my question about the pendulum?
P.S. Who went and made God a guy? Why can't it be a girl? In fact, why in merlin's name does God even have a gender in the first place?
I can. But you didn't ask if I would. ;D
Also in the above theological tome. Just after the tyrannical part, btw.
Here you go! (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/785264927174295553/1225505022238789764/DoesGodExist.pdf?ex=66215f7e&is=660eea7e&hm=67b28e62fa9015b7b00ecdd6731dfdebd5b2a9274a660f3c1a6f42be51d8eed8&)
Or you can watch Joan of Arcadia for the teenage version.
Hmmm... Let me rephrase myself, now that you are a Bodhisattva or something, will you finally post an answer to my question about the pendulum?
-
bulma, since you are so big on conservation laws like thermodynamics, have you ever heard of conservation of momentum?
-
What do you mean, "I asked for Apollo 11 footage to analyse?"
Do I look like your personal secretary? I already told you to watch the Apollo 11 documentary or you can cough up your own clips from youtube on Apollo 11 as you see fit.
Once again, Jesus can't help you. The sooner you accept that, the better.
This is what I said.
Bulma, I like to give credit where credit is due, and congratulations, this time you are right! Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were people, weren't they? They didn't risk their lives for a lie, did they? The Apollo 11 mission worked and they survived, in part because rockets don't propel forward by pushing off walls of air or walls of anything.
You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set. Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
Flying a space ship is extraordinarily dangerous even if the science did work. The odds of them risking their life is approaching 0%. At low pressure, you die from depressurization sickness. Then there's the fact that when this launch was supposedly done, the average computer was terrible.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1224156767403900988/YeahRight.png?ex=661c77d5&is=660a02d5&hm=da6682727a1ac759da0967a9be41490b15073c199650b5d70e48fe8d64a0b92b&)
And this involved rooms of this crap. Punchcards. Laborious coding. People mostly doing the calculations manually and then coding them into the computer, which had nothing approaching decent AI. As shown in Hidden Figures.
For comparison, a typical NES game cartridge can run actual games in real time, and has up to 1 MB of memory.
They absolutely never risked their lives for a lie. They didn't get into a shuttle (snuck out the back) they didn't go into space, and they weren't on the moon. They didn't risk their asses on the chance that the thing might explode, come crashing down, or not have enough oxygen. This is the gutlessness of this lie.
They talk big, but they didn't do any of this for real.
The director confessing that he helped make the moon landing look real.
Jesus gives us words to say. If not for his presence in our lives, we would literally be as intelligent as chimps, if even that.
Chimps are fucking stupid. They say we are related, but they are about as smart as a six-year-old without the ability to think or create anything. No, no amount of chimps can write Shakespeare. They would literally write faskkegikeGKLBifbwqjevbvebekjekenEWKBGJAGBGlknaxKwk,fn while screaming and throwing their own shit. They can maybe copy things they see. That's not creativity, it's random synapses.
So no, I don't care if you believe me or not. "Jesus can't help you"? He helps us both. You'd also be as dumb as a chimp and unable to string together coherent sentences.
You are too lazy to find your own video. If the Apollo 11 worked... ummm, why can't you show me that it worked?
Seems to me that you want me to verify your own proof. I'm not your secretary.
(https://d3m7xw68ay40x8.cloudfront.net/assets/2016/06/29092053/apollo-11-flag-nasa.jpg)
1. Why is the flag flapping in the wind? In no atmosphere, the flag should droop.
(https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.psu.edu/dist/0/92153/files/2018/10/shadow-one-2ihssbu.jpg)
2. If light is coming from a real source, why are shadows not matching up?
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2007/09/07/arts/07moon600.jpg)
3. "The hills are alive with the Sound of Music." 10 years before NASA landing, they were able to make background layers depicting mountain land.
(https://images8.alphacoders.com/637/637422.jpg)
This all without computers. Now look again at the people standing on "moon" (greyscale) soil with the black background and the rover and moon hills. This is even less convincing than a film produced 10 years before.
Jesus can help you. Confess your deceit and turn to him.
-
What do you mean, "I asked for Apollo 11 footage to analyse?"
Do I look like your personal secretary? I already told you to watch the Apollo 11 documentary or you can cough up your own clips from youtube on Apollo 11 as you see fit.
Once again, Jesus can't help you. The sooner you accept that, the better.
This is what I said.
Bulma, I like to give credit where credit is due, and congratulations, this time you are right! Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were people, weren't they? They didn't risk their lives for a lie, did they? The Apollo 11 mission worked and they survived, in part because rockets don't propel forward by pushing off walls of air or walls of anything.
You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set. Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
Flying a space ship is extraordinarily dangerous even if the science did work. The odds of them risking their life is approaching 0%. At low pressure, you die from depressurization sickness. Then there's the fact that when this launch was supposedly done, the average computer was terrible.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1224156767403900988/YeahRight.png?ex=661c77d5&is=660a02d5&hm=da6682727a1ac759da0967a9be41490b15073c199650b5d70e48fe8d64a0b92b&)
And this involved rooms of this crap. Punchcards. Laborious coding. People mostly doing the calculations manually and then coding them into the computer, which had nothing approaching decent AI. As shown in Hidden Figures.
For comparison, a typical NES game cartridge can run actual games in real time, and has up to 1 MB of memory.
They absolutely never risked their lives for a lie. They didn't get into a shuttle (snuck out the back) they didn't go into space, and they weren't on the moon. They didn't risk their asses on the chance that the thing might explode, come crashing down, or not have enough oxygen. This is the gutlessness of this lie.
They talk big, but they didn't do any of this for real.
The director confessing that he helped make the moon landing look real.
Jesus gives us words to say. If not for his presence in our lives, we would literally be as intelligent as chimps, if even that.
Chimps are fucking stupid. They say we are related, but they are about as smart as a six-year-old without the ability to think or create anything. No, no amount of chimps can write Shakespeare. They would literally write faskkegikeGKLBifbwqjevbvebekjekenEWKBGJAGBGlknaxKwk,fn while screaming and throwing their own shit. They can maybe copy things they see. That's not creativity, it's random synapses.
So no, I don't care if you believe me or not. "Jesus can't help you"? He helps us both. You'd also be as dumb as a chimp and unable to string together coherent sentences.
You are too lazy to find your own video. If the Apollo 11 worked... ummm, why can't you show me that it worked?
Seems to me that you want me to verify your own proof. I'm not your secretary.
(https://d3m7xw68ay40x8.cloudfront.net/assets/2016/06/29092053/apollo-11-flag-nasa.jpg)
1. Why is the flag flapping in the wind? In no atmosphere, the flag should droop.
(https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.psu.edu/dist/0/92153/files/2018/10/shadow-one-2ihssbu.jpg)
2. If light is coming from a real source, why are shadows not matching up?
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2007/09/07/arts/07moon600.jpg)
3. "The hills are alive with the Sound of Music." 10 years before NASA landing, they were able to make background layers depicting mountain land.
(https://images8.alphacoders.com/637/637422.jpg)
This all without computers. Now look again at the people standing on "moon" (greyscale) soil with the black background and the rover and moon hills. This is even less convincing than a film produced 10 years before.
Jesus can help you. Confess your deceit and turn to him.
How can I produce YOUR evidence for YOUR argument? I don't know what batcrazy shit you're going to come up with next, and I don't know what flat earth space footage is fake examples you are going to cough up. There are hours and hours of Apollo mission space footage and moon footage. There are literally hundreds of thousands of hours of ISS space footage.
You want to argue a bit here and a bit there is fake, then you deliver it.
People were here on Earth long before Jesus was born, 2024 years ago, so how can you say without Jesus we would all be as dumb as chimps? People were already lightyears ahead of chimps before Jesus was even born, and had language. So, you saying Jesus puts words in our mouths, is also batshit crazy. It doesn't even make sense from a christian point of view. It's stupid.
Jesus can't help you in this argument, is what I was saying. I don't care if Jesus helps you get a new job or get a new root. You can pray to Jesus til the cows come home to win this argument and you've no chance. Jesus can however help you out out of the flat earth cult you've found yourself in, which is founded on lies and deceit. You've been conned, just like a lonely farmer who falls for a romance scam and just keeps giving his money away to a romantic notion.
Those moon photos as evidence of fakery has already been explained a thousand times. You really want me to explain them again, while you still can't find any walls of air in your bedroom for a balloon flying around expelling air to push off from?
-
Like most people, you assume this is the origin point of Jesus.
First off, Jesus was not born in 0 A.D. but probably closer to 6 B.C. according to historians studying the events surrounding his birth (they date this by things like which Herod and which Caesar was in power).
But more importantly, both John and Proverbs (or as I call it, Lady Wisdom) explain that Jesus is in existence from the dawn of creation. So does Genesis.
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
The Word is Jesus Christ. He is explicitly named as existing at the very beginning.
The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,
the first of his acts of old.
23 Ages ago I was set up,
at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
24 When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth;
26 before he had made the earth with its fields,
or the first of the dust of the world.
27 When he established the heavens, I was there,
when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28 when he made firm the skies above,
when he established the fountains of the deep,
29 when he assigned to the sea its limit,
so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
30 then I was beside him, like a master workman;
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
31 rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the sons of men.
Not only that, we have three references to Jesus in Genesis. All of them pretty weird.
1. God is said to walk through the garden of Eden (a spiritual being isn't walking around and being seen)
2. In Sodom and Gomorrah, a man is referenced hanging out with two angels before the place gets destroyed.
3. Jacob wrestles with a man, who later tells him he wrestled with God.
Those moon photos as evidence of fakery has already been explained a thousand times.
It's funny, but you haven't shown the video, nor actually explained why this is wrong. Meanwhile, I explained three reasons why you're wrong without much effort.
As long as you keep lying, Jesus can't help you. For he came to bear witness to the truth.
Jesus made you evolve into something better than a chimp. Don't let him down. Write something interesting for a change.
-
Here you go
How about the actual topic of the thread?
How can you dismiss all the space footage?
Which is backed by an actual broadcasting international space station orbiting earth in space you can see with your own unaided eyes.
To whcih i then immediately after posted
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
So in context
Data says isis space footage
And i said he said Cgi.
And data took that to claim i shouldve responded to moon walk.
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
Hmm. Were you “listening” Themightykabool?
Is that what bulmabriefs144 claimed regarding the Apollo space mission footage and active live broadcasts.
Mmmm dishonest.
-
Lets compare
to claim im not listening - data's take on sequnece of events where he cuts out his isis comment made within the hour of my cgi comment, and says i shouldve responded to a 4day out of continuity post.
Yup
Dishonest.
You thinks when i said 'cgi'meant i was reaponding to your future claim about "moon walk" and definitely not to your earlier claim about "live feed"?
What future post?
Your post…. Today. April 4, 2024…
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
Smoke Machine post from March 31, 2024…
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were people, weren't they? They didn't risk their lives for a lie, did they? The Apollo 11 mission worked and they survived, in part because rockets don't propel forward by pushing off walls of air or walls of anything.
bulmabriefs144 reply on March 31,
You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set. Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
-
(https://d3m7xw68ay40x8.cloudfront.net/assets/2016/06/29092053/apollo-11-flag-nasa.jpg)
1. Why is the flag flapping in the wind? In no atmosphere, the flag should droop.
The rod that is clearly there above the flag, running its length supporting the flag. With a mechanical drive to simulate flapping in the wind.
Do you want me to keep going?
-
You thinks when i said 'cgi'meant i was reaponding to your future claim about "moon walk" and definitely not to your earlier claim about "live feed"?
Again. Three of us posted about the Apollo mission on March 31 in this thread.
You’re just a lying at this point.
-
Amazing
At what point did iss april4 and cgi also april4 give ref to moonwalk march31?
-
(https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.psu.edu/dist/0/92153/files/2018/10/shadow-one-2ihssbu.jpg)
2. If light is coming from a real source, why are shadows not matching up?
Because that’s how our sight works.
(https://i.imgur.com/3Y3AqGP.jpeg)
https://www.quora.com/How-do-direction-and-shadow-change-with-directions-of-the-Sun
Wow bulmabriefs144, your “evidence” is make a question with no explanation? Then run from the fact the shadows are clearly from the sun. And not from staged lighting in anyway.
-
Amazing
At what point did iss april4 and cgi also april4 give ref to moonwalk march31?
You made this claim on April 4.
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
So I posted this in regards to things posted on March 31.
Hmm. Were you “listening” Themightykabool?
Is that what bulmabriefs144 claimed regarding the Apollo space mission footage and active live broadcasts.
Like this…
bulmabriefs144 reply on March 31,
You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set. Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
Making your below post nonsense.
Taking posts out of context to try and make yourself right.
How clearly not not not dishonest you are.
Oh right youve done that before...
You thinks when i said 'cgi'meant i was reaponding to your future claim about "moon walk" and definitely not to your earlier claim about "live feed"?
Youve got about as much honesty as bulmbes here.
-
the part you keep glossing over - when i made teh CGI comment, what post immediately preceded that comment?
can you answer a very specific question without jumping around?
how selective you are.
how very bulmba you are.
-
I notice you are still using delusional religious BS to hide from your complete inability to refute space.
I take it that means you fully accept and admit you have been lying this entire time?
Look up the term "state atheism" and cross-reference it with "authoritarianism".
State atheism is fundamentally different from a leader acting like they are god and outlawing other religions.
Atheism is literal taking credit for what is obviously God's doing.
No, Atheism is literally not having a particular childish, delusional belief.
Nothing more.
As soon as some lying scum like you tries to pretend it is more, it shows they know they cannot defend their religious BS, and need to try to vilify any opposition.
Either we accept the leaders that God picks
There are so many things wrong with that pure stupidity it isn't funny.
Firstly, any god that is actively interfering with mankind is clearly an evil POS that no decent human being would ever worship. So why would we accept those leaders?
But an equally important issue, is how would you know it is the leader God picked?
There is no reason at all to believe the pile of shit you call a holy book is any way related to any god that does exist.
There are countless contradictory religions, meaning most must be wrong (and all can be).
There is no basis at all to claim any leader was picked by your imaginary evil POS.
Where was any of this when you guys said stuff like "Jesus can't help you out of this one, no matter how hard you pray to him. You've lost this argument, haven't you?"
It was this.
It was saying your appeal to religious BS wont help you. All it does is show that you know you are lying scum that has been lying the entire time.
YOU brought up being a believer in Jesus, when you were talking about wanting to murder someone for proving you wrong.
Actually, the argument was DOA by the time that you said that.
Yes, because you fled like the lying scum you are.
I already explained that the rules of buoyancy and propulsion don't work for that.
No, you baselessly asserted pure BS, fled from that assertion and then demonstrated that you want to murder those who prove you wrong.
You still haven't been able to explain what magic prevents rockets from working in space.
It's a no. Pressure from a greater volume simply diffuses to a lesser volume.
HOW?
Gas is made of matter.
What is causing this matter to accelerate? What is it pushing off to do so?
This is quite different from how a balloon behaves in air.
No, it is virtually identical, just slightly different speeds.
Propulsion works. Buoyancy does not work
And no one other than lying scum like you is pretending buoyancy is involved at all.
Therefore, leaving the atmosphere is impossible.
You have directly admitted propulsion works. That means they can leave the atmosphere.
Jesus gives us words to say. If not for his presence in our lives, we would literally be as intelligent as chimps, if even that.
And you are wrong yet again.
With Jesus in your life, you are less intelligent than a chimp.
You are so stupid or dishonest, you happily contradict yourself.
I don't need your imaginary POS to be intelligent.
Yet again, because you can't defend your delusional BS you just lie and throw out insults.
1. Why is the flag flapping in the wind?
It isn't.
In no atmosphere, the flag should droop.
Not when it has a rigid rod supporting it.
2. If light is coming from a real source, why are shadows not matching up?
They do. Your inability to understand geometry doesn't change that.
3. "The hills are alive with the Sound of Music." 10 years before NASA landing, they were able to make background layers depicting mountain land.
You being able to fake something really poorly, doesn't mean the footage from NASA is fake.
This is even less convincing than a film produced 10 years before.
Why?
Can you point out any part of it which is less convincing?
You are just desperate to dismiss it, because you hate reality.
Confess your deceit
The lying scum here is you. Confess your own deceit.
As long as you keep lying, Jesus can't help you.
Is that why he can't help you?
-
the part you keep glossing over - when i made teh CGI comment, what post immediately preceded that comment?
can you answer a very specific question without jumping around?
how selective you are.
how very bulmba you are.
Which has nothing to do with you on April 4 claiming the individual only invoked “CGI” when they had to shift to “a stage” on March 31 to try to wrongly explain away the Apollo moon landing footage that was brought up on March 31.
So for you to bring up fake arguments concerning people not “listening” when you can’t follow the thread while you ignore certain posters ignore and dismiss all evidence and science the footage is real is pretty stupid.
-
which has EVERYTHING to do with my CGI comment
my comment was directly in and singularly in response to your one comment - ISS:CGI.
that's it
at no point did i say his ONLY response to ERVRYTHING is CGI.
you not only can't listen, you can't comprehend how Time works and you can't comprehend how Context works.
i didn't dismiss anything
you're an all or nothing extremist.
you're a fucktard.
happy friday.
-
which has EVERYTHING to do with my CGI comment
This from the 31 of march has nothing to do with CGI.
bulmabriefs144 reply on March 31,
You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set. Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
Then when asked this,
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
Hmm. Were you “listening” Themightykabool?
Is that what bulmabriefs144 claimed regarding the Apollo space mission footage and active live broadcasts.
You just went total retard.
-
i didn't dismiss anything
you're an all or nothing extremist.
you're a fucktard.
How does asking this make me an extremist, “Hmm. Were you “listening” Themightykabool?
Is that what bulmabriefs144 claimed regarding the Apollo space mission footage and active live broadcasts.”
-
because you took one response to one question and applied it to ALL questions.
life can't be this difficult can it?
holyshit
this is like trying to explain how circles are round to bulma.
-
(https://d3m7xw68ay40x8.cloudfront.net/assets/2016/06/29092053/apollo-11-flag-nasa.jpg)
1. Why is the flag flapping in the wind? In no atmosphere, the flag should droop.
The rod that is clearly there above the flag, running its length supporting the flag. With a mechanical drive to simulate flapping in the wind.
Do you want me to keep going?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is no mechanical drive in the flag? It's just the oscillation of the flag because, for one, the low gravity on the moon implies less friction between the flag and the pole, and two, the lack of atmosphere implies no damping due to air, which makes the oscillation take forever to die down. Well, not "forever", but you get the gist.
As for the shadows, it's all about perspective. But I can't really answer that well, so I'll leave that to JB. Hopefully he will.
And for the third, just because it is possible to fake something wouldn't imply that it is indeed faked. Like, it could just be possible that you, bulma, could be mentally retarded, but would that imply that you indeed are?
EDIT: If you actually did your homework, you'll realise that the flag waving was the same phenomenon as a pendulum - from the question I asked which you completely ignore
-
you can literally see a stick sewn into the top of the flag to hold it out.
and if it were wind generated, the dusty ground would be blowing up dust.
-
because you took one response to one question and applied it to ALL questions.
life can't be this difficult can it?
holyshit
this is like trying to explain how circles are round to bulma.
I didn’t do anything like that.
You posted this.
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
I went into great detail to how the ISS broadcasts and how it can be verified. And how certain posters have to completely turn off their senses and sense to continue their lies. Talk about not “listening”.
You made a stupid comment like this.
a light in the sky doesn't prove the videos aren't CGI.
see the part where you didn't debunk all video is CGI?
So I replied.
The ISS isn’t just a light in the sky is it.
So you have to create a false narrative.
Then asked this…
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
Hmm. Were you “listening” Themightykabool?
Is that what bulmabriefs144 claimed regarding the Apollo space mission footage and active live broadcasts.
And now your on full butt hurt retard mode.
-
It's just the oscillation of the flag
you can literally see a stick sewn into the top of the flag to hold it out.
and if it were wind generated, the dusty ground would be blowing up dust.
The problem is, sometimes you chase a “conspiracy” that never really happened.
NASA Moon landing: Why did the Apollo 11 flag wave and flap in space?
Highly unlikely, because there is one key factor all lunar conspiracies get wrong and that is the American flag did not really flap or wave on the Moon.
According to the UK National Space Centre in Leicester, the flag’s apparent movements were caused by the astronauts themselves and not wind.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1140849/NASA-Moon-landing-flag-Apollo-11-why-flag-wave-flap-NASA-hoax-conspiracy?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target
Probably wrong about the mechanical drive. But is there really video of the flag waving on the moon.
-
mmm
nonot butt hurt.
you're butthurt because i called you stupid.
you are stupid.
and i'm baffled at how stupid you are.
it's very simple.
you keep trying to recount history, yet you keep omitting post that you posted immediately preceding my CGI post.
the post that caused the whole reason i posted "CGI".
that's it.
context.
you keep it out for a reason.
what reason is that?
is it because you're stupid, or dishonest - your choices aren't great.
and separately to our CGI topic,
if his basis is that videos are just "CGI"
and your defense is that "there are videos".
then that doesn't really debunk anything does it?
let's try thinking:
if i pointed at a random star and said i got a YT video from that star, see this video, it came from taht star.
you see that star?
this video came from it.
proof! *drops mic
and then if i paid my friend Bill, and says to you that Bill is independent 3rd party, and Bill "verifies" my video is authentic.
double proof! *picks up mic to drop it again
but...is that a proof?
are you good at math?
A = B because B = A.
A = A
how about
God wrote the Bible.
i read it in the Bible that God wrote the Bible.
Therefore, God wrote the Bible.
Circular Reasoning avoids your brain like Geometric Circles avoid Bulmba's brain.
-
I would say there is no flapping of the flag, only when it’s being manhandled?
(https://i.imgur.com/RJ7AoJ0.gif)
-
mmm
nonot butt hurt.
And yet you ignored posts from march 31, and couldn’t answer the below…
who doesn't listen.
Who’s the one not paying attention to the thread? You?
Or bulmabriefs144 that makes themselves completely oblivious to the evidence presented by many different people from many different sources, by various means.
So, Themightykabool. Who isn’t paying attention. While you totally ignore all the “listening” not done by bulmabriefs144. And what was actually posted about the Apollo mission and a stage on march 31. Your argument is right down stupid and ignorant.
-
it's very simple.
you keep trying to recount history,
Oh. No.
You only posted “CGI” on April 4.
Then I asked about the postings about the Apollo missions being staged you ignored from March 31, you got butt hurt and played stupid because it shows you don’t “listen”….
-
Here you go
How about the actual topic of the thread?
How can you dismiss all the space footage?
Which is backed by an actual broadcasting international space station orbiting earth in space you can see with your own unaided eyes.
-
He alreasy told you
" its cgi."
-
April 4 - you.
11:47
Immediately followed by
April 4 - me.
12:23
Time stamps are an amazing thing.
And the way i read you "asking me about march31" was as if my apeil4 answer was supposed to have included for and pertained to march31.
Whcih im clarifying to you - it didnt and it doesnt.
Thats how i read it.
And here we are.
-
April 4 - you.
11:47
Immediately followed by
April 4 - me.
12:23
Time stamps are an amazing thing.
What’s the time stamps on the posts for the set or stage comments regarding the Apollo discussion in this thread…
You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set.
Which is a lie by you.
Apollo 11
The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[18]
A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969.[19]
At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik.[20] At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[21] In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.[22]
Larry Baysinger,a radio amateur (W4EJA) and a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module.[23] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Kaminski, in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) in Houston, Texas, and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the Earth.[18][24]
The Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy, also detected transmissions coming from the mission[25][26] using a 10 meters dish.[27
Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
You can’t analyze yourself out of a paper bag. You only have lies. Sounds like a great thread. You should make one.
Charming conspiracy theorist confused by reflections
Why the Moon photos could not be fake
Basically there was no way to fake the light of the sun on the moon. A very far off, very strong single point light source. And other items.
-
1. Why is the flag flapping in the wind? In no atmosphere, the flag should droop.
Hopefully this doesn’t get pushed into the background by persons making false claims of not listening by a person that can’t follow a thread.
😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
For this flag with a top rod running the length of flag to keep it extended?
(https://i.imgur.com/RJ7AoJ0.gif)
I would say there is no flapping of the flag, only when it’s being manhandled?
-
April 4 - you.
11:47
Immediately followed by
April 4 - me.
12:23
Time stamps are an amazing thing.
What’s the time stamps on the posts for the set or stage comments regarding the Apollo discussion in this thread…
[Irrelevant to context of the two post exhange on april4 and was never in dispute]
Spectacular
Astounding
Amazing
-
Spectacular
Astounding
Amazing
Yet you literally posed this..
You thinks when i said 'cgi'meant i was reaponding to your future claim about "moon walk" and definitely not to your earlier claim about "live feed"?
Youve got about as much honesty as bulmbes here.
Your meaningless babbling about the Apollo missions brought up by Smoke Machine on the March 31. Where another person in the thread commented on a staged or set event with nothing to do with CGI. And I responded back on the same day with a quick question and two videos why the film of the moon landings are not fake.
While you babble about people not “listening” in a thread you can’t follow while you ignore bulmabriefs144 has to turn off all sense and sense to lie about the Apollo moon landing being “staged” on set on earth.
-
Read it again
Payatrention to the puncutation.
I rarely use it.
But when i do.
I use it.
-
Read it again
Payatrention to the puncutation.
I rarely use it.
But when i do.
I use it.
Your just babbling at this point.
-
Read it again
Payatrention to the puncutation.
I rarely use it.
But when i do.
I use it.
Which one. You post dozens of pointless posts that are just pointless babbling.
-
Read it again
Payatrention to the puncutation.
I rarely use it.
But when i do.
I use it.
How about you cite and link where you actually answered any questions asked of you instead.
-
Read it again
Payatrention to the puncutation.
I rarely use it.
But when i do.
I use it.
How about this simple question.
What is the first timestamp made in regards to posting about the Apollo missions brought up by others in this thread.
-
Read it again
Payatrention to the puncutation.
I rarely use it.
But when i do.
I use it.
Which one. You post dozens of pointless posts that are just pointless babbling.
this one below.
lieterlaly this one
the one where you quoted me so in continuital flux i immediately responded to.
does one post not flow into the next?
how do you converse in IRL?
are you operating out side of linear time?
the rest of us operate on analog time.
holyshit it's like FadedMike and Bulma had a baby, then dropped the baby on it's head and named it Data.
Yet you literally posed this..
You thinks when i said 'cgi'meant i was reaponding to your future claim about "moon walk" and definitely not to your earlier claim about "live feed"?
Youve got about as much honesty as bulmbes here.
-
this one below.
lieterlaly this one
the one where you quoted me so in continuital flux i immediately responded to.
does one post not flow into the next?
how do you converse in IRL?
are you operating out side of linear time?
the rest of us operate on analog.
holyshit it's like FadedMike and Bulma had a baby, then dropped the baby on it's head and named it Data.
Asked you a simple question.
What is the first timestamp made in regards to posting about the Apollo missions brought up by others in this thread.
You have established a pattern. You get asked a simple question. You ignore it, and incoherently babble with no clear context. And try to act like the argument is something else.
Did you lose your stapler too?
(https://leannenalani.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/milton-stapler.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/RJ7AoJ0.gif)
You have like a 1.5 second clip where it does not move. The clip in context...
You can see rather clearly the flag waving despite itself. This happens in an atmosphere.
Also.
Guys, what are you doing in-fighting? If "Jesus will not help you," you said, but you two are both RE types, and you're quibbling over something I don't fully get.
But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand."
If you wish to stand against me (or Jesus), and you cannot agree without fighting, your cause is doomed from the onset.
-
[edited so my response makes more sense in flow]
And try to act like the argument is something else.
Asked you a simple question.
What is the first timestamp made in regards to posting about the Apollo missions brought up by others in this thread.
You have established a pattern. You get asked a simple question. You ignore it, and incoherently babble with no clear context.
because it is.
and becuase you're stupid.
see when you asked about the ISS, and i responded CGI showing you're stupid, you changed the question and presented my response in a misleading format to the new/ old question Moon.
i can't say it enough times.
you keep avoiding this becuase your brain understands it makes you look dishonest and stupd (which you are).
so now you focus focus focus on this other "simple" question.
a questions i'm not avoiding because it is irrelevant to the dispute
the dispute is - you misrepresent me in specific ref to ISS:CGI.
hurray
so your "simple" question is dumber than Timeies simple question of a man with amensia.
it is irrelevant to me and will not be answered because of its irrelevancy to me.
you also avoid the "simple question"
why do you keep excluding your post about ISS as if it has nothing to do with my post?
here's another "simple question"
do you operate within earth's gravitation standard time or are you a transdimensional being?
happy friday.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/RJ7AoJ0.gif)
You have like a 1.5 second clip where it does not move. The clip in context...
You can see rather clearly the flag waving despite itself. This happens in an atmosphere.
Also.
Guys, what are you doing in-fighting? If "Jesus will not help you," you said, but you two are both RE types, and you're quibbling over something I don't fully get.
But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand."
If you wish to stand against me (or Jesus), and you cannot agree without fighting, your cause is doomed from the onset.
Bulma, no, look, in the video you've posted, throughout the entire 44 seconds not once did buzz aldrin (I assume he's the one planting the flag) take his hands off the flagpole.
Watch this video
Skip to 02:22
-
You have like a 1.5 second clip where it does not move.
The format of gif and the website I use for hosting only always about a three second clip.
You can see rather clearly the flag waving despite itself. This happens in an atmosphere.
It’s not waving itself. The flag is being manhandled.
(https://i.imgur.com/DLmVfBm.gif)
When the flag isn’t man handled, it stops moving.
(https://i.imgur.com/RJ7AoJ0.gif)
-
This happens in an atmosphere.
Why wouldn’t the moon have an extremely thin atmosphere? Or some sort of atmosphere.
Is there an atmosphere on the Moon?
For a long time scientists thought that there was no atmosphere on the Moon, but recent studies have confirmed that there is one.
The very thin atmosphere, known as an exosphere, contains helium, argon, neon, ammonia, methane and carbon dioxide. It also contains sodium and potassium, which are not usually found as gases in the atmospheres of Earth, Venus or Mars.
Where this atmosphere comes from is still not known. Some theories suggest that the solar winds and high energy particles are stripping material from the surface of the Moon, while others propose that evaporation of surface material might be involved or even meteor impacts. It could also be a combination of all of these effects.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/factfile-the-moon.html#:~:text=The%20very%20thin%20atmosphere%2C%20known,of%20Earth%2C%20Venus%20or%20Mars.
Having no atmosphere is not really true, and different than having no winds with the strength to make a flag wave.
If the atmosphere is thin enough, you can make a solar sail pushed by photons from the sun.
Note. I guess a magnetic sail would be charged particles.
It’s all relative.
-
You think he believes the photos on the moon is where the photos were taken?
Yoy think he believes the wind is from moon atmosphere?
No
He beleives it was done on a stage.
If you were listening...
-
You think he believes the photos on the moon is where the photos were taken?
Yoy think he believes the wind is from moon atmosphere?
No
He beleives it was done on a stage.
If you were listening...
Why I posted this on March 31.
You are correct, they didn't risk their lives for a lie. The entire thing was in a set.
Which is a lie by you.
Apollo 11
The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[18]
A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969.[19]
At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik.[20] At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[21] In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.[22]
Larry Baysinger,a radio amateur (W4EJA) and a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module.[23] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Kaminski, in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) in Houston, Texas, and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the Earth.[18][24]
The Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy, also detected transmissions coming from the mission[25][26] using a 10 meters dish.[27
Show me the Apollo 11 video, and I will show you multiple shots where it fails the bullshit test.
You can’t analyze yourself out of a paper bag. You only have lies. Sounds like a great thread. You should make one.
Charming conspiracy theorist confused by reflections
Why the Moon photos could not be fake
Basically there was no way to fake the light of the sun on the moon. A very far off, very strong single point light source. And other items.
Then at a later date posted this.
I guess Themightykabool, you don’t understand that much of “space footage” is literally third party verified with documented evidence. Various “Space footage” is verified and proven. Why do I have to retry the case when the evidence and facts are already established. For someone who literally is blind, deaf, and dumb by their delusion. And embraces lies they regurgitate. So. Who isn’t listening?
Now Themightykabool, I “listen”. Whatever you post doesn’t make flat earther’s ignoring plies of evidence that is verified and throughly documented an excuse.
-
You think he believes the photos on the moon is where the photos were taken?
Yoy think he believes the wind is from moon atmosphere?
No
He beleives it was done on a stage.
If you were listening...
I ignored your second to the last post so the thread can move on.
I’m going to just have to ignore your stupid ass so the thread can just go back to being derailed by bulmabriefs144.
Seriously Themightykabool, you have a trolling or stalking problem. Over meaningless shit that derails threads when it’s flat earthers that ignore repeated explanations and repeatedly have reality demonstrated to them.
So, Themightykabool, how many restraining orders you have against you?
You going to let it drop Themightykabool, are you going to get that last meaningless post in that’s going to be ignored so the thread can move on.
-
You can see rather clearly the flag waving despite itself. This happens in an atmosphere.
No, you don't.
Yet again you are blatantly lying to try to save your delusional BS.
What we see is people manipulating the flag, moving it around. This causes it to move like that.
There is no indication of any wind.
There is no indication of the flag moving itself.
It is moving around in response to a person moving it.
-
No
You have a bad-argument problem
-
(https://i.imgur.com/RJ7AoJ0.gif)
You have like a 1.5 second clip where it does not move. The clip in context...
You can see rather clearly the flag waving despite itself. This happens in an atmosphere.
Also.
Guys, what are you doing in-fighting? If "Jesus will not help you," you said, but you two are both RE types, and you're quibbling over something I don't fully get.
But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand."
If you wish to stand against me (or Jesus), and you cannot agree without fighting, your cause is doomed from the onset.
Bulma, why don't you ask action lab guy to do a video with his vacuum chamber of a flag going into a bit of ground, and see if the flag wobbles? Or you could get a vacuum chamber and do the experiment yourself. Make sure the flag has a rod from the vertical pole, along the top.
Much of this thread is about motion and propulsion. I think the flag is merely wobbling, suspended on the horizontal rod, and moving much like a pendulum, not flapping around in some breeze created by a large fan on a closed film set. Are you picking up what I'm putting down, Bulma? Were they using large fans to simulate wind on the film set of your favourite movie, Capricorn One?
As for Jesus, you seem to be referring to Jesus as God? As one and the same? In all the accounts by the 12 Apostles, Jesus
refers to God as his father who art in heaven. That's a separate entity.
Jesus still can't help you in these arguments, Bulma, but there are two people in this thread who Jesus might be able to help.....
-
Bulma, no, look, in the video you've posted, throughout the entire 44 seconds not once did buzz aldrin (I assume he's the one planting the flag) take his hands off the flagpole.
Watch this video
Skip to 02:22
Because the rules of buoyancy say that a feather should fall like a brick in zero air pressure, and a helium balloon visibly sags in such a vacuum test,
why do you think he would constantly hold on to it? Let's offer some reasons.
1. Buzz Aldrin knows the truth, as do the other "astronauts"
2. "1/6 of Earth's gravity" is only possible if the room has 6 times the normal air density (and/or they are using some special effects tricks like slow motion for fall)
3. He knows the soil isn't deep enough to hold the flag.
4. And he knows that the wind will blow it over.
5. The room is probably well-ventilated or an actual wind tunnel. Notice the second guy, you noticing that the flag is literally swishing about, rushes over to steady it.
The only way a flag would be stiff as a board is when there is too much air. In low air density, it would mimic half-mast.
And I don't care what Action Labs says. He routinely says crap about gravity. I only pay attention when he slips up.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1226012233583300620/NoCigar.png?ex=662337de&is=6610c2de&hm=5917d162d51ff966091cf4214198f70409461ee849955048e41fcdd6075dd099&)
Rewatch the video. Buzz ALdrin is not trying to shake it. He's trying to hold it steady, in direct contrast with what fraud artist is doing.
Having been to places like Scotland and Ireland on a windy day, it was very easy for your hat to be blown off your head. Exactly like this.
-
Buma Still can't comprehend the difference between air pressure and gravity. Wow!!!
a truly hopeless case.
-
Bulma, no, look, in the video you've posted, throughout the entire 44 seconds not once did buzz aldrin (I assume he's the one planting the flag) take his hands off the flagpole.
Watch this video
Skip to 02:22
Because the rules of buoyancy say that a feather should fall like a brick in zero air pressure, and a helium balloon visibly sags in such a vacuum test,
why do you think he would constantly hold on to it? Let's offer some reasons.
1. Buzz Aldrin knows the truth, as do the other "astronauts"
2. "1/6 of Earth's gravity" is only possible if the room has 6 times the normal air density (and/or they are using some special effects tricks like slow motion for fall)
3. He knows the soil isn't deep enough to hold the flag.
4. And he knows that the wind will blow it over.
5. The room is probably well-ventilated or an actual wind tunnel. Notice the second guy, you noticing that the flag is literally swishing about, rushes over to steady it.
The only way a flag would be stiff as a board is when there is too much air. In low air density, it would mimic half-mast.
And I don't care what Action Labs says. He routinely says crap about gravity. I only pay attention when he slips up.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1226012233583300620/NoCigar.png?ex=662337de&is=6610c2de&hm=5917d162d51ff966091cf4214198f70409461ee849955048e41fcdd6075dd099&)
Rewatch the video. Buzz ALdrin is not trying to shake it. He's trying to hold it steady, in direct contrast with what fraud artist is doing.
Having been to places like Scotland and Ireland on a windy day, it was very easy for your hat to be blown off your head. Exactly like this.
The video you posted has no correlation between helium balloons, gravity and buoyancy. It's a simple experiment to demonstrate than when atmospheric pressure is removed ballon expands.
1) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/AldrinFlag-animation.gif?20100611212506)
Animation of the two photos, showing that although Armstrong's camera moved between exposures the flag is not waving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Environment
2) again, you don't understand gravity. Do my pendulum experiment and stop ignoring it.
3) If they faked the video, wouldn't you think they might have accounted for the soil being too shallow to plant a flag? I mean who goes "let's fake the moon landing" and then forgets to make the deep enough to plant a flag?
4) again, refer to first point
5) If the scientists knew that there is no wind on the moon, why would they create wind in a shooting set for the flag to move? Wouldn't they try to mimic moon's conditions as much as possible?
As for the image about rigid cross piece, you can see that in the original flag as well:
(https://i.ibb.co/vJScxVh/snapshot-www-theflatearthsociety-org-1712377058434.png)
-
Well obviously since atmosphere blocks far away things from view bottom-up it logically follows that it blows flags to flap on bottom only.
Haaar
-
Because the rules of buoyancy
Do you mean your delusional BS?
Because that says nothing about reality.
why do you think he would constantly hold on to it?
Because he was putting it in the ground.
Later on, he lets go, and the flag is fine, e.g. the clip you dismissed.
The only way a flag would be stiff as a board is when there is too much air. In low air density, it would mimic half-mast.
How do you have it mimic half mast when there is literally a rod holding it at the top?
Again, you lying just shows your desperation.
-
Well obviously since atmosphere blocks far away things from view bottom-up it logically follows that it blows flags to flap on bottom only.
Haaar
You aren’t listening. According to bulmabriefs144, light itself can’t go on forever. It just dies regardless of atmosphere or no atmosphere.
-
Well obviously since atmosphere blocks far away things from view bottom-up it logically follows that it blows flags to flap on bottom only.
Haaar
Strange that you taken a liking to me to make sure you always post back.
Sorry you’re not my type.
But it is interesting that you bitch “I” don’t listen, you go to extremes to point that out, then give a pass to a flat earther that never “listens”, to the point to derail the thread.
Well maybe you actually have the hots for bulmabriefs144? You feel so sorry that people don’t listen to the repeated flat earth lies? Over multiple threads?
Or maybe your sick little mind wants a data bulma sandwiched. You little freak you.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/vJScxVh/snapshot-www-theflatearthsociety-org-1712377058434.png)
And I cling to that old rigid cross... ;D
But seriously, do Newton's laws only apply when you want them to?
Now, I don't care about them, as they are phrased like memes with a lot of weasel words (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word). But the point being, as approximations of actual physical behavior they're okay I guess.
The point being that the first law approximates inertia and momentum, while the third (equal and opposite) approximates propulsion. Propulsion relies on contact. You can makeshift this by releasing liquid or gas under pressure, but you can't indefinitely press against nothing when there is no air. Air will run out.
So as I explained, from 2:22 to 3:41, it pretty much has come to a stop.
Then you say, "Look it's totally the same thing."
Stopped flag. Waving flag. Stopped flag. Waving flag.
(Jedi mind trick)
"These two things are totally the same."
Sorry bro. I have Toydarian brain cells. Gimme money or I won't believe you. And since the average taxpayer has to pay into billions in allocations for NASA, yeah you're not convincing me.
The flag was waving despite them trying to hold it steady.
The other flag was still until they shook the cage.
-
Well obviously since atmosphere blocks far away things from view bottom-up it logically follows that it blows flags to flap on bottom only.
Haaar
Strange that you taken a liking to me to make sure you always post back.
Sorry you’re not my type.
But it is interesting that you bitch “I” don’t listen, you go to extremes to point that out, then give a pass to a flat earther that never “listens”, to the point to derail the thread.
Well maybe you actually have the hots for bulmabriefs144? You feel so sorry that people don’t listen to the repeated flat earth lies? Over multiple threads?
Or maybe your sick little mind wants a data bulma sandwiched. You little freak you.
My cimmetn was to earthisround as it immediately proceeded his.
If i was replying to a previous comment, i would quote to maintain cotiintual contsxt.
And i included an obvious sarcasm indicator 'harr".
You are masterfully stupid.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/vJScxVh/snapshot-www-theflatearthsociety-org-1712377058434.png)
And I cling to that old rigid cross... ;D
But seriously, do Newton's laws only apply when you want them to?
Now, I don't care about them, as they are phrased like memes with a lot of weasel words (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word). But the point being, as approximations of actual physical behavior they're okay I guess.
The point being that the first law approximates inertia and momentum, while the third (equal and opposite) approximates propulsion. Propulsion relies on contact. You can makeshift this by releasing liquid or gas under pressure, but you can't indefinitely press against nothing when there is no air. Air will run out.
So as I explained, from 2:22 to 3:41, it pretty much has come to a stop.
Then you say, "Look it's totally the same thing."
Stopped flag. Waving flag. Stopped flag. Waving flag.
(Jedi mind trick)
"These two things are totally the same."
Sorry bro. I have Toydarian brain cells. Gimme money or I won't believe you. And since the average taxpayer has to pay into billions in allocations for NASA, yeah you're not convincing me.
The flag was waving despite them trying to hold it steady.
The other flag was still until they shook the cage.
if thy are in a film studio why are the doors open?
-
And I cling to that old rigid cross... ;D
You mean you ignore it because it shows you have been lying.
But seriously, do Newton's laws only apply when you want them to?
No, they apply in the low energy limit.
i.e. basically all the time, but not in rare cases like fully explaining the orbit of Mercury or near a black hole.
Nor do they always apply for quantum events.
But those cases where they don't apply are well outside the scope of this discussion.
For this discussion they do apply.
The point being that the first law approximates inertia and momentum, while the third (equal and opposite) approximates propulsion. Propulsion relies on contact.
i.e. the rocket and gas inside it are pushing against each other, resulting in the hot gas being pushed out the back at a high rate of speed, while the rocket is pushed forwards.
You can makeshift this by releasing liquid or gas under pressure, but you can't indefinitely press against nothing when there is no air.
And there is no need to do it forever.
So as I explained, from 2:22 to 3:41, it pretty much has come to a stop.
Just what video are you referring to?
The one you provided goes for 43 seconds.
The flag was waving despite them trying to hold it steady.
You mean because they were handling it, trying to push it into the ground.
That is not them holding it steady.
Lying wont save you.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/vJScxVh/snapshot-www-theflatearthsociety-org-1712377058434.png)
And I cling to that old rigid cross... ;D
But seriously, do Newton's laws only apply when you want them to?
Now, I don't care about them, as they are phrased like memes with a lot of weasel words (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word). But the point being, as approximations of actual physical behavior they're okay I guess.
The point being that the first law approximates inertia and momentum, while the third (equal and opposite) approximates propulsion. Propulsion relies on contact. You can makeshift this by releasing liquid or gas under pressure, but you can't indefinitely press against nothing when there is no air. Air will run out.
So as I explained, from 2:22 to 3:41, it pretty much has come to a stop.
Then you say, "Look it's totally the same thing."
Stopped flag. Waving flag. Stopped flag. Waving flag.
(Jedi mind trick)
"These two things are totally the same."
Sorry bro. I have Toydarian brain cells. Gimme money or I won't believe you. And since the average taxpayer has to pay into billions in allocations for NASA, yeah you're not convincing me.
The flag was waving despite them trying to hold it steady.
The other flag was still until they shook the cage.
Newton's laws are obeyed until you go too big or too small. But for our purpose, they always apply.
The third is simply put, conservation of momentum. You know, back in high school, there was a nice example problem for this. I think it went something like, "A gun of mass 2 kg shoots a bullet of mass 10 g at a speed of 150 m/s. With what speed will the gun move backwards?". Try solving it. You might understand how rockets work if you do.
You watched the wrong part of the video. 2:22 to 3:41, I assume he's still pulling out the air. Anyways, that video was to show that as long as the flag is being manhandled, it will still move in vacuum.
The flag was waving because they were holding it.
The flag came to a stop when they stopped holding.
Show me one footage where the flag is waving despite no astronaut holding on to the flag.
-
cimmetn
What word is that.
You’re literally babbling again.
-
If i was replying to a previous comment, i would quote to maintain cotiintual contsxt.
Speaking of replying
You use this a lot..
hey hey
few months now
you gonna answer - what is the angle between segements of a 300,000sided polygon?
also just curious
Flat Eathers think the earth is flat. So why would they answer your question that offers no proof of anything.
Themightykabool, flat earthers understand what a ball is. Flat earthers don’t understand how big the earth is. So your “go to post” doesn’t help in anyway for arguing the actual shape of earth that is classified as an “irregularly shaped ellipsoid.” An ellipsoid so large it’s hard for the unaided eye to discern the dip of the horizon.
-
But seriously, do Newton's laws only apply when you want them to?
Gravity explains why the atmosphere bunches up at earth’s surface.
It explains why things accelerate when they fall towards earth.
It allows for accurate mathematical predictions and analysis for everyday things on earth.
It works for engineering.
Flat earth offers nothing in the magnitude of precision achieved by the heliocentric model.
Propulsion relies on contact.
For a rocket using a controlled explosion of releasing gasses, way would the laws of motion magically stop in a vacuum.
-
if thy are in a film studio why are the doors open?
They aren't. They are on stage in a cage so to speak.
As in, order for them to say "One small step for mankind" while hopping around they wear suits that indeed do regulate pressure. But they are actually hopping around elsewhere. A pool, a wind tunnel, something like that. They film them in the area, cut and paste any color glitches. Then they film grey sand (which is actually yellow sand that has been desaturated). They film just the sand being stomped in, in stop motion. Stop motion means you carefully stop the camera (normally this is a technique for animating inanimate objects like clay or dolls), then restart. But in this case, we are doing this to edit out something that is there. The people doing the stomping.
In exactly the same way as Lawrence of Arabia can leave footprints on the desert, while not being on the desert, simply by transposing his footprints or whatever, they do the following:
1. Make a background animation.
1b. Grey it out, and allow it to change (footprints).
2. Make a "low gravity jumping" animation with the characters in a controlled environment.
2b. Mask out the surroundings.
3. Splice the characters to the background via superimposition.
In some sense, this technique is as costly as sending a person to space. You and I know how much is spent on film, and film with effects (prior to computers) means you film several times.
But unlike NASA sending people for real, you aren't recklessly playing with human life. The "astronauts" , even if the rocket "blows up" can simply get a haircut and reappear years later under another name.
But there is always doubt. So how can we know this?
1. The flag waving, and even more telling, that the other "astronaut" rushes in to correct it. If the flag waved, you could explain it as the adjustment while Buzz Aldrin is moving the thing to upright. But notice what they do. What normally you would do with a flag when helping a person put it up is help them with the pole. That's not what happens. The other guy grabs the banner end of the flag. That's an extremely curious thing to do, unless your goal is something different from steadying the flag, namely stopping the banner from waving.
2. You can also prove this if you find any animation glitches. By that, I mean that while their absence isn't disproof (it means they were careful), the presence of a footprint before they move to an area means they goofed; it means there definitely is a filmed set. However, since they stop motioned each step, you'd have to look not for the "one. small. step" but some point where they were careless.
3. But we already have proof the whole thing is a sham. What is it? Astronauts almost drowning in space. There is no air nor moisture in space. But here you have the media shills blithely talking about how now they need scuba masks inside their suit.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/astronaut-drowned-space-due-nasas-poor-communication-report/story?id=22687977
They call it a water leak. That's an understatement.
3b. You know those practice exercises where they dive underwater in a space suit? Those and wind tunnels are the same sort of animation footage. They just mask out the background.
So when you see "astronauts" trying to adjust the motion of objects, it's because something is unnatural about it.
The cheering in NASA, then is not because they managed a space flight, but because they made something that will hoax the population.
Yes, you can sorta get things to move in a vacuum. But in the face of other things, that isn't really proof. If there is more motion than there should be, one ought to ask "why." Especially when it apears to be flapping in the wind. A ventilation system could be to blame. So could the fact that most pools push water around to aerate it.
-
if thy are in a film studio why are the doors open?
They aren't. They are on stage in a cage so to speak.
As in, order for them to say "One small step for mankind" while hopping around they wear suits that indeed do regulate pressure. But they are actually hopping around elsewhere. A pool, a wind tunnel, something like that. They film them in the area, cut and paste any color glitches. Then they film grey sand (which is actually yellow sand that has been desaturated). They film just the sand being stomped in, in stop motion. Stop motion means you carefully stop the camera (normally this is a technique for animating inanimate objects like clay or dolls), then restart. But in this case, we are doing this to edit out something that is there. The people doing the stomping.
In exactly the same way as Lawrence of Arabia can leave footprints on the desert, while not being on the desert, simply by transposing his footprints or whatever, they do the following:
1. Make a background animation.
1b. Grey it out, and allow it to change (footprints).
2. Make a "low gravity jumping" animation with the characters in a controlled environment.
2b. Mask out the surroundings.
3. Splice the characters to the background via superimposition.
In some sense, this technique is as costly as sending a person to space. You and I know how much is spent on film, and film with effects (prior to computers) means you film several times.
But unlike NASA sending people for real, you aren't recklessly playing with human life. The "astronauts" , even if the rocket "blows up" can simply get a haircut and reappear years later under another name.
But there is always doubt. So how can we know this?
1. The flag waving, and even more telling, that the other "astronaut" rushes in to correct it. If the flag waved, you could explain it as the adjustment while Buzz Aldrin is moving the thing to upright. But notice what they do. What normally you would do with a flag when helping a person put it up is help them with the pole. That's not what happens. The other guy grabs the banner end of the flag. That's an extremely curious thing to do, unless your goal is something different from steadying the flag, namely stopping the banner from waving.
2. You can also prove this if you find any animation glitches. By that, I mean that while their absence isn't disproof (it means they were careful), the presence of a footprint before they move to an area means they goofed; it means there definitely is a filmed set. However, since they stop motioned each step, you'd have to look not for the "one. small. step" but some point where they were careless.
3. But we already have proof the whole thing is a sham. What is it? Astronauts almost drowning in space. There is no air nor moisture in space. But here you have the media shills blithely talking about how now they need scuba masks inside their suit.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/astronaut-drowned-space-due-nasas-poor-communication-report/story?id=22687977
They call it a water leak. That's an understatement.
3b. You know those practice exercises where they dive underwater in a space suit? Those and wind tunnels are the same sort of animation footage. They just mask out the background.
So when you see "astronauts" trying to adjust the motion of objects, it's because something is unnatural about it.
The cheering in NASA, then is not because they managed a space flight, but because they made something that will hoax the population.
Yes, you can sorta get things to move in a vacuum. But in the face of other things, that isn't really proof. If there is more motion than there should be, one ought to ask "why." Especially when it apears to be flapping in the wind. A ventilation system could be to blame. So could the fact that most pools push water around to aerate it.
And once again, you completely ignore all of my answers and questions. Well done!
But anyways, let me just correct point one
The astronaut rushed over to stop the flag from FALLING TO THE MOON. I don't know if you know, but letting a flag touch the soil, any soil, lunar or otherwise, is a big no no. That's all.
-
They aren't. They are on stage in a cage so to speak.
From the way they move. To all evidence they are in direct sunlight. There is no evidence the moon landings were faked. And verified from manmade objects transmitting from the moon by third parties.
-
Skipping all your delusional BS which has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.
1. The flag waving
When the person is manipulating the flag pole.
This is expected and nothing to try to hide.
This has been explained to you, yet here you are still clinging to this lie.
2. You can also prove this if you find any animation glitches. By that, I mean that while their absence isn't disproof (it means they were careful), the presence of a footprint before they move to an area means they goofed; it means there definitely is a filmed set. However, since they stop motioned each step, you'd have to look not for the "one. small. step" but some point where they were careless.
Yet you provide none. So who cares?
3. But we already have proof the whole thing is a sham. What is it? Astronauts almost drowning in space. There is no air nor moisture in space.
Except the water in the temperature control system in the space suit, but of course you will just ignore that and lie to pretend there is a problem when there is none.
If there is more motion than there should be, one ought to ask "why."
And you are yet to demonstrate there is.
-
1. The flag waving,
That only happens when the flag is manhandled.
(https://i.imgur.com/RJ7AoJ0.gif)
No manhandling, no movement.
(https://crosslakeshreveport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/beating-a-dead-horse.gif)
https://crosslakeshreveport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/beating-a-dead-horse.gif
-
If i was replying to a previous comment, i would quote to maintain cotiintual contsxt.
Speaking of replying
You use this a lot..
hey hey
few months now
you gonna answer - what is the angle between segements of a 300,000sided polygon?
also just curious
Flat Eathers think the earth is flat. So why would they answer your question that offers no proof of anything.
Themightykabool, flat earthers understand what a ball is. Flat earthers don’t understand how big the earth is. So your “go to post” doesn’t help in anyway for arguing the actual shape of earth that is classified as an “irregularly shaped ellipsoid.” An ellipsoid so large it’s hard for the unaided eye to discern the dip of the horizon.
Well now
If the concept of a circle is too difficult for them, then what chance do you have claiming gravity or proposulsion are real?
How circles work is undeniable.
Hence they refuse to acknowledge because the answer is clear.
However arguing at nauseum how absteact ideas like gravity and space propulsion get pages and pages.
Because they can word salad it.
They can filubuster.
Cant filibuster circles.
-
Well now
If the concept of a circle is too difficult for them, then what chance do you have claiming gravity or proposulsion are real?
How circles work is undeniable.
Hence they refuse to acknowledge because the answer is clear.
However arguing at nauseum how absteact ideas like gravity and space propulsion get pages and pages.
Because they can word salad it.
They can filubuster.
Cant filibuster circles.
Changing the argument.
Your first reply from another thread with my response…
His original claim in the forum in general was a a straight homedepot level was striaght flat and level.
Which has nothing to do with the earth looking flat because of it size.
Like this.
(https://i.imgur.com/prnPsgs.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZyPvdkB.jpg)
The tank looks flat with a small enough straight edge. Small enough point of reference where the tank steadily curves at all points around its circumference.
You don’t listen Themightykabool. The root of the problem is flat earthers don’t understand how big the earth is and the dip of the horizon.
-
if thy are in a film studio why are the doors open?
They aren't. They are on stage in a cage so to speak.
As in, order for them to say "One small step for mankind" while hopping around they wear suits that indeed do regulate pressure. But they are actually hopping around elsewhere. A pool, a wind tunnel, something like that. They film them in the area, cut and paste any color glitches. Then they film grey sand (which is actually yellow sand that has been desaturated). They film just the sand being stomped in, in stop motion. Stop motion means you carefully stop the camera (normally this is a technique for animating inanimate objects like clay or dolls), then restart. But in this case, we are doing this to edit out something that is there. The people doing the stomping.
In exactly the same way as Lawrence of Arabia can leave footprints on the desert, while not being on the desert, simply by transposing his footprints or whatever, they do the following:
1. Make a background animation.
1b. Grey it out, and allow it to change (footprints).
2. Make a "low gravity jumping" animation with the characters in a controlled environment.
2b. Mask out the surroundings.
3. Splice the characters to the background via superimposition.
In some sense, this technique is as costly as sending a person to space. You and I know how much is spent on film, and film with effects (prior to computers) means you film several times.
But unlike NASA sending people for real, you aren't recklessly playing with human life. The "astronauts" , even if the rocket "blows up" can simply get a haircut and reappear years later under another name.
But there is always doubt. So how can we know this?
1. The flag waving, and even more telling, that the other "astronaut" rushes in to correct it. If the flag waved, you could explain it as the adjustment while Buzz Aldrin is moving the thing to upright. But notice what they do. What normally you would do with a flag when helping a person put it up is help them with the pole. That's not what happens. The other guy grabs the banner end of the flag. That's an extremely curious thing to do, unless your goal is something different from steadying the flag, namely stopping the banner from waving.
2. You can also prove this if you find any animation glitches. By that, I mean that while their absence isn't disproof (it means they were careful), the presence of a footprint before they move to an area means they goofed; it means there definitely is a filmed set. However, since they stop motioned each step, you'd have to look not for the "one. small. step" but some point where they were careless.
3. But we already have proof the whole thing is a sham. What is it? Astronauts almost drowning in space. There is no air nor moisture in space. But here you have the media shills blithely talking about how now they need scuba masks inside their suit.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/astronaut-drowned-space-due-nasas-poor-communication-report/story?id=22687977
They call it a water leak. That's an understatement.
3b. You know those practice exercises where they dive underwater in a space suit? Those and wind tunnels are the same sort of animation footage. They just mask out the background.
So when you see "astronauts" trying to adjust the motion of objects, it's because something is unnatural about it.
The cheering in NASA, then is not because they managed a space flight, but because they made something that will hoax the population.
Yes, you can sorta get things to move in a vacuum. But in the face of other things, that isn't really proof. If there is more motion than there should be, one ought to ask "why." Especially when it apears to be flapping in the wind. A ventilation system could be to blame. So could the fact that most pools push water around to aerate it.
Wow! You've got it all figured out. You're so smart!
I have one big problem with your hollywood movie studio scenario for the moon landing being a hoax.
The last time I checked, when a movie is being filmed, the director can keep shooting a scene over and over until it's perfect. I've heard of twenty takes for a scene or sometimes even more.
So, the problem I naturally have, Bulma, is if a group of people are trying to fool the whole world into thinking man landed on the moon, and they already had all the predicted physics for what can be expected to be seen by a man landing on the moon worked out, don't you think they would have kept shooting each scene until they were perfect and mistake free?
Then, all they had to do was play the mistake free final cut, and pretend to the whole world it is a live feed.
Don't you agree, Bulma?
So, if it was a hoax made in a studio, why did they allow the final cut, the official NASA film, to have so many errors?
The explanation is simple. It was not filmed in a studio with multiple cuts of each scene. It was filmed on the actual moon, there was one cut, and everything you think is a mistake lending way to a hoax, is not a mistake.
-
you think is a mistake lending way to a hoax, is not a mistake.
Or stinkybriefs144 just right out lies like supposedly the wind was making the flag wave on the moon.
-
Well now
If the concept of a circle is too difficult for them, then what chance do you have claiming gravity or proposulsion are real?
How circles work is undeniable.
Hence they refuse to acknowledge because the answer is clear.
However arguing at nauseum how absteact ideas like gravity and space propulsion get pages and pages.
Because they can word salad it.
They can filubuster.
Cant filibuster circles.
Changing the argument.
Your first reply from another thread with my response…
His original claim in the forum in general was a a straight homedepot level was striaght flat and level.
Which has nothing to do with the earth looking flat because of it size.
Like this.
(https://i.imgur.com/prnPsgs.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZyPvdkB.jpg)
The tank looks flat with a small enough straight edge. Small enough point of reference where the tank steadily curves at all points around its circumference.
You don’t listen Themightykabool. The root of the problem is flat earthers don’t understand how big the earth is and the dip of the horizon.
I do listen.
I know they think it doesnt make sense.
I know they have really bad concept of physics.
But up until the point they refuse to answer this polygon question is when they have to bury their heads in the sand.
You trying to get recenege on me for calling out your stupidity though is astounding.
I make a siggestion and you blow it up and start doshonestly piecing posts out of context.
You
Are
Just
As
Bad
As
Them
by doing this nonsense.
Happy sunday.
-
you think is a mistake lending way to a hoax, is not a mistake.
Or stinkybriefs144 just right out lies like supposedly the wind was making the flag wave on the moon.
He's not lying, he wasn't there and doesn't know. He's just going along with the flat earth and moon landing denial narrative. So I call him out on his bullshitbelief.
-
You are correct, I wasn't alive then.
Though my birthday is St Elias's (Elijah) day and thus the birthday of the event. I've made it a point to at least be somewhat interested, and unlike air or sea travel, the science doesn't seem to work.
I'm not "going along" with it though. It well and truly seems to defy the laws of buoyancy and rules about propulsion.
For those interested, other events that happened on July 20th.
70 – Siege of Jerusalem: Titus, son of emperor Vespasian, storms the Fortress of Antonia north of the Temple Mount. The Roman army is drawn into street fights with the Zealots.
792 – Kardam of Bulgaria defeats Byzantine Emperor Constantine VI at the Battle of Marcellae.
911 – Rollo lays siege to Chartres.
1189 – Richard I of England officially invested as Duke of Normandy.
1225 – Treaty of San Germano is signed at San Germano between Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II and Pope Gregory IX. A Dominican named Guala is responsible for the negotiations.
1398 – The Battle of Kellistown was fought on this day between the forces of the English led by Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March against the O'Byrnes and O'Tooles under the command of Art Óg mac Murchadha Caomhánach, the most powerful Chieftain in Leinster.
1402 – Ottoman-Timurid Wars: Battle of Ankara: Timur, ruler of Timurid Empire, defeats forces of the Ottoman Empire sultan Bayezid I.
1592 – During the first Japanese invasion of Korea, Japanese forces led by Toyotomi Hideyoshi captured Pyongyang, although they were ultimately unable to hold it.
1705 – A fire in Oulu, Finland almost completely destroyed the fourth district, which covered the southern part of the city and was by far the largest of the city districts.[1][2]
1715 – Seventh Ottoman–Venetian War: The Ottoman Empire captures Nauplia, the capital of the Republic of Venice's "Kingdom of the Morea", thereby opening the way to the swift Ottoman reconquest of the Morea.[3]
1738 – Canadian explorer Pierre Gaultier de Varennes et de La Vérendrye reaches the western shore of Lake Michigan.
1799 – Tekle Giyorgis I begins his first of six reigns as Emperor of Ethiopia.[4]
1807 – Nicéphore Niépce is awarded a patent by Napoleon for the Pyréolophore, the world's first internal combustion engine, after it successfully powered a boat upstream on the river Saône in France.
1810 – Citizens of Bogotá, New Granada declare independence from Spain.
1831 – Seneca and Shawnee people agree to relinquish their land in western Ohio for 60,000 acres west of the Mississippi River.[5]
1848 – The first Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York, a two-day event, concludes.
1864 – American Civil War: Battle of Peachtree Creek: Near Atlanta, Georgia, Confederate forces led by General John Bell Hood unsuccessfully attack Union troops under General William T. Sherman.
1866 – Austro-Prussian War: Battle of Lissa: The Austrian Navy, led by Admiral Wilhelm von Tegetthoff, defeats the Italian Navy near the island of Vis in the Adriatic Sea.
1871 – British Columbia joins the confederation of Canada.
1885 – The Football Association legalizes professionalism in association football under pressure from the British Football Association.
1903 – The Ford Motor Company ships its first automobile.
1906 – In Finland, a new electoral law is ratified, guaranteeing the country the first and equal right to vote in the world. Finnish women are the first in Europe to receive the right to vote.[6]
1917 – World War I: The Corfu Declaration, which leads to the creation of the post-war Kingdom of Yugoslavia, is signed by the Yugoslav Committee and Kingdom of Serbia.
1920 – The Greek Army takes control of Silivri after Greece is awarded the city by the Paris Peace Conference; by 1923 Greece effectively lost control to the Turks.
1922 – The League of Nations awards mandates of Togoland to France and Tanganyika to the United Kingdom.
1932 – In the Preußenschlag, German President Hindenburg places Prussia directly under the rule of the national government.
1934 – Labor unrest in the U.S.: Police in Minneapolis fire upon striking truck drivers, during the Minneapolis Teamsters Strike of 1934, killing two and wounding sixty-seven.
1934 – West Coast waterfront strike: In Seattle, police fire tear gas on and club 2,000 striking longshoremen. The governor of Oregon calls out the National Guard to break a strike on the Portland docks.
1935 – Switzerland: A Royal Dutch Airlines plane en route from Milan to Frankfurt crashes into a Swiss mountain, killing thirteen.
1936 – The Montreux Convention is signed in Switzerland, authorizing Turkey to fortify the Dardanelles and Bosphorus but guaranteeing free passage to ships of all nations in peacetime.
1938 – The United States Department of Justice files suit in New York City against the motion picture industry charging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act in regards to the studio system. The case would eventually result in a break-up of the industry in 1948.
1940 – Denmark leaves the League of Nations.
1940 – California opens its first freeway, the Arroyo Seco Parkway.
1941 – Soviet leader Joseph Stalin consolidates the Commissariats of Home Affairs and National Security to form the NKVD and names Lavrentiy Beria its chief.
1944 – World War II: Adolf Hitler survives an assassination attempt led by German Army Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg.
1949 – The Israel–Syria Mixed Armistice Commission brokers the last of four ceasefire agreements to end the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
1950 – Cold War: In Philadelphia, Harry Gold pleads guilty to spying for the Soviet Union by passing secrets from atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs.
1950 – After a month-long campaign, the majority of North Korea's Air Force was destroyed by anti-communist forces.[7]
1951 – King Abdullah I of Jordan is assassinated by a Palestinian while attending Friday prayers in Jerusalem.
1954 – Germany: Otto John, head of West Germany's secret service, defects to East Germany.
1960 – Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) elects Sirimavo Bandaranaike Prime Minister, the world's first elected female head of government.
1960 – The Polaris missile is successfully launched from a submarine, the USS George Washington, for the first time.
1961 – French military forces break the Tunisian siege of Bizerte.
1964 – Vietnam War: Viet Cong forces attack the capital of Định Tường Province, Cái Bè, killing 11 South Vietnamese military personnel and 40 civilians (30 of whom are children).
1968 – The first International Special Olympics Summer Games are held at Soldier Field in Chicago, with about 1,000 athletes with intellectual disabilities.
1969 – Apollo program: Apollo 11's crew successfully makes the first human landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility. Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin become the first humans to walk on the Moon six and a half hours later.
1969 – A cease fire is announced between Honduras and El Salvador, six days after the beginning of the "Football War".
1974 – Turkish invasion of Cyprus: Forces from Turkey invade Cyprus after a coup d'état, organised by the dictator of Greece, against president Makarios.
1976 – The American Viking 1 lander successfully lands on Mars.[8]
1977 – The Central Intelligence Agency releases documents under the Freedom of Information Act revealing it had engaged in mind-control experiments.
1977 – The Johnstown flood of 1977 kills 84 people and causes millions of dollars in damages.
1981 – Somali Airlines Flight 40 crashes in the Balad District of Somalia, killing 40 people.[9]
1982 – Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings: The Provisional IRA detonates two bombs in Hyde Park and Regent's Park in central London, killing eight soldiers, wounding forty-seven people, and leading to the deaths of seven horses.
1985 – The government of Aruba passes legislation to secede from the Netherlands Antilles.
1989 – Burma's ruling junta puts opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest.
1992 – Václav Havel resigns as president of Czechoslovakia.
1997 – The fully restored USS Constitution (a.k.a. Old Ironsides) celebrates its 200th birthday by setting sail for the first time in 116 years.
1999 – The Chinese Communist Party begins a persecution campaign against Falun Gong, arresting thousands nationwide.
2005 – The Civil Marriage Act legalizes same-sex marriage in Canada.
2012 – James Holmes opened fire at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 and injuring 70 others.
2012 – Syrian civil war: The People's Protection Units (YPG) capture the cities of Amuda and Efrîn without resistance.[10]
2013 – Seventeen government soldiers are killed in an attack by FARC revolutionaries in the Colombian department of Arauca.
2013 – Syrian civil war: The Battle of Ras al-Ayn ends with the expulsion of Islamist forces from the city by the People's Protection Units (YPG).[11]
2015 – A huge explosion in the mostly Kurdish border town of Suruç, Turkey, targeting the Socialist Youth Associations Federation, kills at least 31 people and injures over 100.
2015 – The United States and Cuba resume full diplomatic relations after five decades.
2017 – O. J. Simpson is granted parole to be released from prison after serving nine years of a 33-year sentence after being convicted of armed robbery in Las Vegas.
2021 – American businessman Jeff Bezos flies to space aboard New Shepard NS-16 operated by his private spaceflight company Blue Origin.[12]
When presented with something you don't know about, you can either get someone's opinion posing as fact, or you can look it up yourself. I am not convinced you have ever done your own research. Such people may go to universities, but they never learn anything besides what other people want them to know.
My family memories, on the other hand, involved numerous trips to reference books before computers became the prevailing method or research.
-
I do listen.
You don’t listen Themightykabool.
Your example ignores the base problem is that flat earth’s don’t understand how large the earth is. Or they don’t understand reference and scale.
Does this ball look flat like the earth looks flat?
“Prove” a Basketball (or any Spherical Object) is Flat
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/basketball-1.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/basketball
-
the science doesn't seem to work.
You keep saying this, but you are yet to be able to present a single part of science that doesn't work.
Instead, you entirely misrepresent it, replacing it with your fantasy, and claiming it doesn't seem to work.
That is your fantasy not working.
-
rules about propulsion.
What are the rules of “rocket propulsion” that is usually a controlled explosion of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen?
And why for that controlled explosion would the laws of motion magically stop in the extremely thin atmosphere we call the vacuum of space.
-
How does the moon landing defy the laws of propulsion, Bulma, when you've seen first hand a party balloon propel across your bedroom with no walls of air in your bedroom? It's exactly the same principle.
Why don't you refocus that ADHD of yours into researching NASA and the Apollo moon landings, instead of con artist run flat earth videos? You could find all the material you need in your local library if the internet is too modern for you.
-
I do listen.
You don’t listen Themightykabool.
Your example ignores the base problem is that flat earth’s don’t understand how large the earth is. Or they don’t understand reference and scale.
Does this ball look flat like the earth looks flat?
“Prove” a Basketball (or any Spherical Object) is Flat
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/basketball-1.jpg)
https://flatearth.ws/basketball
You are spectacularly stpuid.
By anserring the question gets them closer to understanding.
Thwts how it works.
They bring up a point.
We discuss how they came to that conclusion and determine qhere the short falls are and work to resolve.
Not bringing up nonsequitors and spamming and continuing to chsnge topics.
I understand the basketball photo.
Why you trying to convince me of it?
-
By anserring the question gets them closer to understanding.
“hey hey
few months now
you gonna answer - what is the angle between segements of a 300,000sided polygon?
also just curious”
How does the above bring any flat earther to the reason why they “can’t see curvature”? It’s seems more like a troll move that totally ignores that flat earthers don’t understand the scale and size of earth.
-
They bring up a point.
We discuss how they came to that conclusion and determine qhere the short falls are and work to resolve.
Hmm. Like to quote where you discussed and debated with flat earthers they don’t understand the scale of the earth and how gentle the curvature is? And provided evidence of that curvature?
-
I keep telling you.
Keep not listening.
Have a good day.
Piss off.
-
I keep telling you.
Keep not listening.
Have a good day.
Piss off.
I’m not listening?
They bring up a point.
We discuss how they came to that conclusion and determine qhere the short falls are and work to resolve.
How many threads have I created that demonstrate some portion or aspect of sight or views relating to spherical earth. How many times has flat earthers been proven wrong by others while you babble and play with your polygons where flat earthers try to derail the thread.
Trying to stick to the topic of a thread or keep pointing out aspects of flat earth that don’t explain reality. For flat earthers that figuratively don’t listen, and figuratively stick their heads in the sand by actively trying to derail a thread.
Who’s not “listening”? Who is spamming? Who strives to throw topics off the rails?
So strange you target me as not listening.
Themightykabool, you impotent person that will never size up, if you like abuse. Go to your local dominatrix or dom for your kicks you little freak you.
-
How does the moon landing defy the laws of propulsion, Bulma, when you've seen first hand a party balloon propel across your bedroom with no walls of air in your bedroom? It's exactly the same principle.
Why don't you refocus that ADHD of yours into researching NASA and the Apollo moon landings, instead of con artist run flat earth videos? You could find all the material you need in your local library if the internet is too modern for you.
The moon and the sun are objects of energy, not mass.
Recall in science class how you learned about states of matter. In general, the greater the vibration of the state of matter, the less mass it has (due to molecules moving around, instead of gathering in density). This means that the sun is actually an object subject to Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle. We see the moon or try to see the sun. But neither of these things are real objects. Today, I looked directly at the sun via Kindle. I saw some weird black wriggling thing.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/a7Fcku8LpztO/
"If you are a woke idiot, please stop watching now."
The sun and moon are not objects with mass. They are something entirely different. They are beings of light. They are Monsters (the word monster has a negative connotation, but the word originally means "divine omen/reminder"). Like rainbows, these monsters remind us that there is something beyond what we understand in the world.
And yes, some people are watching this eclipse and making a big fuss about chemtrails in CT spraying a Masonic pentagram in the sky. Oh noes! End times. But nothing we humans can do is anything more than fiddling around with washable markers. Unless God wants to end the world, nothing we humans can do can bring it about. Period. Not climate change. Not ritual circles. Not anything.
We're just kids playing with toys. These Monsters operate on perpetual energy and perpetual motion, both of which are impossible for humans. They cannot come from anywhere but a loving God.
They also are inside the atmosphere, not outside it. The sun and moon are within the firmament, as I've mentioned before.
-
The moon and the sun are objects of energy, not mass.
So you want to claim they are pure magic?
So why does the moon behave just like we would expect a physical object to?
Recall in science class how you learned about states of matter.
None of which supports your delusional BS.
an object subject to Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle.
Not really.
While some aspects will be subject to it, the sun as a whole, is such a large object that the uncertainty principle is irrelevant.
Just what aspects do you think are uncertain, and to what extent?
Do you even understand this principle you keep trying to invoke, or are you just trying to use it as your "get out of jail free" card?
We see the moon or try to see the sun. But neither of these things are real objects.
Based on what?
Today, I looked directly at the sun via Kindle.
That literally directly contradicts itself.
If you look directly at the sun, you look direct. If you look via something else, it is NOT direct.
That is like saying you took a direct flight from LA to NY, via Dubai.
It is either direct or it is via something.
But notice how you still refuse to answer how objects in space magically defy the laws of science (the actual ones, not your delusional BS).
-
The moon and the sun are objects of energy, not mass.
No mass as fuel to produce the energy? Where I just watched the moon shield the light from the sun? Where the radiation / energy of the moon doesn’t interfere with the radiation / energy of the sun in your delusion.
-
While some aspects will be subject to it, the sun as a whole, is such a large object that the uncertainty principle is irrelevant.
It must be nice to hold an imaginary kangaroo court, where you are able to dismiss any evidence you decide is inadmissible.
Meanwhile, in the real world, laws are supposed to be consistent.
Have you ever actually proven that the sun has any mass at all? If not, your precious "gravity" is irrelevant. What? You don't like other people applying the same standards?
The thing is, it doesn't actually matter which theory we use. I'll explain:
1. If we run under my principle of buoyancy, the thinner the air is, the less mass it can have and stay aloft. Air is thin enough even at ground level that most things fall (besides helium and very non-dense aerodynamic stuff). The sun and moon fall to the Earth as Majora's Mask.
2. If we run under gravity, the Earth and moon are instead pulled toward the sun. The moon should fall toward the sun, and after it extincts all life on Earth, Earth should fall into the sun.
Either the sun and moon have no mass, or neither model work.
"But muh orbit!" Yeah, fuck your orbit. If gravity or buoyancy work, they work.
The only way they can instead orbit is if the motion toward each other is in complete balance. The Earth must have the same mass as the sun and moon under gravity (that's highly unlikely) or insufficient mass to sink under buoyancy, and too much mass to float under buoyancy. Simple as that.
-
proven that the sun has any mass at all?
You mean other than gravity as seen on how the sun influences the solar system and things like comets and their orbits.
It emits charged particles.
It has large coronal mass ejections
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection
A coronal mass ejection (CME) is a significant ejection of magnetic field and accompanying plasma mass from the Sun's corona into the heliosphere.
And through Astronomical spectroscopy
Astronomical spectroscopy is the study of astronomy using the techniques of spectroscopy to measure the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, ultraviolet, X-ray, infrared and radio waves that radiate from stars and other celestial objects. A stellar spectrum can reveal many properties of stars, such as their chemical composition, temperature, density, mass, distance and luminosity. Spectroscopy can show the velocity of motion towards or away from the observer by measuring the Doppler shift. Spectroscopy is also used to study the physical properties of many other types of celestial objects such as planets, nebulae, galaxies, and active galactic nuclei.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy#:~:text=Astronomical%20spectroscopy%20is%20the%20study,stars%20and%20other%20celestial%20objects.
The radiation and charged particles are consist with nuclear reactions of mass.
-
1. If we run under my principle of buoyancy, the thinner the air is, the less mass it can have and stay aloft.
Why do rocket planes fly in extreme thin atmosphere.
The North American X-15 is a hypersonic rocket-powered aircraft operated by the United States Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as part of the X-plane series of experimental aircraft. The X-15 set speed and altitude records in the 1960s, crossing the edge of outer space and returning with valuable data used in aircraft and spacecraft design. The X-15's highest speed, 4,520 miles per hour (7,274 km/h; 2,021 m/s),[1]was achieved on 3 October 1967,[2] when William J. Knight flew at Mach 6.7 at an altitude of 102,100 feet (31,120 m), or 19.34 miles. This set the official world record for the highest speed ever recorded by a crewed, powered aircraft, which remains unbroken.[3][4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15
Air is thin enough even at ground level
The tendency for air molecules in a container is to equal distance. To thin out as much as possible.
Why do air molecules on earth overcome this tendency where they try to migrate to the surface and do bunch up creating the pressure gradient. What force overcomes air molecules to equal distance to bunch up at the surface.
-
It must be nice to hold an imaginary kangaroo court, where you are able to dismiss any evidence you decide is inadmissible.
I am objecting to your entirely baseless claims.
How about instead of pulling this childish BS, you try actually justifying your claims?
Meanwhile, in the real world, laws are supposed to be consistent.
And they are.
Have you ever actually proven that the sun has any mass at all?
We can tell it has mass because of objects orbiting it.
You don't like other people applying the same standards?
You mean completely different standards?
The thing is, it doesn't actually matter which theory we use. I'll explain:
It does.
If we use your delusional BS (which isn't a theory at all), you reach an entirely incorrect conclusion.
If you use actual science, principles based upon evidence, it works.
If we run under my principle of buoyancy
We can discard that BS, as it is pure BS.
Stick to reality.
2. If we run under gravity, the Earth and moon are instead pulled toward the sun. The moon should fall toward the sun, and after it extincts all life on Earth, Earth should fall into the sun.
You have already had all this delusional BS refuted.
Instead of just baselessly asserting that the moon should magically fall towards the sun, why don't you try explaining why?
"But muh orbit!" Yeah, fuck your orbit.
That does pretty much sum up your tantrum.
You don't like reality, so you just reject it and lie about it.
The only way they can instead orbit is if the motion toward each other is in complete balance.
And more vague crap.
No, it doesn't.
Again, instead of just asserting delusional BS, try explaining why.
The Earth must have the same mass as the sun and moon under gravity
WHY?
Again, instead of just asserting delusional BS, try explaining why.
-
While some aspects will be subject to it, the sun as a whole, is such a large object that the uncertainty principle is irrelevant.
It must be nice to hold an imaginary kangaroo court, where you are able to dismiss any evidence you decide is inadmissible.
Meanwhile, in the real world, laws are supposed to be consistent.
Have you ever actually proven that the sun has any mass at all? If not, your precious "gravity" is irrelevant. What? You don't like other people applying the same standards?
The thing is, it doesn't actually matter which theory we use. I'll explain:
1. If we run under my principle of buoyancy, the thinner the air is, the less mass it can have and stay aloft. Air is thin enough even at ground level that most things fall (besides helium and very non-dense aerodynamic stuff). The sun and moon fall to the Earth as Majora's Mask.
2. If we run under gravity, the Earth and moon are instead pulled toward the sun. The moon should fall toward the sun, and after it extincts all life on Earth, Earth should fall into the sun.
Either the sun and moon have no mass, or neither model work.
"But muh orbit!" Yeah, fuck your orbit. If gravity or buoyancy work, they work.
The only way they can instead orbit is if the motion toward each other is in complete balance. The Earth must have the same mass as the sun and moon under gravity (that's highly unlikely) or insufficient mass to sink under buoyancy, and too much mass to float under buoyancy. Simple as that.
Do you ever bother to look at what the globe earth model actually entails? It entails our planet Earth orbiting our sun, due to the sun's gravitational pull. Orbital mechanics explains it very well. If the sun has no mass and no gravitational pull, then please explain why Earth is orbiting it?
Your buoyancy doesn't work, Bulma, because it's YOUR buoyancy, and not the scientifically accepted model of buoyancy. You don't understand buoyancy in a scientific sense. The only "buoyancy" you understand is from your "grinder" account sexcapades.
Your inadequate flat earth model which you follow, has no explanation for what the sun is.
-
While some aspects will be subject to it, the sun as a whole, is such a large object that the uncertainty principle is irrelevant.
It must be nice to hold an imaginary kangaroo court, where you are able to dismiss any evidence you decide is inadmissible.
Meanwhile, in the real world, laws are supposed to be consistent.
Have you ever actually proven that the sun has any mass at all? If not, your precious "gravity" is irrelevant. What? You don't like other people applying the same standards?
The thing is, it doesn't actually matter which theory we use. I'll explain:
1. If we run under my principle of buoyancy, the thinner the air is, the less mass it can have and stay aloft. Air is thin enough even at ground level that most things fall (besides helium and very non-dense aerodynamic stuff). The sun and moon fall to the Earth as Majora's Mask.
2. If we run under gravity, the Earth and moon are instead pulled toward the sun. The moon should fall toward the sun, and after it extincts all life on Earth, Earth should fall into the sun.
Either the sun and moon have no mass, or neither model work.
"But muh orbit!" Yeah, fuck your orbit. If gravity or buoyancy work, they work.
The only way they can instead orbit is if the motion toward each other is in complete balance. The Earth must have the same mass as the sun and moon under gravity (that's highly unlikely) or insufficient mass to sink under buoyancy, and too much mass to float under buoyancy. Simple as that.
Do you ever bother to look at what the globe earth model actually entails? It entails our planet Earth orbiting our sun, due to the sun's gravitational pull. Orbital mechanics explains it very well. If the sun has no mass and no gravitational pull, then please explain why Earth is orbiting it?
Your buoyancy doesn't work, Bulma, because it's YOUR buoyancy, and not the scientifically accepted model of buoyancy. You don't understand buoyancy in a scientific sense. The only "buoyancy" you understand is from your "grinder" account sexcapades.
Your inadequate flat earth model which you follow, has no explanation for what the sun is.
You were handed your globe model on a plate and you accept it for no other reason than it being official lines.
Normal everyday physics takes a back seat when space is brought into the limelight.
Your reliance offers you no thought, only adherence to a story.
Extremely weak.
-
You were handed your globe model on a plate and you accept it for no other reason than it being official lines.
Actually that is bullshit especially in the fact flat earth doesn’t work.
Two examples.
When I was is the navy, the celestial South Pole works because the earth is spherical.
Star gazing in the southern hemisphere is aided by this accurate star atlas based on a dial. Where on a flat earth it would be useless.
(https://i.imgur.com/OuU3kzq.jpg)
Flat earth killed by a simple yet effective 16 dollar dial star atlas.
-
You were handed your globe model on a plate and you accept it for no other reason than it being official lines.
We accept it for the very important reason of it actually working to explain and predict reality.
Your delusional BS does not.
The BS you try to replace it with you do so for no reason other than you can't handle reality, so you cling to a fantasy.
-
While some aspects will be subject to it, the sun as a whole, is such a large object that the uncertainty principle is irrelevant.
It must be nice to hold an imaginary kangaroo court, where you are able to dismiss any evidence you decide is inadmissible.
Meanwhile, in the real world, laws are supposed to be consistent.
Have you ever actually proven that the sun has any mass at all? If not, your precious "gravity" is irrelevant. What? You don't like other people applying the same standards?
The thing is, it doesn't actually matter which theory we use. I'll explain:
1. If we run under my principle of buoyancy, the thinner the air is, the less mass it can have and stay aloft. Air is thin enough even at ground level that most things fall (besides helium and very non-dense aerodynamic stuff). The sun and moon fall to the Earth as Majora's Mask.
2. If we run under gravity, the Earth and moon are instead pulled toward the sun. The moon should fall toward the sun, and after it extincts all life on Earth, Earth should fall into the sun.
Either the sun and moon have no mass, or neither model work.
"But muh orbit!" Yeah, fuck your orbit. If gravity or buoyancy work, they work.
The only way they can instead orbit is if the motion toward each other is in complete balance. The Earth must have the same mass as the sun and moon under gravity (that's highly unlikely) or insufficient mass to sink under buoyancy, and too much mass to float under buoyancy. Simple as that.
Do you ever bother to look at what the globe earth model actually entails? It entails our planet Earth orbiting our sun, due to the sun's gravitational pull. Orbital mechanics explains it very well. If the sun has no mass and no gravitational pull, then please explain why Earth is orbiting it?
Your buoyancy doesn't work, Bulma, because it's YOUR buoyancy, and not the scientifically accepted model of buoyancy. You don't understand buoyancy in a scientific sense. The only "buoyancy" you understand is from your "grinder" account sexcapades.
Your inadequate flat earth model which you follow, has no explanation for what the sun is.
You were handed your globe model on a plate and you accept it for no other reason than it being official lines.
Normal everyday physics takes a back seat when space is brought into the limelight.
Your reliance offers you no thought, only adherence to a story.
Extremely weak.
Yes, the globe earth model was handed to me on a plate. But no, I do not accept it for no other reason than it being official lines. I accept it, because I understand a little of something you do not understand - physics. I also have eyes that work.
Physics is something that doesn't work on any flat earth model compared to real life observations. Plus, there are literally tons of evidence to back the globe earth model as compared to the literally zero evidence to back any flat earth model. When I say you have nothing to back your argument, I literally mean, nothing.
Everyday physics such as how an inflated party balloon can fly around a room when deflating out of it's end, takes front and centre stage when travel in outer space is brought into the limelight.
Your reliance on flat earth con artists offers you no thought, only adherence to a pitiful scam.
That is why, sceptic, my argument is extremely strong and your argument is
extremely weak.
-
I presume, the reason you can dismiss all the space footage, sceptic, is because you don't believe in vacuums, even though you believe atmosphere is layered and stacked, with air molecules denser at Earth's surface and less dense the higher you ascend?
Most people would call that space between air molecules, well, "space", but not you, ey? I'm sure you'll come up with a word to replace space one day, that is different to "space" but means exactly the same as space does. Just as Bulma has been unable to find any walls of air to push off, without standing standing next to a tornado, you've never been able to find where one layer of atmosphere begins and another ends, have you, sceptic?
-
Do you ever bother to look at what the globe earth model actually entails?
Yeah. Better than you, in fact, because I'm at the other end of this argument, whereas you can only see your tunnel vision. Far from explaining things "very well", it has to make constant adjustments. Seasons? Oh ummm, tilt. What's that? It's actually more distant in summer than winter? Distance doesn't matter. So if distance doesn't matter, you shouldn't see the sun shrink (video in my signature)? No, uhhhh distance definitely matters. ??? If the sun rises in 6am in summer, shouldn't it be on the opposite side of the sun and rise at some different time? Ummmmm sidereal days, that's it, sidereal days. And so on. For each problem, you have a lameass Columbo suspect answer.
Columbo: There were witnesses that say they saw you leaving the building, a gun was found outside the scene with your fingerprints, and you have powder burns on your hand.
Suspect: (The victim) sent me to pick up her gun for repairs. She wanted to make sure it wasn't loaded, so she had me fire off a shot. That might be why you found my fingerprints and powder burns.
Columbo: Ohhh okay, that makes sense. (pause) Just one more thing. There's only one bullet out of the revolver and it's in the victim.
Your buoyancy doesn't work, Bulma, because it's YOUR buoyancy, and not the scientifically accepted model of buoyancy. You don't understand buoyancy in a scientific sense.
The buoyancy model was "updated" (altered) to account for gravity. There is no scientific model for buoyancy, as the "real" one has been altered with a lot of dogmatic bullshit. But uhhhh, they knew about buoyancy back when it was more common to believe in flat Earth, and well before Archimedes. He simply put a name to it. They in fact had perfected buoyancy to the point of using it in battle ships (Archimedes built this claw thing to help with battles).
If we're talking models, the one I use belongs to (Unknown Caveman) who built the first boat. I know how the principle of buoyancy works.
You insert gravity into a formula that only needs a mass vs space definition of density. Then density is compared to the density of the medium. It's a simple formula. Overall density of wood object > water density? It sinks. If it's <= water density? It floats. Birds, frogs, and primitive humans all understand buoyancy better than you.
And if you carefully look at gravity in the formula, you figure out that it pretty much self-cancels.
In terms of predicting layers of air, it works exactly as it should until you get to the Karman Line, where I would say the firmament is, and you would way outside this is "outer space". It also follows all the same rules of propulsion and buoyancy that we've observed in moving objects from thousands of years up to this very day. You can make a balloon fly up to a certain height and no higher. Gravity? No, it is simply more dense than that layer of air. Btw, in order to have a helium balloon float, it must be filled. The more mass in helium (which is less dense than air), the more it can lift.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/everyday-life/helium-balloons
Omnicalculator believes their own rhetoric about RE, but their calculators work. 5693 balloons (standard size) to lift a person, 3795322 balloons to lift a 50 ton forklift. Given that someone actually rode in a balloon chair, yes this model works. You can lift a person simply by increasing the number of balloons.
How well does gravity work with a stable layers of air model? It kinda doesn't. These layers ought to collapse, making any air in the atmosphere pull down toward the bottom layer. This would mean the bottom layer would be in the water of in caves, and all of us would suffocate. Instead, it neatly sorts itself by chains of molecules. More densely packed air falls, less densely packed rises.
There are areas on Earth where "gravity doesn't exist." For a law that is supposed to have consistent behavior, it kinda doesn't (meanwhile, such places can probably be explained through wind tunnels, magnetic pull, or simply high density air creating buoyant effect).
-
The buoyancy model was "updated" (altered) to account for gravity.
What makes the atmosphere bunch up at the earth’s surface to overcome air molecules tendency to equal distance in a container to create the pressure gradient.
How does a less dense atmosphere at a lower pressure “trap” an atmosphere with more pressure and density under it?
-
because I'm at the other end of this argument
You mean the childish rejection of reality and ignoring everything that shows you are wrong end?
Far from explaining things "very well", it has to make constant adjustments.
Yet you can't show any.
Seasons? Oh ummm, tilt. What's that?
It is a change in angle, which results in a change in the number of daylight hours, and the intensity of illumination per unit surface area.
Not distance.
So if distance doesn't matter, you shouldn't see the sun shrink
Again, what matters is how much the distance varies. For the RE model, that is a tiny variation over a year.
For your delusional BS it is a massive variation (doubling the distance) over a day.
If the sun rises in 6am in summer, shouldn't it be on the opposite side of the sun and rise at some different time
No, as already explained, we based our clocks off the sun, not rotation.
For each problem
We have a clear and typically simple answer, which you cannot show fault with, and which you cannot demonstrate any inconsistency with.
The buoyancy model was "updated" (altered) to account for gravity.
No, it wasn't.
Even back with Aristotle, it used weight.
Weight was updated with the understanding it is caused by gravity.
I know how the principle of buoyancy works.
Considering you still haven't addressed the numerous faults with your delusional BS it is clear you don't.
You cannot explain why things fall at a different rate in different locations.
You cannot explain what maintains the pressure gradient observed in fluids.
You cannot explain why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up.
You cannot explain the directionality.
In short, you can't explain anything with your BS.
In terms of predicting layers of air, it works exactly as it should
i.e. you have no answer, and just need to deflect.
How well does gravity work with a stable layers of air model?
Great.
It directly explains the observed pressure gradient, which in turn pushes things up.
These layers ought to collapse
Why?
Yet again, you just assert pure BS.
There are areas on Earth where "gravity doesn't exist."
Where?
For a law that is supposed to have consistent behavior
it is entirely consistent with you yet to demonstrate any inconsistency.
-
These layers ought to collapse
Why?
Haven't you figured it out on your own?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1228410409036419222/earth-atmosphere-layers_buoyancy.jpg?ex=662bf158&is=66197c58&hm=569d662f1388ea21aa7547da2f7c70b4767c50328724600c514cc8dca0c9292e&)
Buoyancy causes the rise and fall of objects.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1228410409531215872/earth-atmosphere-layers_gravity.jpg?ex=662bf158&is=66197c58&hm=15af3db2f01336e2f35b202bd72ff3059109e52cdff1e992c9e93c1253f61573&)
Gravity causes only the fall of objects, based on the idea that objects with greater mass exert gravity on objects of lesser mass. The Earth has greater mass than all objects therein, so the shuttle, satellite, aircraft, meteors, and all air in all layers of air are pulled down toward Earth by forces of gravity. Through understanding of what gravity entails, you don't get to pick and choose what falls and what doesn't. All layers of air collapse into the lowest point of the ground.
Different layers of air is consistent with buoyancy theory. Boat travel is consistent with buoyancy theory. Plane travel is consistent with buoyancy theory. Space shuttle travel is not is consistent with buoyancy theory, and thus I excluded it from the buoyancy model. Objects with mass do not float without air or water, even if you are able to use propulsion.
You do not understand your own theory.
If you did, the only reason you would not reject it is if you have a vested interest.
That can't be true, right?
-
😂😂😂
You can't comprehend anything. You should not be trying to explain things you don't understand. Leave that to Sandy, he's good at explaining stuff he doesn't understand.
Again what gives your magic falling of higher density direction?
Can you explain the difference between weight and mass? Start there.
-
Different layers of air is consistent with buoyancy theory.
Ah, no.
It takes an ever increasing amount of force to push air molecules more and more together.
No force, air molecules try to equal distance themselves.
The atmosphere is in equilibrium with gravity. We know this because air molecules are bunched up at the earth’s surface to create a greater pressure down low in the atmosphere. If there was no gravity, the higher pressure at the earth’s surface would equalise and flow up to the lower pressure of the upper atmosphere. There is a force preventing high pressure from flowing to the low pressure of the upper atmosphere to equalise pressure potential.
-
Haven't you figured it out on your own?
I figured out based upon gravity and the property of gasses, that the atmosphere should have a pressure gradient, just like all fluids.
And as a gas, it wont just collapse.
So no, I haven't "figured out" your entirely baseless claim with no basis in reality; unless by "figured out" you mean recognise it is pure BS.
As for your image, the question is why is there a pressure gradient?
And if you want to claim it is based upon density, why isn't the lowest layer a layer of CO2, followed by a layer of oxygen, then a layer of nitrogen?
It seems it doesn't layer based upon density at all, and instead the gasses are quite well mixed.
Instead, it "layers" based upon pressure. With the gas near the surface being at the greatest pressure and the gas higher up being at a lower pressure, with that pressure (and temperature) dictating its density.
If it was just magically density, then I should be able to create an airtight box, pump loads of gas into it so it is a nice high density, and then open the lid and just have it sit there.
But instead, the pressure pushes it up.
Gravity causes only the fall of objects, based on the idea that objects with greater mass exert gravity on objects of lesser mass.
Only if you pretend that that "object" is the only thing in existence (other than what it is falling towards), and everything else doesn't exist.
Again, what you are saying here is like saying, if you get a see saw, and put a light person on one end and they are close to the ground, and then a heavy person on the other, gravity can't explain why the light person goes up.
It is dishonest BS which has already been refuted.
Look at a sky diver, what happens when they try to fall through the air? They need to push the air out of the way, compressing the air in front of them as they do so, which in turn slows them down.
And guess what? The same happens with the air.
In order for air to fall down, it needs to push the air below out of the way or compress it.
Alternatively, now with what you are saying, everything should just be a single point at the core. That you shouldn't be able to walk on Earth, gravity should cause you to fall through the ground and into the centre of Earth.
Of course, this entirely ignores the fact that you can't just fall through a solid object. You would need to push it out of the way.
But again, the same applies for fluids, it is just much easier to push out of the way.
So yet again, the delusional BS you are spouting is so far removed from reality it isn't funny.
Through understanding of what gravity entails, you don't get to pick and choose what falls and what doesn't.
I don't get to choose, simple physics does.
And that includes not being able to force everything into the same point.
Again, going back to that box of compressed air. When you open it, that high pressure air pushes the air above out of the way.
The more you compress a gas, the more it pushes back.
So what happens with gravity? Well that air above is pushing the air below, compressing it.
This compressed air below in turn pushes the air above up, keeping it supported.
This directly provides the pressure gradient.
The pressure gradient should be the density of the fluid times the value of g at that location.
As an approximation for a small height change, (so the density and value of g remains roughly the same) the change in pressure should be roughly rho*g*h.
And this is what is observed.
If the pressure gradient is greater than that, it means something has pressurised the air and so that air pushes back up to expand.
And if the pressure gradient is lower than that, it means something has removed the air, and the air can't hold the air above it, so that air falls down, to compress the air below and get that pressure gradient back.
And this pressure gradient will also act on EVERY object in that fluid, pushing it upwards.
It is then a competition between the upwards force from the pressure gradient and the downwards force from gravity.
If gravity wins, the object goes down. If the pressure gradient wins, the object goes up.
Different layers of air is consistent with buoyancy theory.
No, it isn't, as you cannot explain the pressure gradient.
You cannot explain why this pressure gradient doesn't push things up.
You cannot explain why it is a pressure gradient, rather than actual separation based upon the density of the components of air.
However, all of the points you have claimed are entirely consistent with gravity and the RE.
You lying about it wont change it.
Again, gravity explains it, your BS can't.
You do not understand your own theory.
I do understand it, which is why I recognise your claims are pure BS.
Conversely, you are desperate to reject it at all costs as it destroys your fantasy.
So which one has a vested interest? YOU!
-
Do you ever bother to look at what the globe earth model actually entails?
Yeah. Better than you, in fact, because I'm at the other end of this argument, whereas you can only see your tunnel vision. Far from explaining things "very well", it has to make constant adjustments. Seasons? Oh ummm, tilt. What's that? It's actually more distant in summer than winter? Distance doesn't matter. So if distance doesn't matter, you shouldn't see the sun shrink (video in my signature)? No, uhhhh distance definitely matters. ??? If the sun rises in 6am in summer, shouldn't it be on the opposite side of the sun and rise at some different time? Ummmmm sidereal days, that's it, sidereal days. And so on. For each problem, you have a lameass Columbo suspect answer.
Columbo: There were witnesses that say they saw you leaving the building, a gun was found outside the scene with your fingerprints, and you have powder burns on your hand.
Suspect: (The victim) sent me to pick up her gun for repairs. She wanted to make sure it wasn't loaded, so she had me fire off a shot. That might be why you found my fingerprints and powder burns.
Columbo: Ohhh okay, that makes sense. (pause) Just one more thing. There's only one bullet out of the revolver and it's in the victim.
Your buoyancy doesn't work, Bulma, because it's YOUR buoyancy, and not the scientifically accepted model of buoyancy. You don't understand buoyancy in a scientific sense.
The buoyancy model was "updated" (altered) to account for gravity. There is no scientific model for buoyancy, as the "real" one has been altered with a lot of dogmatic bullshit. But uhhhh, they knew about buoyancy back when it was more common to believe in flat Earth, and well before Archimedes. He simply put a name to it. They in fact had perfected buoyancy to the point of using it in battle ships (Archimedes built this claw thing to help with battles).
If we're talking models, the one I use belongs to (Unknown Caveman) who built the first boat. I know how the principle of buoyancy works.
You insert gravity into a formula that only needs a mass vs space definition of density. Then density is compared to the density of the medium. It's a simple formula. Overall density of wood object > water density? It sinks. If it's <= water density? It floats. Birds, frogs, and primitive humans all understand buoyancy better than you.
And if you carefully look at gravity in the formula, you figure out that it pretty much self-cancels.
In terms of predicting layers of air, it works exactly as it should until you get to the Karman Line, where I would say the firmament is, and you would way outside this is "outer space". It also follows all the same rules of propulsion and buoyancy that we've observed in moving objects from thousands of years up to this very day. You can make a balloon fly up to a certain height and no higher. Gravity? No, it is simply more dense than that layer of air. Btw, in order to have a helium balloon float, it must be filled. The more mass in helium (which is less dense than air), the more it can lift.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/everyday-life/helium-balloons
Omnicalculator believes their own rhetoric about RE, but their calculators work. 5693 balloons (standard size) to lift a person, 3795322 balloons to lift a 50 ton forklift. Given that someone actually rode in a balloon chair, yes this model works. You can lift a person simply by increasing the number of balloons.
How well does gravity work with a stable layers of air model? It kinda doesn't. These layers ought to collapse, making any air in the atmosphere pull down toward the bottom layer. This would mean the bottom layer would be in the water of in caves, and all of us would suffocate. Instead, it neatly sorts itself by chains of molecules. More densely packed air falls, less densely packed rises.
There are areas on Earth where "gravity doesn't exist." For a law that is supposed to have consistent behavior, it kinda doesn't (meanwhile, such places can probably be explained through wind tunnels, magnetic pull, or simply high density air creating buoyant effect).
Bulma, again, you display your lack of a basic understanding of the Globe earth model. As Jack has pointed out to you, Earth's distance from the sun in it's elliptical orbit, is not enough to cause Earth's seasons. It is Earth's tilt on it's axis which is. Ask yourself why the northern and southern hemisphere experience opposite seasons at the same time, while all areas along Earth's equator do not experience the four seasons, but instead only experience two seasons - wet season or dry season. This is a verifiable fact which any flat earth model with a fixed sun over a plate earth, can never explain. Surely it has been pointed out to you time and time again, how earths seasons destroy flat earth?
Tilt, Bulma. Tilt. It's bread and butter to the globe earth model, and you don't seem to grasp what it is. Can you buy or borrow yourself a globe earth model somewhere, and learn how to tilt it against the light from a lamp, or even the sun, and see how the sun's angle of light is what causes the seasons?
I know you don't want to learn anything new, but your inability to understand that which you refute and are dead against, weakens your argument and hurts your credibility.
-
You can't comprehend anything. You should not be trying to explain things you don't understand. Leave that to Sandy, he's good at explaining stuff he doesn't understand.
Again what gives your magic falling of higher density direction?
Can you explain the difference between weight and mass? Start there.
You shouldn't talk. It makes you sound stupid.
Fair enough. Semantics. That's it.
Newton decided there was a difference, adding "gravity" to weight, then saying people "weigh" different amounts on different "planets." Only there is no conclusive proof of other planets. There is no conclusive proof of gravity. There is only NASA's word against mine. In a court of law, a decent lawyer would object, "Your honor, hearsay."
Higher density objects fall or float by their own initiative. If I were to set two loose chains of molecules in the same space, they would sift themselves out, like this.
O2==O2==O2==O2
| |
O2==O2
The chain of two will rise, the chain of four oxygen molecules will fall. It's dead simple. That you spend your time imagining forces to do this job is your hangup, not mine. If I have a glass tube with water or air, and one side has none, it will slide back and forth until it reaches balance. Not gravity, diffusion and buoyancy. It does the same thing sideways as gravity is supposedly only gonna do toward the center of Earth.
You do not understand your own theory. If you did, you would not be defending it.
If I were to grab a brick, a rubber ball, a feather, and a balloon, I would rather easily be able to show that what you call gravity really is buoyancy.
- The brick is heavier than air therefore it sinks in the air (falls), and also heavier than water and sinks in water.
- The ball is heavier than air therefore it sinks in the air (falls), but also lighter than water and floats in water.
- The feather is heavier than air but just barely therefore it sinks slowly in the air (floats down), and also lighter than water and floats in water (unless it gets waterlogged). Strong wind can exert propulsion.
- The balloon is lighter than air therefore it floats in the air, and also lighter than water.
When you understand that a ball rising to the surface is doing the exact same thing as a balloon floating to its highest level, and that a brick falling in air or water isn't really any different, you will understand that you well and truly are full of crap. Now, I'm having issues with my mind (anywhere from headache to stroke to early onset Alzheimer's, writing a novel and having trouble with names), and I'm still getting this better than you.
Seriously bro, what's your excuse? Why isn't this (to use a pun) sinking in?
-
Are massive ocean liners not heavier than water?
How about hot air ballooons.
-
Are massive ocean liners not heavier than water?
How about hot air ballooons.
???
Density.
Density is mass spread throughout square inch. The bigger something is, the better it floats.
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-ships-work.html
You can't walk on water: you're too heavy and you'll sink like a stone. But this aircraft carrier can float, even though it's over 300m (1000ft) long, at least a million times heavier than you are, and carries about 70 airplanes and 4000 sailors.
Positive, negative, and neutral buoyancy
Buoyancy is easiest to understand thinking about a submarine. It has diving planes (fins mounted on the side) and ballast tanks that it can fill with water or air to make it rise or fall as it needs to. If its tanks are completely filled with air, it's said to be positively buoyant: the tanks weigh less than an equal volume of water and make the sub float on the surface. If the tanks are partly filled with air, it's possible to make the submarine float at some middle depth of the water without either rising up or sinking down. That's called neutral buoyancy. The other option is to fill the tanks completely with water. In that case, the submarine is negatively buoyant, which means it sinks to the seabed. Find out more about how submarines rise and fall.
Isn't that interesting! An article about buoyancy recognizes that sinking and floating are aspects of buoyancy. Almost like I know what I am talking about.
And you don't.
Now yes, many of these articles use "center of gravity" when they mean center of mass, or other unfortunate terms. But I pay that no mind, because I understand buoyancy and other forces properly. You guys keep asking how a big battleship can float. Same exact way a big jumbo jet can fly in the air (although in that case, there's also aerodynamics and propulsion).
-
[li]The brick is heavier than air therefore it sinks in the air (falls), and also heavier than water and sinks in water.[/li][/list]
The brink doesn’t “sink” in atmosphere. It accelerates down. How do you accelerate an object with no force?
Not only that. If I throw a brick straight up, it’s goes from higher pressure into lower pressure and lower density atmosphere. The atmosphere should push it up.
We can change to a ping pong ball. I can blow a ping pong ball around a table top with just my breath. In fact, you can “float” a ping pong ball with a steam of air blowing it up.
You have 14.7 psia pressure trying to push the ping pong ball up into less dense and less pressure. At 25,000 feet the pressure is something like 6 psia. A differential pressure of something like 8 psia.
However. You throw a ping pong ball straight up on a calm day. It slows down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance. It stops. Changes travel of direction 180 degrees. Then accelerates down all the while the buoyant force it’s trying to push the ping pong ball up from greater pressure in to the lower pressure and density of the upper atmosphere.
There is a force not buoyancy making the ping pong ball accelerate down against “ the buoyant force” which is trying to push up the ping pong ball from more pressure and density low in the atmosphere into less pressure and density up high.
-
You shouldn't talk. It makes you sound stupid.
I would say you should follow your own advice, but at this point I find it hard to believe anyone could possibly be as stupid as you pretend to be. It is clear that it is blatant dishonesty, not stupidity.
Only there is no conclusive proof of other planets. There is no conclusive proof of gravity.
You mean you just reject all the proof.
Higher density objects fall or float by their own initiative.
Why?
What makes them float or fall?
Why should they move in any direction?
The chain of two will rise, the chain of four oxygen molecules will fall.
Why?
Because you say so?
it will slide back and forth until it reaches balance.
Again, WHY?
You do not understand your own theory. If you did, you would not be defending it.
I do understand it, which is why I can explain why your strawmen attempts to show a problem are nothing more than blatant lies.
Either you don't understand it, or you are happy to look a lying moron pretending it is wrong.
If I were to grab a brick, a rubber ball, a feather, and a balloon, I would rather easily be able to show that what you call gravity really is buoyancy.
No, you wouldn't.
Buoyancy is a direct result of gravity.
Again, if you want to show it, measure the complete absence of a pressure gradient. You know that thing you cannot explain at all which directly explains buoyancy?
Now, I'm having issues with my mind
So you are saying you aren't lying, you are just brain damaged?
That is your excuse?
Again, if you want to pretend your delusional BS works, explain the pressure gradient and why this doesn't push everything up.
Until you can do, your idea of buoyancy is DOA.
-
Nope, I'm not brain damaged. I have a headache. Probably from talking to you guys day after day.
But I wonder about you.
You mean you just reject all the proof.
No, there is no proof.
Isaac Newton, an old dead guy told other people, who told your teacher this.
When asked to prove it, they drop an object.
They then declare, "Look! The proof is self-evident! You saw it fall."
Yes, I did see it fall. I also saw someone, aware or not, offer a deceptive explanation.
Why?
Because you say so?
You remember in third grade or so where they had you learn greater than or less than? That's all the math you need. This is why things fall because a chain of say silicon is more densely packed than whatever is around it.
You say so, that things must fall because of a force. But there is no proof of the necessity of such a force, and no proof of the existence of such a force. If such a force existed, buoyant objects would constantly be in a struggle to stay afloat.
Picture this. A man sits on the shore of a large lake, tossing a ball high in the air. He watches it slow down shortly before reversing direction and heading towards the ground. He is convinced this must be proof of gravity. Overhead, a helicopter (I apologize for unintended hilarity) is carrying large wood beam when it slips loose. The wooden beam falls into the water, and then because this is a clear lake, he watches as the beam falls down, slows, and starts to bob up to the surface.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1228758525178810540/WhatGoesDownMustComeUp.png?ex=662d358d&is=661ac08d&hm=bc4cb57760e773fd2e4a67c14032b8e2cc1e0b012fcc2cd36dfde61c26d6f1af&)
If you had never been brainwashed by Newton's goons, observing this happen would make you decide, "The ball rose, slowed, and fell. The pillar fell, slowed, and rose. This is the same behavior in reverse." Whereas someone looking at magnetism compared to buoyancy can pretty easily tell that their motion does not look the same.
-
Are massive ocean liners not heavier than water?
How about hot air ballooons.
???
Density.
Density is mass spread throughout square inch. The bigger something is, the better it floats.
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-ships-work.html
You can't walk on water: you're too heavy and you'll sink like a stone. But this aircraft carrier can float, even though it's over 300m (1000ft) long, at least a million times heavier than you are, and carries about 70 airplanes and 4000 sailors.
Positive, negative, and neutral buoyancy
Buoyancy is easiest to understand thinking about a submarine. It has diving planes (fins mounted on the side) and ballast tanks that it can fill with water or air to make it rise or fall as it needs to. If its tanks are completely filled with air, it's said to be positively buoyant: the tanks weigh less than an equal volume of water and make the sub float on the surface. If the tanks are partly filled with air, it's possible to make the submarine float at some middle depth of the water without either rising up or sinking down. That's called neutral buoyancy. The other option is to fill the tanks completely with water. In that case, the submarine is negatively buoyant, which means it sinks to the seabed. Find out more about how submarines rise and fall.
Isn't that interesting! An article about buoyancy recognizes that sinking and floating are aspects of buoyancy. Almost like I know what I am talking about.
And you don't.
Now yes, many of these articles use "center of gravity" when they mean center of mass, or other unfortunate terms. But I pay that no mind, because I understand buoyancy and other forces properly. You guys keep asking how a big battleship can float. Same exact way a big jumbo jet can fly in the air (although in that case, there's also aerodynamics and propulsion).
What you deacribed is bouyancy.
The displacement and overall average density (mass over volume) means the ship that displaces a volume of water, that amount of water will have a bouyant force to counteract the gravity force.
Same with hot air.
So if we go back to your previous statemnt:
"Hesvy things fall."
Heavy being mass
Mass dalls because mass attracts mass.
Buouancy floars because density displaced yadayaydayayada.
Hurray
Physics learned today!
-
"The ball rose, slowed, and fell.
The ball accelerated down from the upper atmosphere with less pressure and density into the lower atmosphere with greater pressure and density. What was the unbalanced force that made the ball accelerate down into more resistance.
-
Nope, I'm not brain damaged.
So you have no excuse and you are just lying to everyone?
No, there is no proof.
Yes, there is.
The simplest (other than things falling) is the Cavendish experiment.
You remember in third grade or so where they had you learn greater than or less than? That's all the math you need.
No, it isn't.
Saying one is greater than the other provides no reason at all for why it should move at all.
It provides no reason for why it should move in a particular direction.
It provides no reason for why it should accelerate at a particular rate.
It provides no reason for why this rate should vary with location.
It provides no reason for why this results in a force on an object (e.g. scales) needing to support the object above, this includes when it is a higher density (e.g. a steel table supporting a piece of aluminium or a fish tank full of water).
It provides no reason for the pressure gradient.
It provides no reason for why this pressure gradient doesn't push everything up.
In short, it explains NOTHING!
You say so, that things must fall because of a force.
Because all the evidence shows that if you want to change the motion of an object, it requires a force.
If such a force existed, buoyant objects would constantly be in a struggle to stay afloat.
Considering that same force is responsible for buoyancy, no they wouldn't.
Without such a force, everything should stay afloat.
Picture this.
Picture this. A kid finds a see saw, and places a small weight on it, and sees that side go down.
They then place a heavier weight on the other side, and see the small weight go up.
The realise that it goes up because the heavier weight has a greater force pulling it down.
They can transfer this to the garbage you describe, where they recognise the wood rises to the surface, because the water goes down because the force trying to moving the water down is greater than the force trying to move the wood down.
All your garbage does is show buoyancy is caused by gravity.
But then they can also look at other things, which behave similar to buoyancy.
If you hang a weight from an accelerating vehicle, we see the weight appear to fall backwards.
But if we do this with a balloon full of helium, we see it appear to fall forwards.
This is quite comparable to gravity and buoyancy.
The fluid creates a pressure gradient which pushes things forwards.
Just like with gravity, a pressure gradient is created with pushes things upwards.
Again, if you want to claim your delusional BS works, you need to address the points above.
See if you can explain the pressure gradient, and why this doesn't push things up.
-
Nope, I'm not brain damaged.
And how many threads on gravity, yet your posting about buoyancy in a thread about all the space footage from 1946 until present.
Students film breathtaking curvature of Earth using high-altitude weather balloon
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-students-breathtaking-curvature-earth-high-altitude.amp
(https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/hires/2017/studentsfilm.jpg)
Cabrini School's weather balloon captures stunning footage of Earth
(https://www.thetowntalk.com/gcdn/presto/2020/12/10/PALE/efeec19a-972e-4e88-be0c-35b747e8e3ad-129606958_4771175886286399_3694280280418633746_o.jpg?width=1050&height=605&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp)
https://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/2020/12/11/alexandria-school-weather-balloon-captures-stunning-earth-footage/6496653002/
Also. Why is there a dip of the horizon?
-
So in short, I can dismiss the space footage the exact same way you all dismissed my eclipse video. Someone literally added dots to it, claiming it was doctored.
Hurray
Physics learned today!
Good, because you're about to learn more.
Mass does not "attract" mass. Rather, all mass can be said to be surrounded by a matrix (no, not like Trinity and Neo, like a surrounding web of atoms)
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwDHxCcaSneX82GFtYw0oc23mBluCQCMkNCFTIRzivnRtEv4vQbXI43IE422r4ns5O25nle7_WQ1LFrrgmO-JmLrUa3uvJLQRHc7UoLr1-y6SuzFBQrQ6RNX8AX4onWRhv2jY1CLrJdcU/s1600/apple-gravity.jpg)
If you drop an apple on a trampoline, the tight mesh of fabric and springs will cause it to bounce. If you drop it in a mesh net, its fall will largely be stopped. If you drop it in a big circus net, it will probably fall through.
Buoyancy is about the interaction of atoms with each other in a matrix. There is no traffic cop blowing the whistle to force anything to cross, they are crossing each others' path on their own.
When we say heavier, we are usually talking about thickness (rather than an imaginary concept of weight) factoring in atomic density as well as regular density. A coin of gold and a wooden nickel (don't take any wooden nickels!) appear to occupy the same physical space but the gold atomic matrix profile has significantly more density than the wood molecules. But density we mean volume of stuff per inches, cm, or even nanometers.
Going back to Newton's apple. Had he grabbed a hot air balloon and tested out his theory by tossing an apple over a lake on a misty day, he would see the apple encounter "wind resistance" as air is thicker the closer it gets to sea level, he'd see it hit the water, push through by virtue of its momentum, then scribble something down about "equal and opposite" as it begins to bob toward the surface.
If we were to look at this entire process with atoms somehow lit up, we would a see a mesh closing around the apple, momentum pulling it through, then a sort of trampoline elasticity as atoms adjust back to place.
Mass doesn't just push downward against mass. It realigns itself, it snaps back to where it belongs. The apple matches its actual location in the water after falling through the water for a few seconds, as surely as if it hit a trampoline.
This is why you shouldn't talk as it makes you look dumb. You completely overlooked the fact that buoyancy is an elastic reaction, instead talking about one way mass reactions as though that's a thing. If it were, Newton's apple would drill straight through solid earth until lava finally consumed it.
-
Do you even bother to read posts all the way though?
You clearly don't, which is every single post I read from you appears to be picked apart point by point.
So why should I read all your post?
Pass. Getting ready for church.
-
So in short, I can dismiss the space footage the exact same way you all dismissed my eclipse video. Someone literally added dots to it, claiming it was doctored.
For the video you never posted? For something you only witnessed. Not reproduced in my own video of the eclipse?
Oh, and btw, I looked after the eclipse, and this is still what I saw.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1227013829968400505/Center.png?ex=6626dcad&is=661467ad&hm=6412ddbd25b03952847b653ddee426c685390566b182019216088e8327ccf6df&)
The sun has a dark center. A moving dark center, as I found out.
This is what I filmed with no filter.
Below are little gif clips I screen captured from the video I took of the eclipse with no filter over my video camera. The video was taken in 4k. Not sure what YouTube compressed it to.
Pre eclipse
(https://i.imgur.com/x6P0iOl.gif)
Going into totality. The light was still too bright and overexposed totality.
(https://i.imgur.com/vzO4wC6.gif)
Coming out of totality
(https://i.imgur.com/Jsi9gkr.gif)
bulmabriefs144, your suspect dot can’t be verified and is not replicated in my videos of the eclipse.
But you haven’t. You just turn a deaf ear and blind eye because you have no argument. You have no proof. You have no argument than you choose to put your head in the sand.
Below are balloon platform pictures that you can’t debunk. And you love balloons. Balloons seem to be your answer to most things space related!
Nope, I'm not brain damaged.
And how many threads on gravity, yet your posting about buoyancy in a thread about all the space footage from 1946 until present.
Students film breathtaking curvature of Earth using high-altitude weather balloon
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-students-breathtaking-curvature-earth-high-altitude.amp
(https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/hires/2017/studentsfilm.jpg)
Cabrini School's weather balloon captures stunning footage of Earth
(https://www.thetowntalk.com/gcdn/presto/2020/12/10/PALE/efeec19a-972e-4e88-be0c-35b747e8e3ad-129606958_4771175886286399_3694280280418633746_o.jpg?width=1050&height=605&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp)
https://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/2020/12/11/alexandria-school-weather-balloon-captures-stunning-earth-footage/6496653002/
Also. Why is there a dip of the horizon?
-
Going back to Newton's apple.
The apple accelerated down from the upper atmosphere with less pressure and density into the lower atmosphere with greater pressure and density. What was the unbalanced force that made the apple accelerate down into more resistance.
-
So in short, I can dismiss the space footage the exact same way you all dismissed my eclipse video.
Your eclipse footage does not match what other footage of the eclipse looks like.
You also haven't provided more footage of you recording the sun.
Mass does not "attract" mass. Rather, all mass can be said to be surrounded by a matrix
You mean space time?
Because that is what your picture is trying to show.
This is why you shouldn't talk as it makes you look dumb.
Again, follow your own advice.
There is nothing even resembling a rational thought in that post of yours.
You completely overlooked the fact that buoyancy is an elastic reaction, instead talking about one way mass reactions as though that's a thing. If it were, Newton's apple would drill straight through solid earth until lava finally consumed it.
You mean it is based upon the fluid pushing up?
Just like you would expect from the pressure gradient?
That pressure gradient you can't explain?
Also, describing it as elastic and comparing it to a trampoline is quite dishonest.
If it was, then if you take a helium filled balloon and smack it upwards, it should go and then spring back down.
Again, your buoyancy crap doesn't work.
It provides no reason for why it should move in a particular direction.
It provides no reason for why it should accelerate at a particular rate.
It provides no reason for why this rate should vary with location.
It provides no reason for why this results in a force on an object (e.g. scales) needing to support the object above, this includes when it is a higher density (e.g. a steel table supporting a piece of aluminium or a fish tank full of water).
It provides no reason for the pressure gradient.
It provides no reason for why this pressure gradient doesn't push everything up.
In short, it explains NOTHING!
Gravity does work.
It provides a reason for the directionality, objects accelerate towards Earth.
It provides a reason for the rate, and why this rate varies.
The rate is proportional to mass of the object it is accelerating towards and inversely proportional to the distance squared.
This also provides a direct for why it applies a force on a scale, because that is the force from gravity.
This directly provides a reason for the pressure gradient, the air below needs to support the air above. This compresses it and causes a pressure gradient.
And unlike your BS, it doesn't need to magically have that pressure gradient not push things up. That pressure gradient does push things up, creating a competition between the direct force of gravity trying to move it down, and the force of this pressure gradient trying to push it up.
It works.
-
Do you even bother to read posts all the way though?
You clearly don't, which is every single post I read from you appears to be picked apart point by point.
So why should I read all your post?
Pass. Getting ready for church.
How was your Jehovah's Witness meeting?
Ok, so now buoyancy is like a rubber band? I'm learning newer and newer things about buoyancy everyday.
-
(https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/hires/2017/studentsfilm.jpg)
(https://www.thetowntalk.com/gcdn/presto/2020/12/10/PALE/efeec19a-972e-4e88-be0c-35b747e8e3ad-129606958_4771175886286399_3694280280418633746_o.jpg?width=1050&height=605&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp)
These two images don't quite agree.
In short, it explains NOTHING!
Correct, gravity explains nothing.
Now let me show you why I find it so easy to dismiss all space footage.
How to produce your very own fake sphere.
1. Find a stock picture of ice and clouds or something. The more generic, the more people will forget that the Earth is supposed to have continents.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/97/8d/c9/978dc96e8471af82dfad9adf36262938.jpg)
2. Get a stock background or picture of space or whatever.
3. Draw a circle with blue to white gradient effect (GIMP has this tool)
4. Move it off toward the edge (space pictures never show the whole Earth being a sphere, while they show that cutoff effect all the time)
5. Cut out a circle from step 1, and paste it on top of the gradient.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1229316185246535730/Bullshit.png?ex=662f3cea&is=661cc7ea&hm=8f1db6dfbf54b84c1a5bb4e1dd807f66a68088f1299ede8580f63822c82dd737&)
Time consuming (couldn't get the gradient to function correctly for a circle) but ultimately yeah, it's basically just some shithead taking a picture, cutting a circle, then doing some lighting effects.
-
(https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/hires/2017/studentsfilm.jpg)
(https://www.thetowntalk.com/gcdn/presto/2020/12/10/PALE/efeec19a-972e-4e88-be0c-35b747e8e3ad-129606958_4771175886286399_3694280280418633746_o.jpg?width=1050&height=605&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp)
These two images don't quite agree.
In short, it explains NOTHING!
Correct, gravity explains nothing.
Now let me show you why I find it so easy to dismiss all space footage.
How to produce your very own fake sphere.
1. Find a stock picture of ice and clouds or something. The more generic, the more people will forget that the Earth is supposed to have continents.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/97/8d/c9/978dc96e8471af82dfad9adf36262938.jpg)
2. Get a stock background or picture of space or whatever.
3. Draw a circle with blue to white gradient effect (GIMP has this tool)
4. Move it off toward the edge (space pictures never show the whole Earth being a sphere, while they show that cutoff effect all the time)
5. Cut out a circle from step 1, and paste it on top of the gradient.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1229316185246535730/Bullshit.png?ex=662f3cea&is=661cc7ea&hm=8f1db6dfbf54b84c1a5bb4e1dd807f66a68088f1299ede8580f63822c82dd737&)
Time consuming (couldn't get the gradient to function correctly for a circle) but ultimately yeah, it's basically just some shithead taking a picture, cutting a circle, then doing some lighting effects.
You’re a failure bulmabriefs144. You example looks nothing like the photos provided. With you not analysing the photos at all. Just trying to change the subject to your failed attempts.
Whole vedio below. Looks nothing like your distraction.
Weather Balloon launch - Aether One
bulmabriefs144, can’t even say you derail threads at this point. You’re a sideshow for the road of life.
-
These two images don't quite agree.
The first is from a fish eye lens, so that isn't surprising.
Correct, gravity explains nothing.
No, your delusional BS explains nothing.
Gravity works fine as already demonstrated.
Now let me show you why I find it so easy to dismiss all space footage.
You can make it a lot simpler.
It contradicts your delusional fantasy, the fantasy you cling to because you can't handle reality.
Just like you dismiss gravity, and anything else that contradicts your delusional BS.
If you accepted it, your fantasy would crumble, and you would have to face reality, and you just can't handle that.
You have nothing to actually dismiss it as fake.
Again, you being able to provide a crap fake doesn't show everything is fake.
If you really wanted to go down that path, you should dismiss all footage as fake, yet not too long ago you posted your own footage as evidence.
Now again, care to try to explain the pressure gradient, or be honest for once in your life and admit you can't?
-
So in short, I can dismiss the space footage the exact same way you all dismissed my eclipse video. Someone literally added dots to it, claiming it was doctored.
Hurray
Physics learned today!
Good, because you're about to learn more.
Mass does not "attract" mass. Rather, all mass can be said to be surrounded by a matrix (no, not like Trinity and Neo, like a surrounding web of atoms)
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwDHxCcaSneX82GFtYw0oc23mBluCQCMkNCFTIRzivnRtEv4vQbXI43IE422r4ns5O25nle7_WQ1LFrrgmO-JmLrUa3uvJLQRHc7UoLr1-y6SuzFBQrQ6RNX8AX4onWRhv2jY1CLrJdcU/s1600/apple-gravity.jpg)
If you drop an apple on a trampoline, the tight mesh of fabric and springs will cause it to bounce. If you drop it in a mesh net, its fall will largely be stopped. If you drop it in a big circus net, it will probably fall through.
Buoyancy is about the interaction of atoms with each other in a matrix. There is no traffic cop blowing the whistle to force anything to cross, they are crossing each others' path on their own.
When we say heavier, we are usually talking about thickness (rather than an imaginary concept of weight) factoring in atomic density as well as regular density. A coin of gold and a wooden nickel (don't take any wooden nickels!) appear to occupy the same physical space but the gold atomic matrix profile has significantly more density than the wood molecules. But density we mean volume of stuff per inches, cm, or even nanometers.
Going back to Newton's apple. Had he grabbed a hot air balloon and tested out his theory by tossing an apple over a lake on a misty day, he would see the apple encounter "wind resistance" as air is thicker the closer it gets to sea level, he'd see it hit the water, push through by virtue of its momentum, then scribble something down about "equal and opposite" as it begins to bob toward the surface.
If we were to look at this entire process with atoms somehow lit up, we would a see a mesh closing around the apple, momentum pulling it through, then a sort of trampoline elasticity as atoms adjust back to place.
Mass doesn't just push downward against mass. It realigns itself, it snaps back to where it belongs. The apple matches its actual location in the water after falling through the water for a few seconds, as surely as if it hit a trampoline.
This is why you shouldn't talk as it makes you look dumb. You completely overlooked the fact that buoyancy is an elastic reaction, instead talking about one way mass reactions as though that's a thing. If it were, Newton's apple would drill straight through solid earth until lava finally consumed it.
And when the air is pumped out of a container, a helium balloon thst was once floating sinks.
Showing bouyancy held it up.
And something.
Soomething else dropped ir back down
Amazing!
-
Are massive ocean liners not heavier than water?
How about hot air ballooons.
???
Density.
Density is mass spread throughout square inch. The bigger something is, the better it floats.
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-ships-work.html
You can't walk on water: you're too heavy and you'll sink like a stone. But this aircraft carrier can float, even though it's over 300m (1000ft) long, at least a million times heavier than you are, and carries about 70 airplanes and 4000 sailors.
Positive, negative, and neutral buoyancy
Buoyancy is easiest to understand thinking about a submarine. It has diving planes (fins mounted on the side) and ballast tanks that it can fill with water or air to make it rise or fall as it needs to. If its tanks are completely filled with air, it's said to be positively buoyant: the tanks weigh less than an equal volume of water and make the sub float on the surface. If the tanks are partly filled with air, it's possible to make the submarine float at some middle depth of the water without either rising up or sinking down. That's called neutral buoyancy. The other option is to fill the tanks completely with water. In that case, the submarine is negatively buoyant, which means it sinks to the seabed. Find out more about how submarines rise and fall.
Isn't that interesting! An article about buoyancy recognizes that sinking and floating are aspects of buoyancy. Almost like I know what I am talking about.
And you don't.
Now yes, many of these articles use "center of gravity" when they mean center of mass, or other unfortunate terms. But I pay that no mind, because I understand buoyancy and other forces properly. You guys keep asking how a big battleship can float. Same exact way a big jumbo jet can fly in the air (although in that case, there's also aerodynamics and propulsion).
Yes it is unfortunate that these articles talk about center of gravity when discussing buoyancy. As in ship design. I wonder why?
What do you think happens when the unfortunate center of gravity is above the center of pressure/ buoyancy?
Simple, your ship flips over!
Like two people standing in a canoe, ever try that? Not too stable, right?
Yes, because of that unfortunate center of gravity, ie a net force with direction.
Your theoretical foolishness lacks direction, so please don't try building any ships, thanks
You apparently understand absolutely nothing with regards to buoyancy.
Question if I drop a 6 inch dia ball and it 'falls' at 32 ft/sec/sec, what is the pressure difference top to bottom, to make that happen in your model?
-
I have quoted actual articles explaining buoyancy state that there is positive, neutral, and negative buoyancy. They use a submarine as an example. You can also use a hobby balloon, as it has flaps to release air.
You say that I am hanging on to a fantasy.
Yet as I explain over and over why gravity isn't right, why it can't be right, you conveniently lose track of the posts and threads of what I say.
If you just forget what I say, you can act like it never happened, right? You can make definitions of gravity that need special pleading (in space, not only must the nature of gravity change from causing falling to causing spinning, otherwise orbits fail and moons and planets all fall to the sun like it is a black hole since it is in fact the most massive object there, but objects somehow move without creating pressure), and I'll be too worn down to argue.
But I've told you how pressure gradients work. And I've told you again. And I've told you again. And I will continue to tell you that you're wrong again and again until I die from the illnesses that all writers with sedentary habits fall subject to. You will still be wrong.
The gravity model is implosive. If a force presses things only down, all atmosphere would cave in. Buoyancy works as positive, neutral, and negative. We don't need a separate force, kabool. And we know it isn't a separate force because of our little observation with the rubber ball and the plank dropped by the helicopter. The same motion happens in opposite directions.
If this were a force/counterforce thing, we would instead see resistance. That is, if you do tug of war and people actually try (in high school, they just let go and I was dragged into the mud because I had kinda the same person I do today, the kid who nobody liked because they were too earnest), you see a tension effect, where there's doubt as to what will win. If drop a feather to the ground, it ought to appear to press against buoyancy.
But that doesn't happen, instead it simply falls slowly. Propulsion acts against negative buoyancy and positive buoyancy, and you can see the actual struggle as you swim. There is no such counterforce here. The object slowly falls because it is just slightly more dense than air.
In the case of an object thrown that is more or less buoyant than where it is thrown, the object meets an area where it is more or less buoyant, it slows down, and reverses direction until it reaches the correct buoyancy. Ball rises due to propulsion, and falls as it loses upward motion because it is heavier than air. If it happens to hit water, you would see a sort of sine motion, downward arc from up followed by upward arc from down, settling at the surface.Neutral buoyancy is why things stay at their current level. That plank on the water will continue to float, until wood rot sets in or something. In the same way atoms find their level of buoyancy and stay there.
In a yoyo, propulsion, negative buoyancy, and tension all work in concert to create a bounce back effect. Negative buoyancy means the object falls, propulsion gives it momentum either up or down down, tension pulls it up. If the person sucks with a yoyo, it hits their hand rather than being caught, and negative buoyancy causes it to fall once again (rather than being pushed). I think temperature also sometimes affects buoyancy of air, but we might get into depth about that when you finally move on from outright denial of a proven law and discuss how hurricanes work.
This is not complicated. But if you insist on fantasy, you will reject explanations no matter how many times they are presented because it contradicts what you are taught in school by followers of Newton.
-
What do you think happens when the unfortunate center of gravity is above the center of pressure/ buoyancy?
Simple, your ship flips over!
Or how flat earth ignores in model rocketry why the center of gravity is place ahead of the center of pressure for stable flight in rocket design….
Why on a rocket is there a center of gravity and a separate center of pressure?
The center of pressure is the average location of where the pressure force is applied. Think of it like the center of gravity, the location where the average weight of an object is, except this time it is the location of average pressure. The center of pressure is where the forces of lift and drag are exerted. It is important for engineers to know the center of pressure since it allows them to evenly balance the lift on aircraft.
https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/what-center-pressure
If there is no gravity, how can a rocket have a center of gravity that is different than center of pressure?
The open post for a thread totally ignored…
Why do rockets have center of gravity and center of pressure?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=2400775;topic=91666.0
-
Going back to Newton's apple.
The apple accelerated down from the upper atmosphere with less pressure and density into the lower atmosphere with greater pressure and density. What was the unbalanced force that made the apple accelerate down into more resistance.
-
I have quoted actual articles explaining buoyancy
So?
You now have two problems to explain with your ignorance?
Why the center of gravity must be ahead of the center of pressure on an aircraft or rocket for stable flight.
What unbalanced force causes a dropped apple to not only accelerate down. But accelerate down from an atmosphere with less pressure and less density down into an atmosphere with more resistance, more pressure, more density trying to push the apple up.
-
Why would I need to explain that?
In debate, the person trying to push an argument is required to offer the burden of proof.
I've already explained buoyancy and am now minding my business. You're asserting these supposed problems, but you've yet to prove that space travel is even real. "What about the center of gravity in this thing versus the center of pressure?" If you asked a biology question about little green men of Venus, when I am not convinced Venus even has life, wouldn't the requirement be to prove to me that Venus in fact has life? How then, am I obligated to answer a question about space ships, when I neither accept they exist (in space) nor care about them?
(But most objects have a center of mass around their base)
Newtonism is a cult.You need to be deprogrammed.
There is no unbalanced force. The apple is ripe or overipe, and its branch is old and only big enough to hold it in its original size. If I were sitting in an old branch, I too would fall, not because of gravity but because I am heavier than the air and the branch. The branch creaks, cracks, and then splits when I put all my weight on a single branch. However people can and do climb trees, and even sleep in them. How is this possible? They scatter their mass along multiple branches. Exactly as you do when floating on water.
Once again, density as it relates to buoyancy.
There's no trick.
-
Why would I need to explain that?
I've already explained buoyancy
Because buoyancy doesn’t explain weight, why things weigh more as atmosphere is removed from a chamber, center of gravity, why center of gravity must be ahead of center of pressure for stable flight, why things accelerate down from less resistance onto more resistance.
Like fucking duh.
Gravity does. It works in calculations and Engineering in everything from ballistics to design of aircraft.
-
There is no unbalanced force.
Back to the ping pong ball.
Then why doesn’t the grater pressure and density of the lower atmosphere push a ping pong ball up into the upper atmosphere with less pressure and density.
Like a person keeping a ping pong ball floating on their breath?
So bulmabriefs144. Now three questions.
Why the center of gravity must be ahead of the center of pressure on an aircraft or rocket for stable flight.
What unbalanced force causes a dropped apple to not only accelerate down. But accelerate down from an atmosphere with less pressure and less density down into an atmosphere with more resistance, more pressure, more density trying to push the apple up.
What’s the downward force thats works against a person blowing with their breath trying to push a ping pong ball up where the exhaled breath and the downward force can reach an equilibrium where the ping pong ball floats.
-
but you've yet to prove that space travel is even real.
Now you want to go to space once your been shown how your buoyancy argument failed.
One. Our moon and comets. The moon literally is a natural satellite that orbits earth.
Two. The first manmade object in orbit around the earth. Sputnik. The launch placed a visible rocket stage in orbit that could be seen from the ground, changes the night sky for the unaided eye. Sputnik was certified by all kinds of people by its active broadcasting as it orbited earth.
-
I have quoted actual articles explaining buoyancy state that there is positive, neutral, and negative buoyancy.
Which is not saying buoyancy is actually pushing up or down.
Yet again, you are misrepresenting reality.
You may as well link to an article talking about the sunset to claim they are saying the sun is actually moving.
Yet as I explain over and over why gravity isn't right, why it can't be right, you conveniently lose track of the posts and threads of what I say.
You have NEVER explained why it isn't right nor why it can't be.
Instead, you just spout pure BS.
Conversely, I have explained why your buoyancy fantasy can't be right, and you just ignore it.
You can make definitions of gravity that need special pleading
We have no need to, and your lies about it don't change it.
not only must the nature of gravity change from causing falling to causing spinning
No, the nature of gravity remains an attraction resulting in an acceleration.
An orbit is continually falling towards the primary, while moving sideways so the curvature means you stay at the same height.
This is not special pleading.
Just like it isn't special pleading to point out that the logical consequence of this downwards acceleration is an approximately parabolic path if you throw an object upwards, yet is basically straight down if you just release the object.
Your blatant lies/misrepresentations of gravity does not mean gravity itself needs special pleading.
But I've told you how pressure gradients work.
No, you haven't.
You made a simple claim about them, and then had it explained why it is wrong.
You appealed to density, yet that density is a result of the pressure.
If it was simply density, then we would get CO2, then oxygen, then nitrogen.
Instead, we have a fairly uniform mix as the pressure changes, with higher pressure below.
And more importantly, you have nothing to make it that particular pressure gradient.
I will continue to tell you that you're wrong again and again until I die from the illnesses that all writers with sedentary habits fall subject to. You will still be wrong.
You telling me that I am wrong doesn't make me wrong.
And that is pretty much all you do. You tell me I am wrong, lie about why I am wrong, and then flee from the explanations of why you are wrong.
So no, I'm not wrong about this, and no matter how many times you falsely tell me I am wrong, that wont change it.
The gravity model is implosive. If a force presses things only down, all atmosphere would cave in.
i.e. if you pretend that gravity is the only force acting and ignore everything else, then the atmosphere caves in. In fact the entire Earth would, collapsing to a single point because the entire rest of physics has been removed meaning things can just fall through each other.
In a similar manner, a steel ball placed on an aluminium table would just fall through it in your delusion.
All this kind of BS does is show your dishonesty.
Again, doing it honestly, we understand that things can't just pass straight through each other. This includes gasses which exert pressure outwards when compressed.
The air above is pushing down on the air below, in turn pressurising it. This pressure in turn pushes back on the air above, holding it up.
This means we have a pressure gradient. This pressure gradient also acts to push everything up.
We don't need a separate force, kabool.
You need a force you can't explain.
We use gravity, and the logical consequences of it.
And we know it isn't a separate force
We know it is a separate force, resulting from gravity, because of the observable and measurable pressure gradient and how we know pressure works.
We know this pressure gradient is providing an upwards force on the object.
That means there are 2 forces involved, that pressure gradient a direct consequence of gravity, pushing up as well as gravity itself acting directly on the object trying to move it down.
If this were a force/counterforce thing, we would instead see resistance. That is, if you do tug of war and people actually try (in high school, they just let go and I was dragged into the mud because I had kinda the same person I do today, the kid who nobody liked because they were too earnest), you see a tension effect, where there's doubt as to what will win. If drop a feather to the ground, it ought to appear to press against buoyancy.
And more vague BS.
The reason tug of war works like that is because these children are changing the amount of force they are applying.
If you want a more honest comparison, try two springs.
You have an object held at the midpoint.
You attach 2 springs of different strength.
You then release the object.
It doesn't act like a tug of war.
Instead the springs pull and it goes to a position of equilibrium were both springs are pulling equally.
because it is just slightly more dense than air.
This is not a reason.
Why should being denser than air make it go down?
Perhaps more importantly, why does being slightly more dense than air make it go down slowly, while being significantly more dense than air make it go down at basically 9.8 m/s^2?
How come being much much more dense than air doesn't make it go down at say 20 m/s^2, or 100 m/s^2?
Again, it certainly is acting like there is a force trying to accelerate it down at a particular rate, and the buoyant force from the pressure gradient in the air is providing an upwards force against that, such that if that upwards force is insignificant, it basically just goes down at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, while only if the buoyant force is significant does that change.
move on from outright denial of a proven law
You mean the proven law of buoyancy that an object is buoyed UPWARDS by a force equal to the WEIGHT of the fluid displaced?
i.e. the proven law you continue to reject because it demonstrates is only an upwards force and is based upon weight, i.e. gravity?
This is not complicated.
Yet you keep playing dumb, acting like it is.
While you insist on fantasy, you will reject explanations no matter how many times they are presented because it contradicts your safety blanket that you use to try to escape reality.
-
Again, if you want your deslusional BS to actually work and be accepted there are several key questions to answer:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
-
Why would I need to explain that?
I've already explained buoyancy
Because buoyancy doesn’t explain weight, why things weigh more as atmosphere is removed from a chamber, center of gravity, why center of gravity must be ahead of center of pressure for stable flight, why things accelerate down from less resistance onto more resistance.
Like fucking duh.
Gravity does. It works in calculations and Engineering in everything from ballistics to design of aircraft.
Yeah, it does.
As I already explain in previous posts, the fact of the matter is, in a vacuum, a bowling ball and a feather hit the ground at the same rate. No fluttering about, no air resistance, they have different mass yet it makes no difference.
Weight? No such thing. There is only mass as compared to the medium's mass. Since everything with mass is heavier than a vacuum, everything falls like a stone.
Now, if you're delusional enough to pretend my posts that said exactly this have somehow never been said, you're surely delusional to act like it's gravitational weight and not the actions of buoyancy. But if you think that way, you might as well believe that the reason things float in water is because anti-gravity. Or something like that. FFS
If you're done playing pretend about imaginary planets which you haven't seen, and haven't been to, and how putting an apple on Venus (which you haven't seen, and haven't been to) or the moon (which you haven't seen, and haven't been to) or Mars (which you haven't seen, and haven't been to) will affect its so-called weight, we have actual tests in water and air, high altitudes, and vacuums that show actual behavior of objects.
정직하신 하나님, I write fantasy novels.
How is it that I'm more grounded than you?
Fucking dreaming of worlds you haven't seen.
"Never his mind on where he was *pokes* what he was doing. *pokes*"
You are on Earth. Everything on Earth has buoy where there is air and water. Vacuum tests show propulsion but no buoyancy. You cannot go to space. It's a sham. You might be able to visit Mars of Venus if they are outer sections, beyond the "South Pole", otherwise no, travel through vacuums is not possible without adding artificial propulsion.
Flying upward into space is the equivalent of bouncing on a trampoline off a cliff. Sure, you manage to boost yourself up thus far, but there is now nothing beneath you.
Or doing pushups on water. Give me 50 water pushups, maggot! Since it's so easy to press against nothing, you should be able to do this by this arfternoon.
-
Weight vs Mass?
Well no.
There IS a difference.
Because as a function of accelleration this is eeeasily provable in an elevator when it starts and stops.
Weight is a name for the generic downward force due to gravity.
Weight specific name and is a Force.
Buoyabcy is up.
Not down.
Look at how pressure gradient pushing things up.
There is no mechanism for down unless you beleive fluids are sentient.
Fantastic
Scienece tuesday
-
Weight vs Mass?
Well no.
There IS a difference.
Yes. One is based on a law that isn't real to explain different "weights" on different "planets" that only NASA tells us they've visited. The other is the objective number of tons, lb, and oz that something has.
One is your delusion, the other is a fact witnessed by everyone.
Buoyabcy is up.
Not down.
Again.
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-ships-work.html
Positive, negative, and neutral buoyancy
Buoyancy is easiest to understand thinking about a submarine. It has diving planes (fins mounted on the side) and ballast tanks that it can fill with water or air to make it rise or fall as it needs to. If its tanks are completely filled with air, it's said to be positively buoyant: the tanks weigh less than an equal volume of water and make the sub float on the surface. If the tanks are partly filled with air, it's possible to make the submarine float at some middle depth of the water without either rising up or sinking down. That's called neutral buoyancy. The other option is to fill the tanks completely with water. In that case, the submarine is negatively buoyant, which means it sinks to the seabed.
Read the paragraph. I'm tired of your denial mode. Repeat back what that paragraph says.
Negative buoyancy is when objects sink. Positive buoyancy is when objects float. Neutral buoyancy is when objects remain at level. A board floating on water has positive buoyancy vs the water below it, neutral buoyancy vs its current level, and negative buoyancy vs the air below it. This determines its place.
The more you have on a boat, the less it floats. Mass causes negative buoyancy. Not some magical force pulling things toward the ground, the mere fact that it's a substance. Substances don't hang in midair like in Zelda TOTK. That would be a neutral buoyancy object. Because most objects are more dense than air (water/lava/etc), they sink, when they have the same density, they stay put, and when they have less density, they rise. When something is less dense than its current surface but more than the surface above it (wood being less dense than water but more dense than air), they float on top.
-
teh mechanism for bouyancy is the presure gradient.
mass of object is not involved.
and it's always up.
if the object has a force down, aka weight, that is greater than the force up, aka bouyancy, then the ojbect sinks.
but you insist - so now you need to explain how squeezing more from the bottom (pressure) and less from the top (gradient) results in a downward push.
if an empty bucket floats.
the water doesn't change but when filled with rocks starts to sink via water reversing course and pushing it down.
how does it do that?
how does pushing up result in something getting pushed down?
your challenge is to show the mechanism.
"dig up, stupid"
-
Everything on Earth has buoy where there is air and water.
On earth you can effectively remove any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere from a chamber. Fluid which is required for buoyancy. Yet objects still fall down and still have weight.
Vacuum tests show propulsion but no buoyancy.
Which is a lie. From electrons flowing in a vacuum tube. Guns still fire bullets. Springs still make things move. Rockets still work in a vacuum. Think of rockets as a chemical spring.
Why would the laws of motion magically stop in a vacuum.
And you most definitely have not answered nor addressed…
Why the center of gravity must be ahead of the center of pressure on an aircraft or rocket for stable flight.
Nor have you addressed these issues…
What unbalanced force causes a dropped apple to not only accelerate down. But accelerate down from an atmosphere with less pressure and less density down into an atmosphere with more resistance, more pressure, more density trying to push the apple up.
What’s the downward force thats works against a person blowing with their breath trying to push a ping pong ball up where the exhaled breath and the downward force can reach an equilibrium where the ping pong ball floats.
So no bulmabriefs144, you have not addressed the below.
Because buoyancy doesn’t explain weight, why things weigh more as atmosphere is removed from a chamber, center of gravity, why center of gravity must be ahead of center of pressure for stable flight, why things accelerate down from less resistance onto more resistance.
Like fucking duh.
Gravity does. It works in calculations and Engineering in everything from ballistics to design of aircraft.
By all means show with only buoyancy how long it would take a ball from rest to drop 10 feet. Do it for a 5 pound ball and a 10 pound ball. Each about the size of a soft ball.
-
As I already explain in previous posts
No, you haven't.
You are yet to explain anything.
Instead you just continue to assert buoyancy makes things fall with no explanation at all.
Weight? No such thing.
Then a scale would not be able to measure that force.
Now, if you're delusional enough to pretend my posts that said exactly this have somehow never been said
It isn't that your BS hasn't been said, it is that your BS explains NOTHING!
But if you think that way, you might as well believe that the reason things float in water is because anti-gravity. Or something like that. FFS
No, it is because of the pressure gradient, the thing which destroys your delusional BS.
The thing you are yet to explain.
we have actual tests in water and air, high altitudes, and vacuums that show actual behavior of objects.
Yes, including that a pressure gradient exists in them due to gravity which pushes objects up.
Something you can't explain at all.
Vacuum tests show propulsion but no buoyancy. You cannot go to space.
You already admitted you can.
Once more, going to space does not rely upon buoyancy.
travel through vacuums is not possible without adding artificial propulsion.
Like a rocket engine?
Again, rocket engines work by expelling exhaust at high speed. The rocket pushes the exhaust back and in turn that exhaust pushes the rocket forwards.
And then it cruises.
You are yet to show any fault with how rockets work.
You just make pathetic dishonest comparisons to pretend they can't.
Yes. One is based on a law that isn't real
Your irrational hatred of gravity doesn't mean it is not real.
We also don't need to go to different planets.
The weights of objects varies on Earth.
That is one of the key things you can't explain.
Mass is effectively the resistance to change in motion.
Weight is a downwards force.
These are 2 separate things.
Even if you want to spout pure BS and pretend that buoyancy causes things to fall, weight is still different to mass.
One is your delusion, the other is a fact witnessed by everyone.
Gravity is a fact witnessed by everyone. Your delusional perversion of buoyancy is your delusion.
Read the paragraph.
Why don't you?
Instead of looking at "it's said to be positively buoyant", point out where it says buoyancy is a downwards force making things sink.
Again, look at the Archimedes principle:
"Any object, totally or partially immersed in a fluid or liquid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object."
The object is buoyed UPWARDS, and this is based upon WEIGHT.
Again, buoyancy is an upwards force which is based upon gravity.
This produces a coherent explanation. Your delusional BS does not.
Or if you prefer we can use your reference, taking a link from that page we get here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140712071107/http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/blowballast/sub/work3.htm
And what does it say:
"Submerged, the submarine can obtain neutral buoyancy. That means the weight of the submarine equals the amount of water it displaces."
Notice how it again appeals to weight.
But we can also look at what your source says directly:
"Now most boats don't operate in quite the same way as submarines. They don't sink, but they don't exactly float either. A boat partly floats and partly sinks according to its own weight and how much weight it carries; the greater the total of these two weights, the lower it sits in the water. There's only so much weight a boat can carry without sinking into the water so much that it... does actually sink completely! For ships to sail safely, we need to know how much weight we can put in or on them without getting anywhere near this point. So how can we figure that out?"
Notice how many times it says weight?
And it states the Archimedes principle:
"Later, he came up with the famous law of physics now known as Archimedes' Principle: when something is resting in or on water, it feels an upward (buoyant) force equal to the weight of the water that it pushes aside (or displaces). If an object is completely submerged, this buoyant force, pushing upwards, effectively reduces its weight: it seems to weigh less when it's underwater than it does if it were on dry land. That's why something like a rubber diving brick (one of those bricks you train with in a swimming pool) feels lighter when you pick it up from underwater than when you bring it to the surface and lift it through the air: underwater, you're getting a helping hand from the buoyant force."
Notice how it also clearly describes the buoyant force as upwards?
I'm tired of your denial mode.
The one in denial here is you.
Buoyancy is an upwards force.
This is verified by countless sources, and basic physics.
You wish to reject that and pretend it is your delusional BS so you can pretend it works to replace gravity.
But in reality, far from being able to replace gravity, buoyancy relies upon gravity.
Substances don't hang in midair
Because gravity acts on them.
Without gravity, there is no force to accelerate them so no reason for them to fall.
Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
Again, gravity addresses them fine.
-
this is facsinating
we can, because you previously did, agree that water and air and fluids all have a pressure gradient.
the deeper you go - the more pressure.
and that fluid only "sees" the surface of any object.
a bucket can be full of rocks or full of air - but the fluid doesn't know which!
so what mechanism of the fluid acting on the object will cause it to go down or up?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331186737/figure/fig1/AS:743945394991104@1554381812342/Relationship-of-underwater-depth-gas-volume-and-gas-pressure-Adapted-from-Lynch-and.ppm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331186737/figure/fig1/AS:743945394991104@1554381812342/Relationship-of-underwater-depth-gas-volume-and-gas-pressure-Adapted-from-Lynch-and.ppm
-
As I already explain
You haven’t explained nor proven crap.
Show how to more efficiently make heavier than air aircraft flight more stable by discarding center of gravity.
Show how to calculate the time it takes a ball from rest to drop ten 10 feet with buoyancy.
See. You can’t even accurately model things achieved in physics 101 with gravity in your ignorance.
-
teh mechanism for bouyancy is the presure gradient.
mass of object is not involved.
and it's always up.
Ahhh, now I understand the problem. So because you had stupid dogmatic teachers, you think because "My teacher is the greatest ever" what you are taught must be right regardless.
If you had been taught that pretty people are also kind and smart, would you go on believing this universally despite being shown otherwise time and again? Despite people being all types, "My teacher is the greatest ever."
No new information ever penetrates. As for me, I learn new things every day. I just refuse to learn stupid things.
if the object has a force down, aka weight, that is greater than the force up, aka bouyancy, then the ojbect sinks.
Here's an actual problem with this. Unless gravity or buoyancy were self-balancing, they would continue much like the IRS, a subject to their own excesses. You've seen movies where "zero gravity" is featured. Here's the problem. They behave as objects with neutral buoyancy. That is, they don't rise like that scene in the original Willy Wonka,
they kinda vaguely float around in the air.
But if buoyancy is an upward force, and gravity is a downward force, then we have a problem. In the absence of gravity, things go only up and up. Likewise, until they hit water level, if nothing else is buoyant, all air with gravity pressing down collapses to sea level, below even the level where humans can breathe air. These forces should counter each other, but what make a lot more damn sense is that they counter themselves. In fact, that's what the article says happens with buoyancy.
Again, until you see it.
Positive, negative, and neutral buoyancy
Buoyancy is easiest to understand thinking about a submarine. It has diving planes (fins mounted on the side) and ballast tanks that it can fill with water or air to make it rise or fall as it needs to. If its tanks are completely filled with air, it's said to be positively buoyant: the tanks weigh less than an equal volume of water and make the sub float on the surface. If the tanks are partly filled with air, it's possible to make the submarine float at some middle depth of the water without either rising up or sinking down. That's called neutral buoyancy. The other option is to fill the tanks completely with water. In that case, the submarine is negatively buoyant, which means it sinks to the seabed.
A force, any force, needs to have a restraint system. Magnets don't just pull metal towards them (that would be dangerous), they also repel other magnets. Momentum eventual develops resistance (what some people call "inertia" but I call the decay of momentum through entropy). Buoyancy doesn't just go up, it goes down, and even stays put. With one force having it covered, we don't need a second "force" to counter it.
and that fluid only "sees" the surface of any object.
a bucket can be full of rocks or full of air - but the fluid doesn't know which!
so what mechanism of the fluid acting on the object will cause it to go down or up?
Buoyancy is the mechanism. Buoyancy is the force. Rocks, being a solid are more tightly packed than air.
(https://media1.thehungryjpeg.com/thumbs2/ori_3500486_4493933847782e39f25a4cdeac5a49126fd156fa_fundamentals-states-of-matter-with-molecules-vector-infographics.jpg)
If you filled a bucket full of steam, it should be lighter than a bucket of ice cubes (since the former won't steam in the bucket!) Interestingly, water is the one substance where the liquid form is more dense than the solid form, as water tends to form hollow solids.
Because objects are more dense, they sink!
Now if you care to open your mind even a little bit, here's a quick film that asks "what if gravity isn't a fundamental force?" I haven't watched it, so I have no idea where it's going with it.
Oh it's the guy who says gravity is entropy.
This is alot cooler.
-
In the absence of gravity
Things go in the direction of the pressure gradient.
Dancing around words does you no good.
You still have no mechanism.
Sure.
Lets call gravity: negative boyuancy.
Under positive bouyancy, the fluid prsssure pushes on the surfsce of the object.
The fluid doesnt change.
Swap that object or fill that object with lead.
Suddenly the object negativelyboyuancies.
How?
"Because ots heavier".
So now how does the fluid know its heavier when all it sees is the surface?
Once again - how does digging up stupid, get you out of this hole?
-
There's no such thing as 'negative buoyancy'.
You just making crap up.
In orbit, everything is weightless, so no buoyancy there.
This actually a technical engineering challenge for liquid filled things like batteries, cause the gas bubbles move toward higher temperature, lower surface tension, without buoyancy.
-
There's no such thing as 'negative buoyancy'.
You just making crap up.
In orbit, everything is weightless, so no buoyancy there.
This actually a technical engineering challenge for liquid filled things like batteries, cause the gas bubbles move toward higher temperature, lower surface tension, without buoyancy.
Scroll up
He got the phrase from some article about submarines.
-
Ahhh, now I understand the problem. So because you had stupid dogmatic teachers
No, the problem is you are spouting pure BS.
You are ignoring the massive problems with your BS and just respouting the same refuted BS.
You are not even attempting the massive problems with your BS, and instead are just throwing out these insults.
This is not about what teachers have taught.
It is about what is observed in reality and actually provides a coherent explanation.
Here's an actual problem with this. Unless gravity or buoyancy were self-balancing, they would continue much like the IRS, a subject to their own excesses.
Just what is this meant to mean?
[/quote]
They behave as objects with neutral buoyancy.
Regardless of their density.
Low density objects and high density objects behave the same, as if buoyancy stopped existing.
But if buoyancy is an upward force, and gravity is a downward force, then we have a problem. In the absence of gravity
As explained, buoyancy is not some magical separate force that always exists.
Gravity causes a pressure gradients in fluids which in turn causes an upwards force.
Buoyancy is a direct result of gravity.
In the absence of gravity you don't have buoyancy.
And more explicitly, in the absence of a normal force (technical meaning, not common meaning) in response to gravity, you don't have the pressure gradient or buoyancy.
So no, YOU have a problem, a problem that you continually lie about things you don't like to pretend they don't work.
if nothing else is buoyant, all air with gravity pressing down collapses to sea level
Again, gravity means the upper layers of the air are pushing down on the lower layers, compressing them. This results in the lower layers pushing up.
Again, you are spouting delusional crap with no justification at all.
Again, until you see it.
Again, colloquial terms.
Your own source makes it clear that buoyancy is an upwards force based upon weight displaced.
You ignoring that and repeating this same dishonest BS just shows everyone you don't care about the truth.
A force, any force, needs to have a restraint system.
No, it doesn't.
Yet again you are just spouting delusional BS.
With one force having it covered, we don't need a second "force" to counter it.
The problem is that your "1 force" doesn't have it covered.
Your "1 force" leaves so many problems it isn't funny.
But again, look at gravity.
It causes fluids to generate a pressure gradient which in turn cause an upwards force on objects in that fluid.
1 force, and the results of it, have it covered.
Interestingly, water is the one substance where the liquid form is more dense than the solid form, as water tends to form hollow solids.
No, it is one of many.
Because objects are more dense, they sink!
Again, the question is why?
Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
Again, gravity addresses them fine.
-
If you want buoyancy
Google
BOKA Vanguard ship.
buoyancy taken to the extreme
-
Buoyancy, again, is a balance. Misusing the word.
But yeah, I googled it. It's able to carry vessels of 110,000 tons.
He got the phrase from some article about submarines.
The original article was about how heavy ships like the HMS Hood are able to float just fine. It's about buoyancy, period.
Though Cameron's skepticism is understandable. For years, people have been told buoyancy only goes up, gravity only goes down. The idea that a single force is its own counterforce is difficult for ppl to accept.
-
It's about buoyancy, period.
Not for many everyday items.
If you want a ship to stay upright as designed, not merely float, it’s about center of gravity.
For stable flight of aircraft heavier than air, the center of gravity must be ahead of center of pressure.
How do you calculate how long it takes a ball to drop with just buoyancy?
-
Buoyancy, again, is a balance.
i thought so as well.
but no
jackB already correct us a few weeks back.
bouancy:
no it's the upward force minus the gravity
No, it is the upwards force.
Things float when the buoyant force (i.e. buoyancy) balances gravity (and the centripetal force).
centripedal: was my example of a math convention
the net inward forces holding the thing in from shooting out.
if there's a nascar car going around the turn there's wheel friction + angled ramp normal force = centrepdal to hold the car around the curve
Yes, notice how it is the force to hold the car around the curve?
i.e. the inwards force required to maintain that curve.
However, I may have misread your previous statement. Yes, it does not include any force for tangential acceleration. So any force from things like the engine going to accelerate the car tangentially is not part of it.
-
Buoyancy, again, is a balance. Misusing the word.
YOU are misusing the word.
Buoyancy is an upwards force.
Again, your own article made that clear.
Again, this ties directly back to something you cannot explain, the pressure gradient.
Gravity results in a pressure gradient which results in an upwards force known as buoyancy.
This is an upwards force based upon the weight of the displaced fluid, and a direct result of gravity.
Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
Again, gravity addresses them fine.
-
Again, this ties directly back to something you cannot explain, the pressure gradient.
Why is it you think that I can't explain this?
You don't understand buoyancy as it really is, instead understanding the fairy tale version taught to you by Newton and his heirs.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1230691376077996032/PressureGradients.png?ex=66231a29&is=6621c8a9&hm=29d96d709bccb9c995b8ea7574c51d682d36d65bde57b5c22e1e1179762c6dc6&)
1. Atoms and molecules of similar density ranges inhabit different layers of the pressure gradient.
2. These usually stay in place due to neutral buoyancy causing them to neither sink nor rise.
3. Changes in air density are due to changes in air pressure due to temperature. That is, "hot air rises, cool air falls." Since air conducts heat, this creates the near constant fluctuations known as weather.
4. However, overall, the gradients stay relatively fixed (more and more so at higher elevations, where there is little air to absorb heat beyond that to stay level).
5. This in turn means that a mountain climber climbing from a lower elevation to a higer one not only struggles to breathe, but distinctly feels a "force of gravity". Having climbed mountains before, I didn't feel the "reduced gravity" that supposedly exists in thinner air. I felt "increased gravity", actually. This is natural. Objects of higher mass struggle to stay afloat in area of lower pressure. The brainwashed think that sounds contradictory, yet don't blink at the actual reality that when you climb uphill, it is harder to climb. Everyone knows this but they are then told at high elevations, you ought to be able to moon jump. Tell me why.
6. It also means that their are height limits to flying transportation. They are struggling against layers of atmosphere where they push off of less air than they need to float or fly. The gravity theory doesn't explain why planes cannot simply fly higher by pushing harder, but the idea of thinner layers of air explains that there is no ignition, no propulsion, and negative buoyancy.
-
Again, this ties directly back to something you cannot explain, the pressure gradient.
Why is it you think that I can't explain this?
You don't understand buoyancy as it really is, instead understanding the fairy tale version taught to you by Newton and his heirs.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1230691376077996032/PressureGradients.png?ex=66231a29&is=6621c8a9&hm=29d96d709bccb9c995b8ea7574c51d682d36d65bde57b5c22e1e1179762c6dc6&)
1. Atoms and molecules of similar density ranges inhabit different layers of the pressure gradient.
2. These usually stay in place due to neutral buoyancy causing them to neither sink nor rise.
3. Changes in air density are due to changes in air pressure due to temperature. That is, "hot air rises, cool air falls." Since air conducts heat, this creates the near constant fluctuations known as weather.
4. However, overall, the gradients stay relatively fixed (more and more so at higher elevations, where there is little air to absorb heat beyond that to stay level).
5. This in turn means that a mountain climber climbing from a lower elevation to a higer one not only struggles to breathe, but distinctly feels a "force of gravity". Having climbed mountains before, I didn't feel the "reduced gravity" that supposedly exists in thinner air. I felt "increased gravity", actually. This is natural. Objects of higher mass struggle to stay afloat in area of lower pressure. The brainwashed think that sounds contradictory, yet don't blink at the actual reality that when you climb uphill, it is harder to climb. Everyone knows this but they are then told at high elevations, you ought to be able to moon jump. Tell me why.
6. It also means that their are height limits to flying transportation. They are struggling against layers of atmosphere where they push off of less air than they need to float or fly. The gravity theory doesn't explain why planes cannot simply fly higher by pushing harder, but the idea of thinner layers of air explains that there is no ignition, no propulsion, and negative buoyancy.
Bulma, would you like me to list the number of industries that rely on your explanation of buoyancy being totally wrong? What about how Navy submarines work.
I'll bet your left nut you have never ever picked up a physics book to see what is written inside about buoyancy, have you? Yet you seem to deem yourself a buoyancy expert. Can you even adequately explain how a cork floats on water? What you have is called "arrogance" my flat brained little debating adversary. Arrogance on top of everything else you have going on.
You are in no position to be explaining how weather works. Try explaining why such a thing as "maximum velocity" exists, regarding an object falling to earth, if gravity is not a thing?
-
1. Atoms and molecules of similar density ranges inhabit different layers of the pressure gradient.
Wrong for earth’s atmosphere. The majority of gasses that make up the atmosphere are very throughly mixed.
There is even very low levels of oxygen in the upper atmosphere with lighter gasses.
Exosphere
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
This layer is mainly composed of extremely low densities of hydrogen, helium and several heavier molecules including nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide closer to the exobase.
So. You’re wrong from the get go. Each layer is a mix of different gases.
2. These usually stay in place due to neutral buoyancy causing them to neither sink nor rise.
Gas molecules are not like bobbers that float. They are like little bullets move around in three dimension as long as the temperature is above absolute zero.
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hasan-Maridi/publication/337745105/figure/fig25/AS:832485546029056@1575491429130/Illustration-of-the-mixing-of-two-gases-Gases-spontaneously-migrate-to-opposite-chambers.jpg)
1 Illustration of the mixing of two gases. Gases spontaneously migrate to opposite chambers once the valve is opened.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Illustration-of-the-mixing-of-two-gases-Gases-spontaneously-migrate-to-opposite-chambers_fig25_337745105
The gasses that make up the majority of the atmosphere are relatively light, and self mixing from their kinetic energy.
In a contained bottle, these gasses seek to equal distance from other molecules.
bulmabriefs144.
Your model doesn’t explain the mixing and motion of the molecules of our atmosphere.
Doesn’t explain what force overcomes the tendency of the gas molecules to equal distance themselves to literally force them to bunch up at the earths surface in equilibrium with gravity.
You still haven’t explained center of gravity in ship design. It’s one thing for a ship to float, it’s another thing to use center of gravity to keep it up right as designed.
You still haven’t explained why there is center of gravity. And why it needs to be ahead of the center of pressure for stability in heavier than air aircraft.
And you haven’t shown your model can even achieve the accuracy acquired by physics 101 for falling bodies.
-
Why is it you think that I can't explain this?
Because you are yet to come close.
For example you appeal to the density of the air, which is a result of the pressure, as if that should magically hold back the pressure.
But if we increase the pressure or decrease the pressure, it doesn't just stay put.
There is a particular pressure gradient which is observed.
We see a different gradient in fluids with different density.
We also see that fluids, especially air, are well mixed.
If it was going to separate based upon density then we would have a layer of CO2, followed by a layer of O2, followed by a layer of N2.
Instead, what we observe is a mixture of all three, at different pressures.
You don't understand buoyancy as it really is, instead understanding the fairy tale version taught to you by Newton and his heirs.
Quite the opposite it. I understand it, so I recognise you are spouting pure BS.
I recognise your delusional BS doesn't work.
1. Atoms and molecules of similar density ranges inhabit different layers of the pressure gradient.
That's right, similar density ranges atoms throughout this pressure gradient, and a variation of that density throughout (i.e. density does not correspond to layer).
We have atoms like CO2, right next to atoms like O2 and N2.
As a reminder, CO2 has a "density" of 44. O2 is 32. Nitrogen is 28. That is almost double.
Yet this range happily coexists throughout the atmosphere.
2. These usually stay in place due to neutral buoyancy causing them to neither sink nor rise.
Again, this is entirely ignoring the pressure gradient.
So we have neutral density. That means the pressure gradient pushes it to remove that pressure gradient.
Changes in air density are due to changes in air pressure due to temperature. That is, "hot air rises, cool air falls." Since air conducts heat, this creates the near constant fluctuations known as weather.
Temperature is not the only factor. Altitude is.
We can also see this pressure gradient in other fluids like water, and confirm they are the same temperature, yet a different pressure.
We also don't see the crazy motion of the air you would expect from this pressure gradient.
Having climbed mountains before, I didn't feel the "reduced gravity" that supposedly exists in thinner air.
What do you mean supposedly exists?
You appear to be spouting pure BS.
The change in gravity from climbing is negligible. Unless you are using accurate devices you will not detect it.
As a simplification, gravity follows a law of F=GMm/r^2, where you treat a roughly spherically symmetric mass (like Earth) as a point at the centre.
The radius of Earth is roughly 6371 km.
The height of Mt Everest is roughly 9 km.
That means you go from 6371 to 6380.
That means gravity at the top will have decreased to (6371/6380)^2 or 99.7% of that at sea level.
So if you weigh 100 kg at the sea level, you will weigh 99.7 kg at the peak, or 0.3 kg or 300 g lighter.
You will lose exhale roughly 1 kg of CO2, which is roughly the same.
If you include sweat and so on, your weight fluctuates by far more than that over the course of a day. Are you really telling me you can feel that?
when you climb uphill, it is harder to climb.
Yes, because you have climbed, so you are tired.
Then if you rest, it is fine. Until you get to very high altitudes and you start running out of oxygen.
but they are then told at high elevations, you ought to be able to moon jump. Tell me why.
Because lying scum like you spout pure BS to ridicule gravity because you can't actually refute it.
Why don't you tell me who, other than you, is saying such crap?
6. It also means that their are height limits to flying transportation.
That depends on how you define "flying". If you mean it uses the air to generate lift, then yes.
If you mean anything that goes through the air including things like rockets, then no.
But as you have no explanation for the pressure gradient, there should be no limit.
The gravity theory doesn't explain why planes cannot simply fly higher by pushing harder
Again, it does.
Gravity directly explains the pressure gradient. This pressure gradient means the air is thinner higher, so things like planes which use the air to generate lift, have a limited altitude.
Things like rockets, which use them propelling exhaust gasses generated or stored inside at high pressure and velocity to push forwards do not have such a limit.
I notice in all that crap of yours you still entirely failed to address the issues raised, including the pressure gradient. You basically said it exists with no justification of why.
Why should buoyancy cause this pressure gradient?
Say you have water of uniform density in a tube.
What causes the water at the bottom to get more bunched up from this?
I can even slowly pour the water in, or condense it from a gas.
Regardless of how it goes in there, it creates a pressure gradient.
WHY?
What causes this pressure gradient to form?
If I consider any part of the water, it is as the same density as the rest, so there is no reason for a pressure gradient at all. It should just sit there neutrally buoyant.
And then why doesn't this pressure gradient push all the water up and out of the tube?
Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
Again, gravity addresses them fine.
-
1. Atoms and molecules of similar density ranges inhabit different layers of the pressure gradient.
Then it’s been showed again and again what happens to liquids if you place them in free fall. They go from being separated by density to being mixed….
I ignore the stuff that's fictional in the telling of how certain things work.
As I said before, if gravity has to be involved then the science is pseudo-science.
Hmm..
As shown by experiments, it takes gravity to do this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JhNjcSGF/images-8.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
You're getting weaker by the second.
Then why do these liquids mix?
Liquids in near-Zero G
Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'
What’s your expectation why the liquids mix?
Why do a feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate when air resistance is made negligible.
Why can gravity accurately model a dropped ball when den pressure can’t?
Why can gravity accurately model tides and make accurate predictions?
-
Again, this ties directly back to something you cannot explain, the pressure gradient.
Why is it you think that I can't explain this?
You don't understand buoyancy as it really is, instead understanding the fairy tale version taught to you by Newton and his heirs.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1230691376077996032/PressureGradients.png?ex=66231a29&is=6621c8a9&hm=29d96d709bccb9c995b8ea7574c51d682d36d65bde57b5c22e1e1179762c6dc6&)
1. Atoms and molecules of similar density ranges inhabit different layers of the pressure gradient.
2. These usually stay in place due to neutral buoyancy causing them to neither sink nor rise.
3. Changes in air density are due to changes in air pressure due to temperature. That is, "hot air rises, cool air falls." Since air conducts heat, this creates the near constant fluctuations known as weather.
4. However, overall, the gradients stay relatively fixed (more and more so at higher elevations, where there is little air to absorb heat beyond that to stay level).
5. This in turn means that a mountain climber climbing from a lower elevation to a higer one not only struggles to breathe, but distinctly feels a "force of gravity". Having climbed mountains before, I didn't feel the "reduced gravity" that supposedly exists in thinner air. I felt "increased gravity", actually. This is natural. Objects of higher mass struggle to stay afloat in area of lower pressure. The brainwashed think that sounds contradictory, yet don't blink at the actual reality that when you climb uphill, it is harder to climb. Everyone knows this but they are then told at high elevations, you ought to be able to moon jump. Tell me why.
6. It also means that their are height limits to flying transportation. They are struggling against layers of atmosphere where they push off of less air than they need to float or fly. The gravity theory doesn't explain why planes cannot simply fly higher by pushing harder, but the idea of thinner layers of air explains that there is no ignition, no propulsion, and negative buoyancy.
Bulma, would you like me to list the number of industries that rely on your explanation of buoyancy being totally wrong? What about how Navy submarines work.
I'll bet your left nut you have never ever picked up a physics book to see what is written inside about buoyancy, have you? Yet you seem to deem yourself a buoyancy expert. Can you even adequately explain how a cork floats on water? What you have is called "arrogance" my flat brained little debating adversary. Arrogance on top of everything else you have going on.
You are in no position to be explaining how weather works. Try explaining why such a thing as "maximum velocity" exists, regarding an object falling to earth, if gravity is not a thing?
You owe me your left nut. I picked up a physics book when I went to school, like everyone else. I shall pound it flat, and grind into sausage. Hope you're not too attached to it.
Further, the aforementioned businesses would not be affected (at all) if I am right. As the article I cited explains, the submarine descends by taking on water in a chamber (we actually saw how this works in an episode of Monk as someone was deliberately trying to drown Monk by descending the submarine), ascends by releasing the ballast and removing water, then opening an air pocket thingy, and stays put by neither taking on more ballast nor adding air and releasing water. This is exactly what it does.
By contrast, if you were right, a great number of jobs would be affected by your flawed idea. Let's see, oceanographer, marine biologist, every job at sea world (except maybe the janitor who cleans crap off the floors... oh wait, even he uses displacement for his mop), in fact every job not just dealing with water but physical matter requires matter to sink/stay the same/float. Typing would be extremely difficult if your fingers had to push against gravity.
Do you mean terminal velocity? Because that's what the word is called. This is commonly defined as:
Terminal velocity is the maximum velocity attainable by an object as it falls through a fluid. It occurs when the sum of the drag force and the buoyancy is equal to the downward force of gravity acting on the object.
These numbers are impossible to calculate because "downward force of gravity" is a made-up constant, drag force (or fluid resistance) is not something anyone can calculate (you would have to literally be falling or watch someone else do so, and in the former case, you have more important matter like dying than calculating the amount of drag).
Let's try an idea that doesn't make no sense.
As I looked up "terminal velocity of a human", they estimate it at roughly 150-180 mph. Why the variance? Well, probably because this is a typical range of mass for a human (subtracting fat). You see, fat is buoyant, so it doesn't really add to our calculations here (it might even help them). A 400 lb sumo wrestler has (despite his protesting) mostly fat in his body, so what we're really talking about is muscle, blood, bones, stuff like that.
Then what we're talking about is is the difference between the mass of the person, animal, potted plant, or object and the air. Or to put it bluntly, an object's density (not its weight) is what determines terminal velocity. A short and cute (let's put her at 4'10", taller than a dwarf but well below standard female height) 98 lb woman is actually more likely to fall faster than her weight than a 6'10" sumo wrestler mentioned above.
So what is happening here? Well, basically, as an object falls, it displaces air around it. Eventually, the distance is equal to the total mass of displaced air. Or more specifically, the density of an object with regard to the air it pushes around itself.
A penny weighs 2.5 grams, reaches terminal velocity of 50 mph at 50 ft. That's a 1/3 of the speed of a human. Clearly mass itself is not really the factor. It's the amount of air around the object being displaced and the density of the object.
By the way someone asked the internet about those potted plants you see fall in shows and movies. Surely, if this were real science, they ought to be able to give us a good estimate, right? Well...
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/650900/when-does-a-falling-flowerpot-reach-maximum-speed
It is only possible to calculate it for the specific pot.
Then they directed the person to an online calculator. That's because the formula is such gibberish that no sane person can calculate it for the simple question of a pot thrown out of a building window. Not a guideline, not anything.
https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/terminal-velocity-calculator.php
If you're interested, the only thing you have to answer is the area and mass. The other stuff is filled in. Ignoring the drag coefficient and gravity (which either do not exist or cannot be measured without, you know, falling), only adjusting the air pressure, I was able to reduce the speed that a penny falls by 20 mph by increasing air pressure by 2 lb. This tracks. The thicker the air, the more resistance it would create, in line with what I already accept about buoyancy.
-
6. It also means that their are height limits to flying transportation.
For aircraft that use atmosphere to oxidize fuel, or use propellers. Not for rockets. Why do things fall in a vacuum. Why do electrons travel over a distance in a vacuum tube. Guns still fire in a vacuum, and the bullet travels through a vacuum. Comets orbit the sun and the moon orbits the earth.
A spring still launches things in a vacuum.
Why do you think the laws of motion magically stop in a vacuum?
Anyway..
bulmabriefs144.
Your model doesn’t explain the mixing and motion of the molecules of our atmosphere.
Doesn’t explain what force overcomes the tendency of the gas molecules to equal distance themselves to literally force them to bunch up at the earths surface in equilibrium with gravity.
You still haven’t explained center of gravity in ship design. It’s one thing for a ship to float, it’s another thing to use center of gravity to keep it up right as designed.
You still haven’t explained why there is center of gravity. And why it needs to be ahead of the center of pressure for stability in heavier than air aircraft.
And you haven’t shown your model can even achieve the accuracy acquired by physics 101 for falling bodies.
1. Atoms and molecules of similar density ranges inhabit different layers of the pressure gradient.
Then it’s been showed again and again what happens to liquids if you place them in free fall. They go from being separated by density to being mixed….
I ignore the stuff that's fictional in the telling of how certain things work.
As I said before, if gravity has to be involved then the science is pseudo-science.
Hmm..
As shown by experiments, it takes gravity to do this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JhNjcSGF/images-8.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
You're getting weaker by the second.
Then why do these liquids mix?
Liquids in near-Zero G
Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'
What’s your expectation why the liquids mix?
Why do a feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate when air resistance is made negligible.
Why can gravity accurately model a dropped ball when den pressure can’t?
Why can gravity accurately model tides and make accurate predictions?
-
And you still refuse to explain the pressure gradient.
You owe me your left nut. I picked up a physics book when I went to school
And did you open it, read it and try to understand it, or just toss it aside?
As the article I cited explains
Buoyancy is an upwards force, based upon the weight of fluid displaced.
i.e. exactly what you are arguing against.
By contrast, if you were right, a great number of jobs would be affected by your flawed idea.
Yet you cannot show a single fault with the idea.
Instead you just continually lie.
Typing would be extremely difficult if your fingers had to push against gravity.
Why?
Yet again you just spout pure BS, with no justification at all.
You see, fat is buoyant
Are you trying to suggest fat floats in air?
Then what we're talking about is is the difference between the mass of the person, animal, potted plant, or object and the air.
No, we aren't. The mass of the air is insignificant for this, so we can just ignore it.
Or to put it bluntly, an object's density (not its weight) is what determines terminal velocity.
Wrong again.
It's shape, its mass and its volume all factor in.
A penny weighs 2.5 grams, reaches terminal velocity of 50 mph at 50 ft. That's a 1/3 of the speed of a human.
And a penny is denser than a human.
So great job refuting yourself.
That's because the formula is such gibberish that no sane person can calculate it
You mean it is complicated and beyond the comprehension of a moron like you?
Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
Again, gravity addresses them fine.
-
And you still refuse to explain the pressure gradient.
I would hardly call drawing a picture for you and then explaining it a refusal.
Your refusal to actually accept what I gave is a refusal.
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
Again, gravity addresses them fine.
Are you serious? Lemme ask again. Are you serious?
No, I won't answer your questions, probably because had you actually listened and understood my explanation above of pressure gradients, you would know my answers to all of them, whether or not you agreed.
Then what about this?
1. Why does water not cling to any spherical surface (but the supposed sphere of the Earth)? Why isn't there any evidence at all that water can be contained on a sphere? And you are hereby banned from using "The greater gravitational force of Earth overrides..." as an excuse. All science must be testable.
2. Why does water have absolutely no trouble being contained in a still hemispheric basin (with a flat base, we don't want it tipping over)? Why is this model able to be demonstrated without excuses, but the other cannot?
(https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2BNW8TB/glass-bowl-full-of-clear-water-isolated-on-white-2BNW8TB.jpg)
3. Why is gravity completely unable to counteract motion? The same bowl above, I were to put it on a microwave turntable, would begin to slosh around. That's at the barely moving speed. At 1000 mph, all water despite it being a basin, would simply empty out.
4. Why is gravity unable to stop people in an amusement park from becoming completely airborne for a few seconds during a certain ride infamous for inducing nausea? And why can planes produce the same effect by parabolic motion? If the Earth spins like we are told creates gravity, wouldn't it instead launch us out of Earth's atmosphere?
5. Why is gravity completely worthless at preventing birds from flying, or even massive jets from flying?
6. If you answered with some complicated aerodynamics formula to the last one, why do flying creatures or objects simply cease to fly higher above certain altitudes?
7. Why is a cloud of evaporated water and air able to hang for hours or even days without gravity telling it to fall, until it's good and ready to shower rain down on a city, town, or cursed person (http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/personal-rain-cloud-cartoon-man-rained-be-his-own-sunny-day-41750492.jpg)?
8. Why does gravity do one thing inside Earth (make things fall), yet make not planet or star or moon fall towards another but instead orbit? Why isn't Earth, Venus, and Mercury falling toward the sun? Why isn't the moon falling like Majora's Mask into Earth? Why is gravity not at all consistent?
And no, gravity doesn't address any of these you asked me "just fine." But gimme a minute, I'll answer those too.
-
Bulma, i know you pride yourself in reading comprehension and spelling. Re-read my last post to you. You get to keep your left nut.
Those businesses like aeroplane travel with planes designed from aerospace engineering , you think would operate no differently if your version of buoyancy were correct?
And now you think buoyancy is responsible for terminal velocity?.Buoyancy is the explanation for meteor craters as well, is it?
You have been asked to explain a trillion times why all objects sink and fall to the ground if gravity is non existent, and you
can't. That's why half normal flat earthers came up with universal acceleration. But you don't even do that. You don't even imply air molecules crush everything down to the ground. You just have nothing, Bulma. It just IS to you, isn't it?
All planes fly because gravity doesn't work and all scientific formulas are hogwash. Just luck isn't it, Bulma?
-
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
Let's use real things to explain. Specifically, we'll use a feather and an elephant.
1. A feather is only slightly denser than air, and aerodynamic to boot. Objects heavier than air increase rate of fall until they reach terminal velocity. A feather actually reaches terminal velo rather quickly. It just... isn't that impressive. An elephant on the other hand takes awhile to accelerate to terminal velocity, but its terminal velocity is kinda big.
(https://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/newtlaws/efar.gif)
That bounce effect is how they depict terminal velocity. Notice that the feather quickly resolves.
2. The feather and the elephant are in a layer of air pressure. That air has less pressure than the air below. That is, objects sink through less dense air/water/molten lava/soil, and float atop more dense surfaces (fluids is a horrible term).
3. It's the amount of difference between the feather and elephant, and the air around them.
4. If we are to export the elephant and feather from the top of a building in say Chicago by helicopter to the Ganges River (the elephant should be right at home there), and drop them, the different humidity means different air pressure.
5. Scales don't measure gravity. We'll spare that scale from being demolished and not put an elephant on it. The feather on the other hand, is so light it barely registers. It still has mass however, and thus the springs of the scale give a readout. I'm not sure what you mean by "made of a material denser than the object in question" (uhhhhh, an object is as dense as itself) but we'll humor you. Our court alchemist has decided to turn this feather into gold. The mass of the object is increased, changing its density. On the scale, it now shows a higher amount.
6. You can't "create" a pressure gradient. The pressure gradient is something that exists because objects have differences in density. The feather while still covered in gold dust pushes air around it to reach a terminal velocity, when all of a sudden, the flakes of gold dust slide off the feather from all the air current. I would imagine it decelerates rather than keeping its terminal velocity, gradually reverting to the previous terminal velocity. The elephant decided to sit this one out.
7. Pressure gradient is based on density. We've decided to give the feather and elephant a bath, because they are dirty from all these tests. In two rooms for compacting liquid waste. Now, as the room compacts and compacts,
the elephant gets crunched up into a bloody mess. Sorry, were you getting attached to it? Meanwhile, in an another such room, while solid waste is getting crushed so pure water can be pushed into a pipe at the top of the room, the feather floats on the water and thus travels up the pipe with the water.
8. Sorry, elephant is dead. I'm a monster. But the feather will work just fine here. The feather is lighter than water so it floats, but slightly heavier than air, so it gradually sinks. Objects don't rise indefinitely because they will encounter surfaces that are less dense than they are. Were the elephant still there, it would be heavier than water and the air above the water but lighter than the earth beneath it. Elephants, despite their mass, can in fact swim in deeper water. Likewise, a strong wind can pick up the feather from the water and make it fly.
-
A helicopter with spinning blades falls slower than a helicopter with fixed, none spinning blades.
Because air resistance.
Air helps pushes things up.
Bouyancy is up.
You still yet to give a mechanism whete the air knows how dense a surface is.
So your elepahnt vs feather is stupid.
-
Bulma, i know you pride yourself in reading comprehension and spelling. Re-read my last post to you. You get to keep your left nut.
Those businesses like aeroplane travel with planes designed from aerospace engineering , you think would operate no differently if your version of buoyancy were correct?
And now you think buoyancy is responsible for terminal velocity?.Buoyancy is the explanation for meteor craters as well, is it?
You have been asked to explain a trillion times why all objects sink and fall to the ground if gravity is non existent, and you
can't. That's why half normal flat earthers came up with universal acceleration. But you don't even do that. You don't even imply air molecules crush everything down to the ground. You just have nothing, Bulma. It just IS to you, isn't it?
All planes fly because gravity doesn't work and all scientific formulas are hogwash. Just luck isn't it, Bulma?
Uhhhh, you cannot bet something that isn't yours to give.
That violates the bet agreement. I bet that Lucky 13 will win the race. Oh, I lost? Well uhhhh... that guy over there will pay! (runs off)
So yeah, your left nut is forfeit, and there's nothing you can do about it. But because you tried to cheat your way out of the bet, I'll also take your right nut. Perhaps you should take up singing?
They would operate no differently. I bet both of my nuts on it. As I am in the trans spectrum, I'd actually be disappointed not to lose my nuts. But yeah, I'd keep them.
They only thing that would change is that space travel is actually impossible. All air and sea travel is unaffected. This is because all air travel operates on aerodynamics (mainly heavier-than-air), propulsion, and buoyancy (mostly lighter-than-air). They don't need to know about gravity. They are taught about it because of so called "heavier than air" principles. That term came from the Wright Brothers flying something that wasn't a blimp. So what. Aerodynamics, propulsion, and buoyancy. All of these are a part of flight. Gravity is not. Gravity is an explanation for what happens if you run out of fuel, and not even a good one. Precisely nothing about air travel changes, because pilots understand that they cannot fly above a certain point. Gravity as a theory makes zero provisions for this.
You have been asked to explain a trillion times why all objects sink and fall to the ground if gravity is non existent, and you
can't
Bullshit. You have pretended not to see it a trillion times.
So I'll say it again. An object sinks because it is denser than the surface around it. It doesn't matter if it is dropped or placed. It doesn't matter if either the object or surface is solid, liquid, or gas. You could place bricks on ice, and no gravity works on it, it reaches a certain number of bricks and the ice caves in. Not gravity. Just dense mass.
If you're not seeing it as an explanation, it's because you're prepared not to recognize it as an explanation. That's your bias. Not my failure to explain.
-
that is a valid explanation: objects fall because of their density.
good
so not bouyancy.
what you fail to read is: what mechanism from bouyancy pushes down when bouyancy only pushes up?
-
6. You can't "create" a pressure gradient. The pressure gradient is something that exists because objects have differences in density.
It exists because gravity is working on the fluids.
Place objects in free fall, the pressure gradient goes away.
I ignore the stuff that's fictional in the telling of how certain things work.
As I said before, if gravity has to be involved then the science is pseudo-science.
Hmm..
As shown by experiments, it takes gravity to do this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JhNjcSGF/images-8.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
You're getting weaker by the second.
Then why do these liquids mix?
Liquids in near-Zero G
Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'
What’s your expectation why the liquids mix?
Why do a feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate when air resistance is made negligible.
Why can gravity accurately model a dropped ball when den pressure can’t?
Why can gravity accurately model tides and make accurate predictions?
Density isn’t a force. What drives liquids to form a pressure gradient and separate out by density.
-
1. Why does water not cling to any spherical surface
Gravity follows simple rules. If you want gravity to cause water to cling to a surface then you need to have it being in free fall well outside the Roche limit of any more massive body.
This has been explained to you countless times.
Again, your tiny balls have an insignificant force
Why isn't there any evidence at all that water can be contained on a sphere?
There is plenty.
Including all the evidence showing the water on Earth is curved. As well as simple experiments on things like the ISS in free fall around Earth, but the latter is primarily due to surface tension.
And you are hereby banned from using "The greater gravitational force of Earth overrides..." as an excuse.
No, I'm not.
Your wilful rejection of reality does not mean I am required to ignore it.
All science must be testable.
And gravity is, like with the Cavendish experiment.
We also have photos from space clearly showing Earth is roughly a sphere if you are so desperate to ignore all the evidence from on Earth.
And if you really want, you can go pay for a rocket to launch an experiment into space to show water sticking to a sphere.
Just what part is not testable?
It seems you are just looking for excuses to reject reality and demanding people don't use models which work to explain reality.
Why does water have absolutely no trouble being contained in a still hemispheric basin (with a flat base, we don't want it tipping over)?
Your own qualification shows the problem.
Thge hemispheric basin isn't magically containing the water. It is providing a physical barrier preventing it from going down to Earth.
Why is this model able to be demonstrated without excuses, but the other cannot?
Gravity works without excuses. Your blatant misrepresentation of it does not mean we need excuses.
Conversely your delusional BS can't. See above for the questions you still refuse to address.
3. Why is gravity completely unable to counteract motion?
It is not.
Throw a ball up and observe gravity counteract the motion causing the ball to fall down.
You appear to yet again want to pretend gravity is magic super glue. It is not.
The same bowl above, I were to put it on a microwave turntable, would begin to slosh around.
Prove it.
If I put that bowl in a microwave and set it going, it would just stay basically the same. You would not detect it.
That's at the barely moving speed. At 1000 mph
Yet again you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of how motion works (or far more likely you are yet again lying to everyone).
The speed doesn't matter.
You can have a glass of water in a car driving at 100 km/hr down a freeway, without issue; but slam on the breaks, and the water goes flying. Hold a glass while walking and trip and the water goes flying.
Speed is not the issue.
The issue is acceleration, or more specifically a force needing to be applied across the water.
So instead of your continued appeals to the tangential velocity of 1000 archaic units per morons, try dealing with the acceleration?
At Earth's surface, at the equator, the acceleration to maintain position on Earth's surface is roughly 0.034 m/s^2
To get the same acceleration with a radius of 1 m (quite a small circle), it would need to rotate once every 34 seconds. Quite slow.
4. Why is gravity unable to stop people in an amusement park from becoming completely airborne for a few seconds during a certain ride infamous for inducing nausea?
Because it is not magic superglue like you want to continually pretend.
It is a downwards force, which results in an acceleration of objects at a certain rate.
If you pull the support from underneath the object at a greater rate, gravity will not keep up.
e.g. if you have something sitting at the top of a tower, and push it off the edge, it will fall down at a rate of roughly 9.8 m/s^2.
If instead you had it on a grating (to allow the air to pass through), and you pull that grating down at a rate of 20 m/s^2, it will be going faster than free fall, so the object is left behind with the grating reaching the ground first.
This is also just like how your hand works when you throw an object. You accelerate your hand so it is moving at quite a speed, and then release the object and stop your hand. The acceleration of your hand at the end of this process is very fast, much faster than gravity, so the ball, now released from your hand and in free fall doesn't slow down as fast so leaves your hand.
Again, so basic a child can understand, yet here you are playing dumb.
And why can planes produce the same effect by parabolic motion?
Because the plane following the parabolic trajectory has a near uniform horizontal velocity, and a vertical velocity which matches that for the acceleration due to gravity.
If the Earth spins like we are told creates gravity
This is a blatant lie you keep on repeating.
Who is telling you this spinning creates gravity?
Why do you keep repeating this BS.
wouldn't it instead launch us out of Earth's atmosphere?
No, if Earth spun WITHOUT gravity, or something similar, then you would go flying out.
Why is gravity completely worthless at preventing birds from flying, or even massive jets from flying?
Again, gravity is not magic super glue.
Take off the wings and see how well it flies.
Again, gravity is not magic super glue.
You can provide a force to overcome it.
Birds do this by flapping their wings.
Planes do it by their wings directing air downwards to provide an upwards force on the plane.
why do flying creatures or objects simply cease to fly higher above certain altitudes?
These flying creatures push off the air, and they need a certain pressure of air to be able to live.
If they go to high, they die and there isn't enough air to push off.
Other flying objects, like balloons, rely on the pressure gradient of the air pushing them up. If the air is too low a density, that pressure gradient is too weak so it doesn't push them up any more.
Other flying objects like rockets, don't have an altitude limit.
Why is a cloud of evaporated water and air able to hang for hours
You have already had buoyancy explained to you.
As a reminder, water vapour is less dense than the air.
But in addition to that, clouds are often driven by thermals causing the air to rise, which also helps support those water droplets.
8. Why does gravity do one thing inside Earth (make things fall), yet make not planet or star or moon fall towards another but instead orbit?
Again, already explained. Gravity is consistent and does the same principle things. It results in a force which in the absence of other forces causes an acceleration towards the object in question.
The same reason why when you throw an object, gravity doesn't magically stop it and cause it to fall straight down.
If you are going fast enough around a curved object (or point), that acceleration means you are going in an orbit.
If you really want to make it entirely consistent, objects dropped on Earth would orbit, but their orbit intersects with the ground, and they are stopped by the ground.
There is no inconsistency here.
Again, gravity is not magic.
Why is gravity not at all consistent?
Why are you still entirely unable to show a single inconsistency?
Why do you instead rely upon pretending gravity should be entirely inconsistent to pretend there are problems with it?
And no, gravity doesn't address any of these you asked me "just fine."
Yes it does as has already been explained.
Your irrational hatred of gravity doesn't change that fact.
Just like gravity addresses all your BS attacks just fine.
-
And you still refuse to explain the pressure gradient.
I would hardly call drawing a picture for you and then explaining it a refusal.
Your picture and "explanation" explained NOTHING about the pressure gradient, and I even demonstrated multiple faults with your list of points.
So yes, you have still refused to explain the pressure gradient.
What is causing this pressure gradient to exist in your fantasy?
Appealing to its existence is NOT explaining its existence.
Why does this pressure gradient not push the air around to remove the pressure gradient?
You cannot explain anything, because answering these questions requires recognising a downwards force proportional to mass with the pressure gradient created from this force causing the upwards buoyant force, destroying your delusional BS.
Your refusal to actually accept what I gave is a refusal.
It isn't refusal, it is refutation.
Are you serious? Lemme ask again. Are you serious?
Yes, I'm serious.
These issues clearly demonstrate a problem with your delusional BS, yet these issues are trivially addressed by gravity.
No, I won't answer your questions, probably because had you actually listened and understood my explanation above of pressure gradients, you would know my answers to all of them, whether or not you agreed.
No, I don't, because you didn't answer them, and your model is incoherent, self-contradictory garbage.
1. Objects heavier than air increase rate of fall until they reach terminal velocity.
Notice how yet again, you start with the observation you need to explain rather than even attempting to provide an answer.
The question was why having a different density should cause an object to accelerate.
If you are just saying it accelerates you are not explaining why.
So that is yet another failure from you.
2. The feather and the elephant are in a layer of air pressure. That air has less pressure than the air below.
That means there is a pressure gradient which pushes upwards. That means the object shuold be going up, not down.
We can even try this by setting up a pressure gradient horizontally.
Get a container with a dividing wall, put an object on either side of that wall, then increase the pressure in one side and decrease it on the other.
Now remove the wall.
We see the objects are pushed from the region of high pressure into the region of low pressure.
They do not magically "sink" into the higher pressure and higher density air.
objects sink through less dense air/water/molten lava/soil, and float atop more dense surfaces (fluids is a horrible term).
Again, WHY?
Yet again, you just provide the observation you are meant to be explaining.
3. It's the amount of difference between the feather and elephant, and the air around them.
It clearly isn't.
Once you get to a dense enough object such that the density of the air is insignificant the objects fall at the same rate.
We can even do this with a vacuum chamber. If your BS was true, the rate of accelerate in a vacuum chamber should be proportional to density. Instead it is constant (for that location).
the different humidity means different air pressure.
Which in no way explains the different rate.
That is because at a given location, changing the humidity has a negligible effect on rate.
You can also use a vacuum chamber at different locations, with the same pressure, yet see a different rate. You can even use a fully enclosed and sealed testing device which doesn't allow air in or out and still see a different rate.
It still has mass however, and thus the springs of the scale give a readout.
Again, you provide the observation you need to explain rather than the explanation.
WHY does this cause a reading?
I'm not sure what you mean by "made of a material denser than the object in question"
It is really quite simple. Say the scale is made of steel. That is much denser than the feather. So why is the feather trying to push into it when your magic buoyancy should be pushing the other way?
6. You can't "create" a pressure gradient. The pressure gradient is something that exists because objects have differences in density.
No, it isn't.
Because we can start with a fluid with a constant density and place that into a container and get a pressure gradient.
This also exists without objects falling through it, so you can skip that BS.
7. Pressure gradient is based on density.
Again, this is the observation you need to explain, and yet again you make no attempt to.
Objects don't rise indefinitely because they will encounter surfaces that are less dense than they are.
Yet there is a still a pressure gradient, a gradient that should be pushing upwards.
Yet again you make no attempt to actually answer the question.
And this does nothing to address objects which are the same density.
So does that explain why I don't "know your answers"? Because you don't have answers.
Aerodynamics, propulsion, and buoyancy. All of these are a part of flight. Gravity is not.
As buoyancy is a direct result of gravity, you can't have it without gravity.
Again, you own source makes it clear that buoyancy is an UPWARDS force based upon the WEIGHT of the fluid displaced.
Precisely nothing about air travel changes, because
Because you do whatever you can to pretend your delusional BS results in the same effects as gravity to the point you want it to.
Gravity as a theory makes zero provisions for this.
Repeating the same lie, after it has already been refuted, just shows your dishonesty.
Gravity DOES make provisions for this, based upon the expected pressure gradient and the compressibility of air. This means as you go up, the air gets thinner.
Conversely, your delusional BS does not, as you still can't explain the pressure gradient.
That means the air pressure should be constant throughout the atmosphere.
So I'll say it again. An object sinks because it is denser than the surface around it.
Stop saying the observation you need to explain and try to explain it.
Why should being denser make it go down?
it reaches a certain number of bricks and the ice caves in.
So not density/buoyancy, instead you apply enough downwards force from the weight to break the ice.
If you're not seeing it as an explanation, it's because you're prepared not to recognize it as an explanation. That's your bias. Not my failure to explain.
It is your failure to explain, because you aren't explaining why being denser should make it go down.
That directly ties to the question you still didn't answer.
You wanting to pretend that is an explanation is your bias, because you aren't willing to admit you have no explanation.
-
Bulma, i know you pride yourself in reading comprehension and spelling. Re-read my last post to you. You get to keep your left nut.
Those businesses like aeroplane travel with planes designed from aerospace engineering , you think would operate no differently if your version of buoyancy were correct?
And now you think buoyancy is responsible for terminal velocity?.Buoyancy is the explanation for meteor craters as well, is it?
You have been asked to explain a trillion times why all objects sink and fall to the ground if gravity is non existent, and you
can't. That's why half normal flat earthers came up with universal acceleration. But you don't even do that. You don't even imply air molecules crush everything down to the ground. You just have nothing, Bulma. It just IS to you, isn't it?
All planes fly because gravity doesn't work and all scientific formulas are hogwash. Just luck isn't it, Bulma?
Uhhhh, you cannot bet something that isn't yours to give.
That violates the bet agreement. I bet that Lucky 13 will win the race. Oh, I lost? Well uhhhh... that guy over there will pay! (runs off)
So yeah, your left nut is forfeit, and there's nothing you can do about it. But because you tried to cheat your way out of the bet, I'll also take your right nut. Perhaps you should take up singing?
They would operate no differently. I bet both of my nuts on it. As I am in the trans spectrum, I'd actually be disappointed not to lose my nuts. But yeah, I'd keep them.
They only thing that would change is that space travel is actually impossible. All air and sea travel is unaffected. This is because all air travel operates on aerodynamics (mainly heavier-than-air), propulsion, and buoyancy (mostly lighter-than-air). They don't need to know about gravity. They are taught about it because of so called "heavier than air" principles. That term came from the Wright Brothers flying something that wasn't a blimp. So what. Aerodynamics, propulsion, and buoyancy. All of these are a part of flight. Gravity is not. Gravity is an explanation for what happens if you run out of fuel, and not even a good one. Precisely nothing about air travel changes, because pilots understand that they cannot fly above a certain point. Gravity as a theory makes zero provisions for this.
You have been asked to explain a trillion times why all objects sink and fall to the ground if gravity is non existent, and you
can't
Bullshit. You have pretended not to see it a trillion times.
So I'll say it again. An object sinks because it is denser than the surface around it. It doesn't matter if it is dropped or placed. It doesn't matter if either the object or surface is solid, liquid, or gas. You could place bricks on ice, and no gravity works on it, it reaches a certain number of bricks and the ice caves in. Not gravity. Just dense mass.
If you're not seeing it as an explanation, it's because you're prepared not to recognize it as an explanation. That's your bias. Not my failure to explain.
I bet your left nut because you've got plenty of nuts to give - You're completely nuts. I don't even understand why I need to know you are trans or what that exactly means for you? So you're in transition, but from what to what? At least your transition to a flat earther is reversible. Once you've been neuted, I highly doubt it.
But is this your angle? Because you're a trans, you have a green light to question and be contrary in every area of life, including the accepted shape of the planet beneath your feet?
Explain why if I am travelling in a large plane and things go wrong and the plane inverts (goes upside down), if nobody has had a chance to put their seatbelt on, everybody will fall out of their seats onto the ceiling of the cabin. That happens because of gravity, not density, and not buoyancy, Bulma.
Why do all objects, irrespective of their density, fall to the ground?
WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?
That is the big question for you, excuse the pun, in a "nutshell".
-
WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?
Oh my God.
I explained this already, no less than a post ago.
Here, let's see if we can explain this yet again.
I have two boxes. One is filled with feathers. One is filled with metal spheres. Both are filled so there is no air space. Which will safely be able to be set on top of the other box, and which will cave the box in?
This is buoyancy. There is nothing else.
No tricky invisible force. Seriously, many of you guys don't believe in God who you insist "cannot be seen" even though the evidence of his presence is in the fact that despite this world having huge reasons why it shouldn't exist, nonetheless does, and has enormous variety of life to boot. But you can't let go of the idea that something that similarly can't be seen, and there is a far simpler explanation instead (heavier objects sink through lighter objects or surfaces, and float on heavier objects or surfaces), clinging to this idea as though someone tried to talk you out of your god. Gravity is a poor god, that can't even make one thing that is flying fall. Not a little chirpy bird, not a jumbo jet. God created buoyancy are part of the rules of the universe.
Your gravitational constant does not even add anything significant to the equation. It's an "I'm here too!" constant that we probably got from stealing from some other variable.
The "force of gravity" is at 0.00000000006673 or 6.673×10-11. Sorry, but it primary school we learned to round. This rounds to zero by even the most generous rounding. But since multiplication equations aee using it (multiplication by zero equals 0), you'd be better off wiping it and trying the equation without it.
G = 6.673×10-11 N m2 kg-2
becomes...
R (rate of descent) = m2 kg-2
F (force of mass pressure due to negative buoyancy) = (R x m1 x m2) / r2
I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the formula can cope without something that mathematically insignificant.
Either you try the formula without it, or you accept that the force of gravity is zero and that this entire formula is basically an April Fools prank.
-
WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?
Oh my God.
I explained this already, no less than a post ago.
You haven’t explained anything.
It takes an unbalance force to make objects of mass accelerate.
You can use air or gases with compression and energy to move objects from high pressure and energy to lower pressure and energy. Like blowing a ping pong ball up into the air.
The earth’s atmosphere has more pressure at the surface than higher up in the atmosphere.
What unbalance force makes an object accelerate down from less pressure, density into more pressure, density, resistance, air molecules with more energy?
Why do ships have to consider center of gravity to stay upright.
For stable flight for heavier than air aircraft, why must the center of gravity be ahead of the center of pressure from the atmosphere.
Why when you use a scale in a vacuum chamber, why do objects increase in weight as atmospheric density decreases, and the influence of buoyancy decreases. The amount of atmosphere in the chamber can be made negligible, yet the object still has weight.
There is clearly another force than atmosphere. Atmosphere buoyancy is dependent on.
You can remove the amount of atmosphere from a chamber and make any fluid forces negligible. Yet objects still fall. Objects still have weight.
-
WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?
Oh my God.
I explained this already, no less than a post ago.
Here, let's see if we can explain this yet again.
I have two boxes. One is filled with feathers. One is filled with metal spheres. Both are filled so there is no air space. Which will safely be able to be set on top of the other box, and which will cave the box in?
This is buoyancy. There is nothing else.
Ths is most definitely NOT bouyancy.
Bouyancy is the pressure acted surface of an object by the surrounding fluid.
The fluid happens to have a pressure gradient.
The gradient means that for every infinite millimeter nanonmeter of elevation thw pressure below is higher than the pressure above.
The FORCE is generated by difference in PRESSURE / SURFACE.
Which happens to only be in the upward direction (given the fluid is relatively stationary).
So
By using a object-surface interactio with the surrounding fluid.
You need to explain how the above mentioned mechanism
1. of presuee gradient pushes down, whennit only pushes up and
2. how fluids knows whats inside a surface, to know the density, when all it knows is touching surface.
-
It definitely is buoyancy.
I was gonna make a video about this, but it is still uploading. Ah, there it is.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/4XRgmUpvThgf/
So let's talk about the key points.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1231317074362761288/Ockhams-razor-image-with-explanation-and-example.jpg?ex=66368463&is=66240f63&hm=98e896f89d14e598d4a3ff6cc2d831f05881d291d9c2c6f7fd65ded1257e7c52&)
The formula for (revised) buoyancy is:
Buoyancy, where Do is density of an object, and Ds is density of the surface:
If Do = Ds, then B= 0 (neutral)
If Do > Ds, then B= -[Mo-Ms] (negative)
If Do < Ds, then B= +[Ms-Mo] (positive)
I don't see why there is a reqirement to invoke a force here. The amount of buoyancy is equal to the difference in two objects. Displacement is caused by the mass exerted over an area, when density is nonetheless equal to the surface.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1231317233494528050/Occam3.png?ex=66256109&is=66240f89&hm=0a567ebdf31c1e889ebb9749988171d6d2d21a02909aebd4cfe518815ce026ba&)
You expect us to believe that two meteors knocked over the tree, instead of "ummm, it was the wind." Saying that it was just denser than whatever was around it, is a far neater explanation than invoking Earth's core and rotation to what is a localized event.
When I lay two boxes atop another, the heavier one crushing the lighter one is slowly or quickly falling, based of the difference in density. In the same way, a block of wood that is 1 oz heavier than water will sink but do so extraordinarily slowly.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1231326092867014829/SameForce.png?ex=66368cc9&is=662417c9&hm=3e349f4e323d90d09f0ffb0f16faa9872ff1dfbfd34a157250e4dc7e7b809407&)
-
Until a crumpled ball of tinfoil shown to sink but a same wiegt bowl shape floats
Back to the dtawing board for you
-
I don't see why there is a reqirement to invoke a force here.
Eye roll.
So you get proven buoyancy isn’t fundamental force. So now you don’t see the requirement?
Density isn’t a force.
You model doesn’t explain…
Why the pressure gradient goes away in free fall. Why densities becomes meaningless for separating out.
Liquids in near-Zero G
Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'
The time it takes a ball from rest to fall 10 feet.
What force causes the atmosphere to bunch up and build 14.7 psia at sea level.
What unbalanced force causes dropped objects to accelerate from less pressure and density into greater atmospheric pressure, resistance, density, energy below.
The center of gravity of a ship.
The center of gravity for heavier than air aircraft where the CG must be ahead of the center of pressure acting on the aircraft.
Why when you evacuate atmosphere from a vacuum chamber to the point the fluid atmosphere is negligible, objects still fall down, fall down faster, and why they weigh more.
Tides.
There is clearly some other force than buoyancy acting on the atmosphere and objects of mass
-
based of the difference in density.
Density isn’t a force.
But one can make things more dense than air float with air.
Floating Balls - Bernoulli's Principle Visualized
So. When these heavier than air balls float. What downward force reaches a kind of equilibrium with the upward force of the air less dense than the balls.
-
I explained this already, no less than a post ago.
No, you didn't.
You started with it falling with no explanation of why.
I have two boxes. One is filled with feathers. One is filled with metal spheres. Both are filled so there is no air space. Which will safely be able to be set on top of the other box, and which will cave the box in?
Most likely either will be able to sit on top of the other.
This is buoyancy. There is nothing else.
No, it isn't.
It is weight and material properties.
many of you guys don't believe in God
Because there is no evidence of such a being.
Nothing like gravity where there are mountains of evidence.
Now stop fleeing to your imaginary POS, and try explaining the massive issues with buoyancy.
there is a far simpler explanation instead (heavier objects sink through lighter objects or surfaces, and float on heavier objects or surfaces)
The "simpler" explanation is that there is a magic downwards force based upon mass.
Your delusional BS is not simpler, nor is it an explanation.
Sorry, but it primary school we learned to round. This rounds to zero by even the most generous rounding.
No, it doesn't. This just shows your stupidity.
With that idea, anything can be rounded to 0.
If you want to round to zero, you need an explanation for why, and not just because you hate it. The next point shows why as well.
multiplication by zero equals 0
But multiplication of a very big number (say 6*10^24) by a very little number can equal a normal size number.
Again, this same dishoneest BS of yours can be done with virtually anything.
How heavy is 1 kg of water? Well water is made of of molecules which are in turn made up of atoms.
The mass of a molecule of water is roughly 1.7*10^-24 g, or 0.0000000000000000000000017 g.
That is tiny. By your BS logic, that is effectively 0.
So water, regardless of how much you have, should have 0 mass, and 0 weight.
You can do the same with air.
So why should water, with a weight of 0, sink through air with a weight of 0? They are both 0.
Or you can try being honest for once in your life and recognise that small number * big number can still be quite significant.
This is also why you cannot easily see the attraction to your tiny balls. Your tiny balls are too tiny. They are nothing compared to the much more massive Earth.
I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the formula can cope without something that mathematically insignificant.
No, it can't, as it can't explain why the rate of acceleration varies with location.
Either you try the formula without it, or you accept that the force of gravity is zero and that this entire formula is basically an April Fools prank.
Or we be honest, unlike you, and accept that that small number, combined with a big number like the mass of Earth, gives a significant force.
Why would any sane person accept your dishonest BS?
It definitely is buoyancy.
No, it isn't.
You want to talk about simpler, what is simpler:
A force of attraction based upon mass towards Earth, which results in a pressure gradient which then pushes objects up.
This varies with location due to different distance to mass.
or your delusional BS of:
Magic causing things to go up or down.
It is magically down because magic
It is magically at this rate (which varies) because magic.
With a pressure gradient just magically existing yet doing nothing.
I don't see why there is a requirement to invoke a force here.
You have an object accelerate. That requires a force.
You only think your delusional BS is simpler because you ignore so much, while also throwing in a bunch of crap unrelated to gravity.
If you would like a comparison to wind, your BS is like saying the wind built a barn, and then knocked it over, instead of people building the barn and wind knocking it over.
Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
And no, your previous post does not address it, as already explained, so repeating that delusional BS wont help.
-
WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?
Oh my God.
I explained this already, no less than a post ago.
Here, let's see if we can explain this yet again.
I have two boxes. One is filled with feathers. One is filled with metal spheres. Both are filled so there is no air space. Which will safely be able to be set on top of the other box, and which will cave the box in?
This is buoyancy. There is nothing else.
No tricky invisible force. Seriously, many of you guys don't believe in God who you insist "cannot be seen" even though the evidence of his presence is in the fact that despite this world having huge reasons why it shouldn't exist, nonetheless does, and has enormous variety of life to boot. But you can't let go of the idea that something that similarly can't be seen, and there is a far simpler explanation instead (heavier objects sink through lighter objects or surfaces, and float on heavier objects or surfaces), clinging to this idea as though someone tried to talk you out of your god. Gravity is a poor god, that can't even make one thing that is flying fall. Not a little chirpy bird, not a jumbo jet. God created buoyancy are part of the rules of the universe.
Your gravitational constant does not even add anything significant to the equation. It's an "I'm here too!" constant that we probably got from stealing from some other variable.
The "force of gravity" is at 0.00000000006673 or 6.673×10-11. Sorry, but it primary school we learned to round. This rounds to zero by even the most generous rounding. But since multiplication equations aee using it (multiplication by zero equals 0), you'd be better off wiping it and trying the equation without it.
G = 6.673×10-11 N m2 kg-2
becomes...
R (rate of descent) = m2 kg-2
F (force of mass pressure due to negative buoyancy) = (R x m1 x m2) / r2
I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the formula can cope without something that mathematically insignificant.
Either you try the formula without it, or you accept that the force of gravity is zero and that this entire formula is basically an April Fools prank.
I'm still getting over you using God's name in vain. Very unchristian.
But moving on. You still haven't explained why all objects fall.
Can I bet on your left testi again?
If one of us can teach you why buoyancy is not the explanation for why all objects fall, and you concede gravity is, will you agree to turn your back on flat earth and revisit globe earth?
-
I was gonna make a video
Why is it any thread you don’t participate in loads fast and fine?
The threads you post in take forever to load like even the internet chokes on your BS……
-
WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?
Oh my God.
I explained this already, no less than a post ago.
Here, let's see if we can explain this yet again.
I have two boxes. One is filled with feathers. One is filled with metal spheres. Both are filled so there is no air space. Which will safely be able to be set on top of the other box, and which will cave the box in?
This is buoyancy. There is nothing else.
No tricky invisible force. Seriously, many of you guys don't believe in God who you insist "cannot be seen" even though the evidence of his presence is in the fact that despite this world having huge reasons why it shouldn't exist, nonetheless does, and has enormous variety of life to boot. But you can't let go of the idea that something that similarly can't be seen, and there is a far simpler explanation instead (heavier objects sink through lighter objects or surfaces, and float on heavier objects or surfaces), clinging to this idea as though someone tried to talk you out of your god. Gravity is a poor god, that can't even make one thing that is flying fall. Not a little chirpy bird, not a jumbo jet. God created buoyancy are part of the rules of the universe.
Your gravitational constant does not even add anything significant to the equation. It's an "I'm here too!" constant that we probably got from stealing from some other variable.
The "force of gravity" is at 0.00000000006673 or 6.673×10-11. Sorry, but it primary school we learned to round. This rounds to zero by even the most generous rounding. But since multiplication equations aee using it (multiplication by zero equals 0), you'd be better off wiping it and trying the equation without it.
G = 6.673×10-11 N m2 kg-2
becomes...
R (rate of descent) = m2 kg-2
F (force of mass pressure due to negative buoyancy) = (R x m1 x m2) / r2
I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the formula can cope without something that mathematically insignificant.
Either you try the formula without it, or you accept that the force of gravity is zero and that this entire formula is basically an April Fools prank.
Just wanted to say, the universe doesn't care if you are unable to work with very large numbers or very small numbers. Numbers are a human construct. The universe does it wants to do.
-
This is also why you cannot easily see the attraction to your tiny balls. Your tiny balls are too tiny. They are nothing compared to the much more massive Earth.
Lol, that cracked me up
-
WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?
Oh my God.
I explained this already, no less than a post ago.
Here, let's see if we can explain this yet again.
I have two boxes. One is filled with feathers. One is filled with metal spheres. Both are filled so there is no air space. Which will safely be able to be set on top of the other box, and which will cave the box in?
This is buoyancy. There is nothing else.
No tricky invisible force. Seriously, many of you guys don't believe in God who you insist "cannot be seen" even though the evidence of his presence is in the fact that despite this world having huge reasons why it shouldn't exist, nonetheless does, and has enormous variety of life to boot. But you can't let go of the idea that something that similarly can't be seen, and there is a far simpler explanation instead (heavier objects sink through lighter objects or surfaces, and float on heavier objects or surfaces), clinging to this idea as though someone tried to talk you out of your god. Gravity is a poor god, that can't even make one thing that is flying fall. Not a little chirpy bird, not a jumbo jet. God created buoyancy are part of the rules of the universe.
Your gravitational constant does not even add anything significant to the equation. It's an "I'm here too!" constant that we probably got from stealing from some other variable.
The "force of gravity" is at 0.00000000006673 or 6.673×10-11. Sorry, but it primary school we learned to round. This rounds to zero by even the most generous rounding. But since multiplication equations aee using it (multiplication by zero equals 0), you'd be better off wiping it and trying the equation without it.
G = 6.673×10-11 N m2 kg-2
becomes...
R (rate of descent) = m2 kg-2
F (force of mass pressure due to negative buoyancy) = (R x m1 x m2) / r2
I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the formula can cope without something that mathematically insignificant.
Either you try the formula without it, or you accept that the force of gravity is zero and that this entire formula is basically an April Fools prank.
I'm still getting over you using God's name in vain. Very unchristian.
You don't even understand what the Ten Commandments are for.
So let's explain.
The ancient Jews received the law after years in Egypt caused then to be in bondage. Why were they in bondage? Well, because they had thrived. "When things flourish, they decline." It is explicitly stated that the pharaoh did not know Joseph, and he looked at these foreigners, these hyksos, and he saw them as a threat. So he tried to kill their firstborn, and set them to work building. It is often misunderstood that they were just pushing blocks for pyramids, but that's not what historians understand. It's not even what many of the films portray. You weren't paying attention. They were doing skilled work.
Anyway, the main thing was that this guy Moses got them back in touch with their roots, and they wanted to take some time off to worship. The plagues started because this request was refused, among other things.
After leaving, they go right back into the sort of behavior that got them enslaved in the first place. In fact, had Pharaoh sent ships to cross the Red Sea, he could rather easily collected them while they were busy worshiping golden calves and having orgies and such.
The Ten Commandments are not a law to oppress. They are law to set men free. "I Am the Lord, who brought you out of the house of slavery, out of the house of bondage."
These laws are about self-discipline for the pursuit of freedom. Unlike the 613 commandments that were written to "interpret" these ten, their purpose was not to be rules but rather a means of securing freedom. Jeaus rourinely broke the Sabbath, saying that "the Sabbath was made from man, not man for the Sabbath". That is, it's a day-off, a vacation. It's nor to bean imposed rule that prevents work but an allowance so that some boss won't try to take the one day you have to yourself for hobbies and rest.
If "Oh my God" were really taking God's name in vain, by logic, every valley girl in California ought to be damned to some kind of horrible punishment. Instead, the only punishment on California is that they are plagued by awful government.
The actual meaning of taking God's name in vain is to cause it to become cheap or lost, or to distort its meaning by making it a "bad word". We know that God's name is Jesus. If I were to blank out every mention of Jesus in the Bible for fear of misuse of his name, future generations would lose that name. That is what the Jews did. They were ashamed of Jesus, so after talking bad about him in early versions of their religious history, they simply acted like his name was never there.
It is not a bad word to say the name of Jesus Christ. Or to say "Oh my God". It is simply an oath.
But moving on. You still haven't explained why all objects fall.
Can I bet on your left testi again?
If one of us can teach you why buoyancy is not the explanation for why all objects fall, and you concede gravity is, will you agree to turn your back on flat earth and revisit globe earth?
No, I wouldn't. And ask yourself, why this matters to you. You are like a Jew, convinced these Christians are delusional, when they tell you they have discovered Jesus personally. You are wanting others to slide back into the mud with you, when they have crawled out.
RE is not a new theory.
(https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc2MjcxOTM4MTI4ODQ4MDYy/the-formation-of-ancient-babylon.jpg)
Ancient Babylon, a culture that predates most religions of the world believed in Round Earth and all the trappings. Religion was a crawling out of the mud and no longer seeing humanity as a bunch of slaves leaning over to balance on a ball, but free men able to stand upright on a circular table with no force pressing down on them. We aren't going back to this.
And you can only bet on your own (right and) left testicle.
I actually have explained several times why things fall. Like a man trying to pretend to be deaf or crazy so he doesn't have to listen, you've tuned it out.
Have you noticed every time that I post, there's an explanation of why things fall in my signature? Along with one for Occam's Razor. Gravity as a theory fails Occam's Razor because it asks us to deny the basic logic that objects raise or fall based on their own merit, in favor of one that blames the Earth or moon or sun for the movement of things. "We fall to the ground because the Earth is more massive than us." Congratulations, you're a geocentrist! Because if the sun gives off force, we should be falling toward it instead, because it is multiple times more massive under heliocentrism.
-
You don't even understand what the Ten Commandments are for.
Which has nothing to do with this thread. Nor the original topic you tried to derail this thread with.
Where Sputnik placed a rocket stage visible from earth with the naked in orbit around earth changing the night sky. And Sputnik itself verified by numerous third parties by its active broadcasting as it orbited earth.
If you want to purse your butchering of gravity and buoyancy….
Oh my God.
I explained this already, no less than a post ago.
You haven’t explained anything.
It takes an unbalance force to make objects of mass accelerate.
You can use air or gases with compression and energy to move objects from high pressure and energy to lower pressure and energy. Like blowing a ping pong ball up into the air.
The earth’s atmosphere has more pressure at the surface than higher up in the atmosphere.
What unbalance force makes an object accelerate down from less pressure, density into more pressure, density, resistance, air molecules with more energy?
Why do ships have to consider center of gravity to stay upright.
For stable flight for heavier than air aircraft, why must the center of gravity be ahead of the center of pressure from the atmosphere.
Why when you use a scale in a vacuum chamber, why do objects increase in weight as atmospheric density decreases, and the influence of buoyancy decreases. The amount of atmosphere in the chamber can be made negligible, yet the object still has weight.
There is clearly another force than atmosphere. Atmosphere buoyancy is dependent on.
You can remove the amount of atmosphere from a chamber and make any fluid forces negligible. Yet objects still fall. Objects still have weight.
bulmabriefs144, you are fleeing from the topic of this thread. And now fleeing from the argument you started. You look weak and in retreat bulmabriefs144 to a subject that has specific forums to post in. That has nothing to do with this thread, and not the purpose of this forum.
-
Bulma, care to enlighten us on the religion you are a part of, which preaches the Earth is Flat?
It's not important to me whether you remain a flat earther or repent. But are you attempting to convert people to flat earth with your rhetoric? Is that your goal?
I'd like to think if you were genuine, somebody here would have gotten through to you by now that gravity is the reason things fall.
Whether you are legitimate in your refusal to accept, or just trolling to get your kicks, doesn't really matter. You demonstrate the pointlessness of these flat earth debates. What is anybody learning from this exchange?
-
It takes an unbalance force to make objects of mass accelerate.
Oh okay, because "Sir" Isaac Newton said so, it must be true.
You do understand that titles of knighthood are honorary, right? Like saint or Pope or king, or any other title, there is actually no such thing as a knight. We are all just human beings. Wearing a funny costume like this
(https://medicallogowear.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/7156-LRP-WHT-1024x1536.jpg)
is not going to convince me that someone is a scientist, and more than this
(https://cdn.wallpapersafari.com/3/29/SUmpJd.jpg)
will convince me that they are a knight.
These are all just costumes.
So, you appealing to authority for "Sir" Isaac Newton's talk of unbalanced force is just that, an appeal to authority fallacy.
There is literally no need, and no justification why we need "unbalanced forces."
Very occasionally, Occam's Razor is wrong, and you have a more complicated explanation ("if you hear hoofbeats, expect horses not zebras" unless you happen to live somewhere zebras are more common). But such situations are unlikely.
Bulma, care to enlighten us on the religion you are a part of, which preaches the Earth is Flat?
It's not important to me whether you remain a flat earther or repent. But are you attempting to convert people to flat earth with your rhetoric? Is that your goal?
The Bible itself teaches in multiple places that the Earth is flat. Modern Christians just ignore this because their faith has been corrupted by Newtonists. In fact, most religions originally taught the Earth was flat. Pretty much only some Muslims still believe this today.
I have my own religion. I believe in the teachings of Taoism, Buddhism, and Christianity. And I believe in personal boundaries.
I don't have any goal beyond defending my own beliefs. All people have the right to their own beliefs and their own freedom. What they don't have the right to is my beliefs, my life, or my freedom. If someone comes to my doorstep with a "convert or die" mentality, I have every right to push them outside with a blunt weapon, call the police, and if the police sides with the extremist, kill them both where they stand.
That seems violent, you say? Weren't they wanting to kill me themselves?
(https://dailytorch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Convert-NRD-600.jpg)
You do not have the right to tell me what to believe or feel. Likewise for me, I can't make you believe me.
Our beliefs, our feelings, end at another person.
Also, they tried. They were completely incapable of producing anything remotely convincing. It's not real, RE is a hoax. No, I haven't the slightest desire to convert you, either to Christianity or to FE. But I will explain my position, and from there, it is up to you to decide whether you decide the evidence works or not.
-
It takes an unbalance force to make objects of mass accelerate.
Oh okay, because "Sir" Isaac Newton said so, it must be true.
You do understand that titles of knighthood are honorary, right? Like saint or Pope or king, or any other title, there is actually no such thing as a knight. We are all just human beings. Wearing a funny costume like this
(https://medicallogowear.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/7156-LRP-WHT-1024x1536.jpg)
is not going to convince me that someone is a scientist, and more than this
(https://cdn.wallpapersafari.com/3/29/SUmpJd.jpg)
will convince me that they are a knight.
These are all just costumes.
So, you appealing to authority for "Sir" Isaac Newton's talk of unbalanced force is just that, an appeal to authority fallacy.
There is literally no need, and no justification why we need "unbalanced forces."
Very occasionally, Occam's Razor is wrong, and you have a more complicated explanation ("if you hear hoofbeats, expect horses not zebras" unless you happen to live somewhere zebras are more common). But such situations are unlikely.
Bulma, care to enlighten us on the religion you are a part of, which preaches the Earth is Flat?
It's not important to me whether you remain a flat earther or repent. But are you attempting to convert people to flat earth with your rhetoric? Is that your goal?
The Bible itself teaches in multiple places that the Earth is flat. Modern Christians just ignore this because their faith has been corrupted by Newtonists. In fact, most religions originally taught the Earth was flat. Pretty much only some Muslims still believe this today.
I have my own religion. I believe in the teachings of Taoism, Buddhism, and Christianity. And I believe in personal boundaries.
I don't have any goal beyond defending my own beliefs. All people have the right to their own beliefs and their own freedom. What they don't have the right to is my beliefs, my life, or my freedom. If someone comes to my doorstep with a "convert or die" mentality, I have every right to push them outside with a blunt weapon, call the police, and if the police sides with the extremist, kill them both where they stand.
That seems violent, you say? Weren't they wanting to kill me themselves?
(https://dailytorch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Convert-NRD-600.jpg)
You do not have the right to tell me what to believe or feel. Our beliefs, our feelings, end at another person.
Also, they tried. They were completely incapable of producing anything remotely convincing. It's not real, RE is a hoax. No, I haven't the slightest desire to convert you, either to Christianity or to FE. But I will explain my position, and from there, it is up to you to decide whether you decide the evidence works or not.
It's true not because Isaac said it, but because it is true. It is the statement's inherent property of being true that makes said statement true.
And you're right. Nobody has any right to force you to accept that the earth is round. But that won't change the shape of the earth anymore than when I say that the earth is shaped like a paper crane.
It's like going around telling people that two is not a prime number. They will of course reply "What is you even talking about? Are you retarded?", because two being a prime number is a true statement, and denying it means either they're retarded, or they're retarded.
-
Also, you don't seem to understand occam's razor. It states that when you have two or more *CORRECT* theories, the simplest one usually is true. If one meteor broke the tree and then hit another to obliterate itself, where did the debris go? If a meteor indeed hit the tree, why is there no scorch marks on the tree? And when you have a heavy object pushing a tree down, then leaves must be crushed. But the leaves which supposedly makes contact the meteor seems fine? And what trajectory should the meteor take to first knock down the tree, and then meet another meteor midflight? How is one able to explain why the meteor follows this trajectory? If even one of these can't be answered, then there's no need to use occam's razor for we already know that they meteor theory is implausible.
This all happens because you guys don't think things through. "Occam's razor? What is that? Oh, simple explanation -> correct explanation? Got it!" This is basically the level of your thought process.
(https://marketbusinessnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Ockhams-razor-image-with-explanation-and-example.jpg)
-
Yeah. Because it's the correct theory.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1232065628014247946/Ockhams-razor-image-with-explanation-and-example.jpg?ex=66281a08&is=6626c888&hm=50fba419a75fb14c05e71e17886aecbb5198dbb4637cef9be3222c98c878a6f4&)
-
RE is not a new theory.
That's right. It is quite well established. Known for thousands of years.
What is new is the modern FE BS, made by people who can't handle reality, who need to invent so much BS to pretend their delusional BS works, because they can't accept reality.
Ancient Babylon, a culture that predates most religions of the world believed in Round Earth
Did it? Or did it believe in a flat Earth with more in common with the modern RE model, than the modern FE BS?
Religion was a crawling out of the mud and no longer seeing humanity as a bunch of slaves
No, that is exactly what it was doing.
I actually have explained several times why things fall.
No, you haven't.
When you start your explanation with things falling, that isn't explaining anything.
Have you noticed every time that I post, there's an explanation of why things fall in my signature?
Have you noticed that use just use your signature to contain a bunch of refuted lies?
Gravity as a theory fails Occam's Razor
No, gravity passes.
In order to fail, you need an alternative explanation that works.
You are yet to provide that, and instead rely upon pure magic.
Pure magic is not an explanation.
Gravity provides the directionality, as a force of attraction between masses.
It explains the rate.
It explains the pressure gradient, and doesn't need magic to ignore the pressure gradient.
Your crap doesn't work at all.
You have no explanation for the directionality.
You have no explanation for the rate.
You have no explanation for the pressure gradien.
You have no explanation for why the pressure gradient doesn't push things up.
In short, you have nothing and you rely upon magic to fill in the blanks.
deny the basic logic that objects raise or fall based on their own merit
That is not logic.
That is pure magic.
Why should an object rise or fall based on its own merits?
Why should it move?
Why in any particular direction?
Why at a specific rate?
Because if the sun gives off force, we should be falling toward it instead, because it is multiple times more massive under heliocentrism.
You have already had that BS refuted.
The entire Earth-moon system, including all of us, are falling towards the sun as we orbit it.
Oh okay, because "Sir" Isaac Newton said so, it must be true.
No, because that is what all the evidence shows.
The only alleged exception is your magic, where things magically accelerate for no reason at all, because you hate gravity.
So which is the simpler idea?
For an object to accelerate it needs a force acting on it.
Or
For an object to accelerate it needs a force acting on it; unless that acceleration is downwards at a highly specific which varies with location which does not need a force, even though if you place an object like a set of scales underneath it, these scale will measure a force pressing down on them.
I sure know which one sounds simpler.
If it acts like a force in every conceivable way, it is most likely a force.
So whatever is making it go down is almost certainly a force.
Very occasionally, Occam's Razor is wrong, and you have a more complicated explanation ("if you hear hoofbeats, expect horses not zebras" unless you happen to live somewhere zebras are more common). But such situations are unlikely.
Which is why we can discard your delusional BS.
The Bible itself teaches in multiple places that the Earth is flat. Modern Christians just ignore this
Because they want to pretend their religion is true.
If they were being honest, they would accept their religion is wrong, and discard for the outdated garbage it is.
Also, they tried. They were completely incapable of producing anything remotely convincing.
You mean convincing to someone like you who has already made their mind up and will reject reality at all costs.
You are yet to present a single fault with the RE model, nor have you been able to defend your delusional BS, and you blatantly lie while doing so.
Yeah. Because it's the correct theory.
No, your delusional BS is not correct.
Yet again, notice how you simplify your BS to ignore so much of reality you can't explain, while for gravity, the far more likely to be correct theory, you throw in so much extra to pretend it is complex.
Try it more honestly:
Why did the boulder fall down the hill?
1 - Because a force of attraction between Earth and the boulder pulled it down.
2 - Because it magically sensed that it was denser than the surroundings, which magically means it has to accelerate downwards at a particular magical rate for this location which it just magically knows.
All you are doing with these posts is demonstrating your dishonesty, showing everyone that you are lying scum that will use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend reality is wrong and your delusional fantasy is true.
Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
And no, your previous post does not address it, as already explained, so repeating that delusional BS wont help.
-
Oh okay, because "Sir" Isaac Newton said so, it must be true.
Yes. And the same force of gravity that makes objects accelerate down is the same force that prevents me from push a car up hill for the same car I can push around on a flat floor all day long.
Gravity, the same force that is responsible for center of gravity.
Center of gravity that is different than buoyancy and determines if a ship will stay upright as designed.
-
It takes an unbalance force to make objects of mass accelerate.
Oh okay, because "Sir" Isaac Newton said so, it must be true.
You do understand that titles of knighthood are honorary, right? Like saint or Pope or king, or any other title, there is actually no such thing as a knight. We are all just human beings. Wearing a funny costume like this
(https://medicallogowear.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/7156-LRP-WHT-1024x1536.jpg)
is not going to convince me that someone is a scientist, and more than this
(https://cdn.wallpapersafari.com/3/29/SUmpJd.jpg)
will convince me that they are a knight.
These are all just costumes.
So, you appealing to authority for "Sir" Isaac Newton's talk of unbalanced force is just that, an appeal to authority fallacy.
There is literally no need, and no justification why we need "unbalanced forces."
Very occasionally, Occam's Razor is wrong, and you have a more complicated explanation ("if you hear hoofbeats, expect horses not zebras" unless you happen to live somewhere zebras are more common). But such situations are unlikely.
Bulma, care to enlighten us on the religion you are a part of, which preaches the Earth is Flat?
It's not important to me whether you remain a flat earther or repent. But are you attempting to convert people to flat earth with your rhetoric? Is that your goal?
The Bible itself teaches in multiple places that the Earth is flat. Modern Christians just ignore this because their faith has been corrupted by Newtonists. In fact, most religions originally taught the Earth was flat. Pretty much only some Muslims still believe this today.
I have my own religion. I believe in the teachings of Taoism, Buddhism, and Christianity. And I believe in personal boundaries.
I don't have any goal beyond defending my own beliefs. All people have the right to their own beliefs and their own freedom. What they don't have the right to is my beliefs, my life, or my freedom. If someone comes to my doorstep with a "convert or die" mentality, I have every right to push them outside with a blunt weapon, call the police, and if the police sides with the extremist, kill them both where they stand.
That seems violent, you say? Weren't they wanting to kill me themselves?
(https://dailytorch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Convert-NRD-600.jpg)
You do not have the right to tell me what to believe or feel. Likewise for me, I can't make you believe me.
Our beliefs, our feelings, end at another person.
Also, they tried. They were completely incapable of producing anything remotely convincing. It's not real, RE is a hoax. No, I haven't the slightest desire to convert you, either to Christianity or to FE. But I will explain my position, and from there, it is up to you to decide whether you decide the evidence works or not.
Phew! Thank God! I thought you may have been trapped in some backwards religion. So you're Amish then? Does your Seventh Day Adventists and Buddhist temple know you moonlight as Amish?
As for the ten commandments, they are a very loose guideline, but there are exceptions to every one of those commandments. I have a very strong spiritual side and Christian basis, probably stronger than yours.
You can try to change my beliefs, just as I may try to change yours. A Jehovah's Witness can lawfully knock on your front door to speak to you and try to change your beliefs. You cannot lawfully assault them for doing that. You can lawfully tell them you are not interested, and tell them to never return. Even better, you can put a sticker on your letterbox or front door, saying, no hawkers, no salespersons. But you cannot assault them. Why would you even be offended that someone wants to change your belief on something?
Seriously, either everything is significant or nothing is. Even a blade of grass blowing in the wind is significant, do you believe that? So, what difference does it make if Earth is a snow globe, or a sphere moving through space?
If you could kick your addiction to movies and how movies are made, you'd be more receptive to accepting space footage as real. I bet most of the people you pray with, accept space footage as real?
Just to be clear on something. This flat earth society which provides a platform for debates and discussions, is an irony. The irony is, all the best discussions and debates on this forum, have absolutely nothing to do with flat earth or the shape of the Earth or
physics. On other subject matters, you and I can be on equal footing.
-
Question: Why has Newtonian Physics given way to Quantum Physics?
Answer 1: Because there are things inherently false about Newtonian Physics, and everyone knows it (even though they pretend they don't).
Answer 2: Because Quantum Physics is about supplanting religion with hippie secular Marvel Comic Universe-style religion.
Now, I like MCU movies okay (less so the more woke they are), but much of the so-called theories are just kinda like Joan of Arcadia after school programming. If I cut a branch of a tree, and burn that branch, no the rest of the tree is not entangled. That's crap. The tree is whole on the spiritual level, it doesn't feed back to the original tree. Phantom pain is real. Quantum entanglement is not.
The fact that people are trying to push these concepts as though they were science is a pretty strong case that Newton's theory is unsatisfactory.
Yes. And the same force of gravity that makes objects accelerate down is the same force that prevents me from push a car up hill for the same car I can push around on a flat floor all day long.
You're pushing the car with hill on the side away from you, and on the side closer to you there's air.
Or did it believe in a flat Earth with more in common with the modern RE model, than the modern FE BS?
It believed in a round Earth. Everything the secular humanists do is lent from the playbook of Babylon.
Religion was a crawling out of the mud and no longer seeing humanity as a bunch of slaves
No, that is exactly what it was doing.
Under Babylon, all of humanity enslaved under one nation, under one purpose, and told to build a tower. Perhaps you've heard of it.
(https://www.artmajeur.com/medias/hd/m/i/mikhalchyk2110/artwork/12543434_img-3828.jpg)
No, gravity passes.
In order to fail, you need an alternative explanation that works.
You are yet to provide that, and instead rely upon pure magic.
Pure magic is not an explanation.
Ah okay. So a mysterious force that you cannot see is not magic. But buoyancy, which can be seen in action whenever something is put in water, and can be seen again when you have a balloon, that's clearly magic. Good to know! ^-^
That is not logic.
That is pure magic.
The superstitious invoke the word magic whenever something they cannot explain appears.
The faithful understand that even faith is not magic.
1 - Because a force of attraction between Earth and the boulder pulled it down.
2 - Because it magically sensed that it was denser than the surroundings, which magically means it has to accelerate downwards at a particular magical rate for this location which it just magically knows.
"Force of attraction." So, if I build an automobile weighing roughly 30 tons, and toss it and a paperclip away from other things that might attract it, the paperclip should fall towards the automobile (in the absence of the Earth). Why has this never been seen?
There is no magic involved. It just falls.
What, is there magic involved in making objects float? No, it just floats.
Because buoyancy works.
But since you're invoking turtles all the way down, demanding a force responsible for the buoyancy (which is a force itself), there should also be a force responsible for gravity. And a force for that force. And a force for that force. And a force for that force. And a force for that force. And so on.
If you insist in trying shoehorn gravity into a perfectly functional force, then why stop there? Why don't we meddle with all the forces? Weak attraction? Nah, that's caused by...
-
WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?
Oh my God.
I explained this already, no less than a post ago.
Here, let's see if we can explain this yet again.
I have two boxes. One is filled with feathers. One is filled with metal spheres. Both are filled so there is no air space. Which will safely be able to be set on top of the other box, and which will cave the box in?
This is buoyancy. There is nothing else.
Ths is most definitely NOT bouyancy.
Bouyancy is the pressure acted surface of an object by the surrounding fluid.
The fluid happens to have a pressure gradient.
The gradient means that for every infinite millimeter nanonmeter of elevation thw pressure below is higher than the pressure above.
The FORCE is generated by difference in PRESSURE / SURFACE.
Which happens to only be in the upward direction (given the fluid is relatively stationary).
So
By using a object-surface interactio with the surrounding fluid.
You need to explain how the above mentioned mechanism
1. of presuee gradient pushes down, whennit only pushes up and
2. how fluids knows whats inside a surface, to know the density, when all it knows is touching surface.
Did this get missed?
Please if you could, 1 and 2.
Thanks
-
1. of presure gradient pushes down, when it only pushes up and
2. how fluids knows whats inside a surface, to know the density, when all it knows is touching surface.
Did this get missed?
Please if you could, 1 and 2.
No, it didn't get missed.
Already covered.
1. Pressure pushes in multiple directions, actually.
2. Fluids don't have intelligence. They simply rise and fall in response to each other. Like this.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1232123152339832952/PlateFall.png?ex=66284f9b&is=6626fe1b&hm=dcd7236760b11de015c54d91f9f9832f8cbe3ff46cd7dd189c2df2d01e38beea&)
The plate is not only collapsing the air about it but forcing it away around itself. This is what is happening with displacement, too. The water is pushed around the heavy yet floating object.
-
Mmm yes
So water touching a bucket knows if the bucket is empty or not and suddenly, but not sentiently, pushes down when full and up when empty.
Got it.
-
Yeah. Because it's the correct theory.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1232065628014247946/Ockhams-razor-image-with-explanation-and-example.jpg?ex=66281a08&is=6626c888&hm=50fba419a75fb14c05e71e17886aecbb5198dbb4637cef9be3222c98c878a6f4&)
Yeah... No. Look, for a moment, let's say that hypothetically the reason objects fall down might hypothetically be due to the air pressure. Hypothetically, of course. So with this assumption, think of this for a moment:
Say you have a spherical, half shell. You place it on a table with the open side up and you take a marble. Or a metal ball. Now you place it on the edge of shell and let it roll. Now, for whatever reason, it will fall to the center. But now, my question is, Why does it come back up, instead of just staying down at the center?
(https://i.ibb.co/p0gVmpv/Untitled22-20240423085456.png)
Assuming no frictional and air drag losses, bonus points if you can tell me the time period T for going back and forth once assuming a sphere of arbitrary radius R.
Infact, you try this yourself. Get a cereal bowl which doesn't have any sharp edges on the inside and let your tiny ball roll from the edge.
-
Question: Why has Newtonian Physics given way to Quantum Physics?
Because Newtonian physics is incomplete.
e.g. it can't describe wave particle duality which is required to explain the properties of electrons in atoms.
But that is not relevant here.
It believed in a round Earth. Everything the secular humanists do is lent from the playbook of Babylon.
The depiction you appealed to does not look like a round Earth.
So far everything I have found indicated they thought Earth was flat.
But again, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Yet again you cannot refute the RE, so you try to vilify it.
Under Babylon, all of humanity enslaved under one nation, under one purpose, and told to build a tower. Perhaps you've heard of it.
As opposed to under Christianity, where they are enslaved to worship your evil POS, with threats of eternal torment if they don't?
Ah okay. So a mysterious force that you cannot see is not magic.
I wouldn't call it mysterious.
But it is no more invisible than your BS buoyancy or plenty of other forces.
The effects of gravity are readily observed.
The superstitious invoke the word magic whenever something they cannot explain appears.
The faithful understand that even faith is not magic.
i.e. those who believe in the magic but want to pretend it isn't magic.
I don't need faith. I need evidence and rational explanations, things you can't provide.
"Force of attraction." So, if I build an automobile weighing roughly 30 tons, and toss it and a paperclip away from other things that might attract it, the paperclip should fall towards the automobile (in the absence of the Earth). Why has this never been seen?
When have you seen an automobile and paperclip, in the absence of Earth?
You have effectively answered your own question.
There is no magic involved. It just falls.
i.e. magic.
You have no reason at all.
It just magically falls for no reason at all, magically knowing to go down, and magically knowing at what rate to go down. All while defying the measurable pressure gradient that should be pushing it up.
That is magic.
a force responsible for the buoyancy (which is a force itself)
Previously your big objection was asking why a force is needed. Now you are saying it is a force?
If you take your magic buoyancy, and treat it as a force, and try to determine the magnitude of this force force, without also ignoring the pressure gradient, it ends up a downwards force proportional to mass, with the pressure gradient explaining why things float. You need to treat it as pure magic and not a force to pretend it works.
And this goes directly back to Archimedes, that realised an object is buoyed UPWARDS by a force equal to the WEIGHT of fluid displaced.
If you bother doing the math, you find the upwards force due to the pressure gradient is equal in magnitude to the weight of the fluid displaced.
So when then measure the force on an object, we find the force due to your "buoyancy" is merely a downwards force equal to the weight of the substance.
Gravity is nothing like your imagined buoyancy.
It is a simple fundamental force, with a simple formula of F=GMm/r^2. Just like electrostatics has F=kQq/r^2; with the big distinction between with gravity like attracts like (matter attracts matter) while in electrostatics opposites attract. Even magnetism, if you treat it as monopoles, works with the same kind of law, but you need to combine the force from multiple such hypothetical monopoles.
All of these simple fundamental forces have a justification for the directionality, you are attracted towards something or repelled from something. There is that something there. You on the other hand have it as just down, with no justification.
Likewise, all of these simple fundamental forces have a justification for the magnitude and why it varies. There is a constant of proportionality and some property of the substance in question which dictates that magnitude, with that property varying resulting in the magnitude varying. This explains why the force varies around Earth. You have nothing. The best you got was appealing to the humidity of the air.
Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
-
Mmm yes
So water touching a bucket knows if the bucket is empty or not and suddenly, but not sentiently, pushes down when full and up when empty.
Got it.
Yes, and double yes! Also, all objects with mass, have weight because of buoyancy. A car driving along, stays on the road, not because of it's weight due to gravity, but because of it's weight due to buoyancy.
Also, a gravimeter which measures gravity, doesn't actually measure gravity, it measures buoyancy. And like I pointed out, an aircraft flying along which suddenly inverts, results in passengers falling out of their seats and landing on the cabin ceiling, not because of gravity, but somehow because of buoyancy.
This is the magical world of the flat earther.
-
So we once again ask
By what mechanism does "pushing up" action result in a 'pushing down?"
-
So we once again ask
By what mechanism does "pushing up" action result in a 'pushing down?"
A scale doesn't work on "gravity" but buoyancy.
Object A if it has more mass than Object B, tilts the scale its way. And vice versa for object B, if it has more mass.
But this is simple mass, not density. Density, as you know, as mass/volume. If we were to get an object that had greater mass than object B but the volume a much greater (Object A is a plank of wood, Object B is a solid gold scale weight), then Object B would possibly push Object A up. So Object B goes down, Object A goes up.
I want you to keep this visualization in mind. So while lighter objects are rising, stuff around it is getting displaced. A balloon displaces heavier air as it pushes up, just as a somewhat heavy floating log displaces water as it pushes down yet still floats.
You are being deliberately obtuse, in hopes of convincing me of something that isn't so.
My dad as a minister had some woke lady (before woke was cool) tell him "I don't understand" after his sermons. He eventually told her something like "Everyone else seems to understand it."
-
This is just too amazing.
Too amazing to realize YOU are the woman.
And WE are the everyone else gets it.
"Heavy things fall ebcause theyre heavy" is what you keep stating.
We are not disagreeing with you there.
But your claim the mechanism of down is the same nmechanosm as up is the problem.
State in super clear terms - how by pushing up, something goes down.
Pushing up, leads to down.
If you state because its heavy, then it is a DIFFFERENT mechanism from bouyancy.
-
"I don't understand."
Of course you don't.
Too amazing to realize YOU are the woman.
And WE are the everyone else gets it.
You're confusing common sense for peer pressure.
Everyone else is told a silly story, and rather than trust their own instincts, they trust the words of charlatans.
Silly women trust woke secularism over the truth that God gives us. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
Newton tells you a fable about apples dropping, and you somehow forget that for literally thousands of years before even Archimedes, people have been able to make boats and such function.
Copernicus and Galileo tell you fables about what they saw Through the Looking Glass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through_the_Looking-Glass), and you don't bother to question it, even taking it on faith.
Your teacher tells you a fable about how the Earth orbits the sun, and you don't question how this clearly looks the opposite of the observed path of the sun, or the lack of motion sickness you experience, or how the stars haven't lost the shape of constellations in hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) of years despite the mad course of the Earth following after the sun around the galaxy, and you buy it completely.
You have secured teachers for yourself because your ears itch. But my eyes can see the sun rise and set each day. And I could watch it year after year without seeing different stars. Had I a lifespan like God, I could watch the sun rise and set for millions of years and never see different stars.
But your claim the mechanism of down is the same mechanism as up is the problem.
Because it is the same.
If I toss a rubber ball into the air, it reaches a point where upward motion slows, then it drops.
If I drop a rubber ball into the water, it reaches a point where downward motion slows, then it rises.
Identical motion, in opposite directions.
Now, if we contrast the motion of a rubber ball placed inside a small rocket or launched from a specialized gun (this is propulsion, until it isn't), or a rubber ball with a bit of metal inside with a EM device (magnetism), you can see their motion is different.
Different forces create different types of motion.
-
No
Because if the pressure is increased above a prevoously floaty object, it is pushed down.
The natural pressure gradient pushes up.
The pressure pushes things around.
So pressure gradient exists or not?
The water does not know whats in the bucket.
It could be rocks.
It could be sand.
It could be marshmellows.
All it knows is the surface.
Waht touches s the bucket.
But in your theory, the fluid knows.
How?
How does the fluid know?
-
"I don't understand."
Of course you don't.
Too amazing to realize YOU are the woman.
And WE are the everyone else gets it.
You're confusing common sense for peer pressure.
You're confusing truth for peer pressure.
-
Object A if it has more mass than Object B, tilts the scale its way. And vice versa for object B, if it has more mass.
But why?
Because there is a downwards force acting on it.
Sane people recognise this force as gravity, and buoyancy as an upwards force.
But not you.
I want you to keep this visualization in mind. So while lighter objects are rising, stuff around it is getting displaced. A balloon displaces heavier air as it pushes up
Quite the opposite it.
By merely existing the balloon displaces air.
That air then is pulled down by gravity, which pushes the balloon up.
You are being deliberately obtuse, in hopes of convincing me of something that isn't so.
And there you go with more projections.
Silly women trust woke secularism over the truth that God gives us.
No, willy women trust the BS your pasters preach over the truth.
Stop trying to deflect to your religious BS, it has no place here.
Newton tells you a fable about apples dropping, and you somehow forget that for literally thousands of years before even Archimedes, people have been able to make boats and such function.
You mean the same Archimedes that recognises weight (gravitas in latin) as a downwards force, and buoyancy as an upwards force based upon the weight of fluid displaced?
You mean the very thing you reject?
faith
This is not about faith.
It is about evidence and explanatory power.
YOUR BS DOESN'T WORK!
this clearly looks the opposite of the observed path of the sun
No, it doesn't, no more so than the idea of a car you are in is travelling along a highway rather than the entire Earth moving backwards.
motion sickness
Which should not be experienced.
how the stars haven't lost the shape of constellations in hundreds of thousands
The location of stars have changed.
But my eyes can see the sun rise and set each day.
Clearly destroying your delusional fantasy where the sun magically stays above, yet you still cling to your BS.
Because it is the same.
No, it isn't.
This goes directly back to the pressure gradient.
Again, we know this pressure gradient exists.
We know it pushes things up.
We know this causes the buoyant force.
You can't explain it at all.
Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
-
No
Because if the pressure is increased above a prevoously floaty object, it is pushed down.
The natural pressure gradient pushes up.
The pressure pushes things around.
So pressure gradient exists or not?
The water does not know whats in the bucket.
It could be rocks.
It could be sand.
It could be marshmellows.
All it knows is the surface.
Waht touches s the bucket.
But in your theory, the fluid knows.
How?
How does the fluid know?
What you're doing is hauling around dogma.
I know plenty about dogma as a member of the church. Every Sunday, we recite the Nicene Creed which has passages about how Jesus is "begotten not made" (which I accept) and how he "will come again in glory to jusdge the living and the dead" (which I reject as part of the apocalyptic teachings, which I believe obscure the fact that Jesus has already come again, yet all of us are fine).
Oh yes, I know when someone is telling me "this should be true, because that is what I was taught." Yes, that is what you were taught, but you're not a wind-up doll.
You can decide for yourself whether what you learn in science class checks out or not. Critical thinking is not some trendy thing that people pay lip service to. Critical thinking means you get to decide.
I've already told you what tells it. Its mass or density (which is just mass divided out by volume) makes it shift around in response to matter around it. It's not some force, it's not some kind of intelligence. It's just mass, just as rolling a pebble and a boulder on a block of ice will either break or not based in how heavy per square inch.
I've told you what it looks like, I've showed you diagrams. You want some specific type of proof, but you've already got some preconceived answer as to how things should be. Nothing will convince you, just as I'm fairly sure nothing will dissuade me.
No. If you want to rehearse your dogma, that's fine with me. As I mentioned before, you have 100% right to your own beliefs. As do I. But it's when you don't respect that, that we're gonna have a problem here.
-
No, look, you have 100% right to your own beliefs. But belief and truth are different. You can't believe that airplanes don't fly as much as I can't believe that earth is flat.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71184.0
-
Its mass!
Hurray
Glad we all agree
Mass brings things down
vs shape/ volume and displacement makes things go up.
(An empty balloon drops. A crumpled tinfoil boat sinks)
And how fast they go up/down depends on the difference between both.
Amazing.
Glad we agree.
-
Hurray!!!
No, look, you have 100% right to your own beliefs. But belief and truth are different. You can't believe that airplanes don't fly as much as I can't believe that earth is flat.
Planes do fly, though.
It's spaceships that don't leave atmosphere. But you need propulsion or an object starts to sink. The heavier the object, the less aerodynamic it is, the more it sinks.
Spaceships don't leave atmosphere because they have too much mass. "No problem! We'll just separate these big oxidized fluid gas thruster thingies and we'll have less mass!" Great, so ummm that's like being in a car and instead of filling up the tank somewhere, you toss the engine for ballast. ;D In an area where ignition is difficult because of extremely thin air, you just tossed the one thing that could push you ahead.
The fiction goes that space has no air resistance so objects once in motion stay in motion. Hurray! That might get you to the moon. Where you will crash land because there is not sufficient propulsion to generate repulsion. That is, you can't land. By some miracle, you do land? You're stuck! Objects at rest stay at rest.
Belief and truth are different. Your beliefs are not the truth. They are someone else's fiction, which believe me, I believed myself.
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/behaviorofliquidsandgasesbuoyancy-110412182541-phpapp02/95/behavior-of-liquids-and-gases-buoyancy-4-728.jpg?cb=1302632800)
You want a pressure gradient? Here's one. There are solid objects and liquids in this. You could probably add several gas layers above the glass, such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulfuric gas, etc.
Gravity would say these solid objects should all settle to the bottom. But I betcha your left nut they won't. In fact, if I were to shake the glass to try to remix the layers, the same layers would eventually remix. I have a homemade salad dressing that does exactly this. I have to shake it or the salad dressing is pure oil or pure vinegar or pure whatever. The good news in all this is that it makes for some interesting-looking drinks at the bar.
(https://image.freepik.com/free-photo/summer-rainbow-layered-cocktail_107389-408.jpg)
(https://cdn.diffords.com/contrib/stock-images/2014/5/21/2014ca5eba3695f73375cf0bad6d417d3c0c.jpg)
You can believe what you want, but the truth is not on your side.
Clear as day, you can see that these layers don't settle unless "shaken, not stirred."
So if you can believe what you want, but gravity is really buoyancy, where does that leave you?
Well, simple. Order one of those drinks at the bar. You can take a big gulp of one of those drinks and forget I said anything (and probably alot else). Or you can stare at it, go "Huh!" and decide to stay sober, giving it to a friend or something.
-
It's spaceships that don't leave atmosphere.
Yeap. Rockets do enter space and place objects in orbit.
Third party verification, more like the whole world, observed Sputnik and its rocket place a rocket stage in orbit that was visible from the ground changing the night sky. The satellite itself Sputnik was verified in orbit by its broadcast and the Doppler shift of it’s broadcast.
Rockets literally eject their own mass and atmosphere to create thrust. Why do you think the laws of motion magically stop in extreme low density atmosphere. A gun can fire in the same environment because the gunpowder has its own oxidizer, will still fire, and still kick. A spring is still going to launch a ball. Rocket fuel is basically a chemical spring.
You want a pressure gradient?
Why does the pressure gradient go away when near zero gravity is duplicated by placing objects is a free fall.
I ignore the stuff that's fictional in the telling of how certain things work.
As I said before, if gravity has to be involved then the science is pseudo-science.
Hmm..
As shown by experiments, it takes gravity to do this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JhNjcSGF/images-8.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
You're getting weaker by the second.
Then why do these liquids mix?
Liquids in near-Zero G
Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'
What’s your expectation why the liquids mix?
Why do a feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate when air resistance is made negligible.
Why can gravity accurately model a dropped ball when den pressure can’t?
Why can gravity accurately model tides and make accurate predictions?
Density isn’t a force. What drives liquids to form a pressure gradient and separate out by density.
-
The mysterious Down Force pulls the denser fluids and denser liquids and denser everything down.
As shown by you, there is a pressure gradient as per the colours and layers.
And if an object is shaped in such a way to displace the fluid, the fluid pushes back on the object.
Pushes more from the bottom due to said pressure gradient.
So now we know the fluids push up -
How does pushing up, make something go down.
https://youtube.com/shorts/gzu6kK38KZg?si=AGSnRQqKBLNyXDH3
-
Again.
Buoyancy is a force. Density is not. The density of objects is part of the buoyancy equation.
As far as I'm concerned, the only part. Density is mass/volume. Mass is not a force. Nor is volume.
Buoyancy is a force that uses mass and volume to determine whether things float or not.
So now we know the fluids push up
Tell you what, when you start doing your own experiments and I don't have to, maybe I'll answer your questions. I feel like my art teacher from 6th grade trying to explain art to me as a child, who still draw people like this.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/785252424427765802/1233485704722518177/WeirdPpl.png?ex=662d4495&is=662bf315&hm=79e59e90166aeff1f0473c19bc89023ad529ac09d50f3910b358bd5c26885b3c&)
I was a fucking retarded artist, and my art teacher was at a loss for how to explain to me. She knew the technique, as she was a real artist rather "who can't do, teach." But I was terrible, and it took a lot of work on her part to convince me I was terrible and needed to improve. So let me give you that gift. Your grasp of physics and chemistry stinks. Like me back then, you cling to what you think works. Sorry, winged square-bodied people is no way to go through life, and neither is having a concept of physics borrowed from old dead dudes. You ought to make your own opinions about how the Earth works. If that's still RE fine, but it ought to at least be an original thought about it.
I told you about the way molecules sort push around each other based on spacing. "I don't understand," says the persistently obtuse person. Everyone who is FE understands. But if you can't understand, so go ahead and do some juggling.
You'll have a better grasp of the relationship of matter by doing than me explaining to you yet again.
-
Again.
Buoyancy is a force.
You claimed a fundamental force.
Yet when you use a vacuum chamber and evacuate all atmosphere until there is no meaningful amount of atmosphere, items weigh more. Still fall down. And often fall down faster.
When you simulate micro gravity with free fall, the pressure gradient goes away.
Why can I roll around a car in neutral all day long on a flat floor. But can’t roll the same car up hill into an atmosphere with less density and pressure.
-
Aah so we can ageee on fundame tal physics formuals?
Force = mass x accelllearion.
Mass = desnity × vokume.
What is the Force in relarion to Pressure?
-
What you're doing is hauling around dogma.
Projecting yet again.
What we have is rational objections based upon evidence.
You can decide for yourself whether what you learn in science class checks out or not. Critical thinking is not some trendy thing that people pay lip service to. Critical thinking means you get to decide.
Critical thinking means you can evaluate it and see how well the evidence supports the theory.
But that is a choice, a choice you have clearly rejected.
You rejecting it doesn't mean it doesn't check out.
I've told you what it looks like, I've showed you diagrams. You want some specific type of proof, but you've already got some preconceived answer as to how things should be.
We want answers to fairly simple questions you keep on avoiding.
Nothing will convince you, just as I'm fairly sure nothing will dissuade me.
Rational arguments, backed by evidence will convince me.
But nothing will convince you as you have made up your mind and are willing to blatantly lie to support it.
you have 100% right to your own beliefs. As do I. But it's when you don't respect that, that we're gonna have a problem here.
You have a right to your own beliefs. But when you state them publicly, then everyone else has the right to point out those beliefs are pure BS.
If you don't want your BS beliefs criticised, then keep them to yourself.
It's spaceships that don't leave atmosphere.
Yet all the evidence shows they do.
Spaceships don't leave atmosphere because they have too much mass.
Which is countered by the propulsion they have.
The thrust is greater than the weight.
So no problem.
Instead, yet again you are spouting BS.
you just tossed the one thing that could push you ahead.
No, they tossed out a quite heavy thing which could push them, while leaving a much lighter version.
The fiction goes that space has no air resistance so objects once in motion stay in motion.
You mean reality.
There is negligible air resistance in space, allowing objects to continue in motion without needing to continually use their engine.
But there is still an engine and fuel in reserve for various things.
there is not sufficient propulsion
Based upon what?
Belief and truth are different.
That's right, belief and truth are different. Your delusional, repeatedly refuted beliefs are not the truth.
They are pure fiction.
Your wilful rejection of the truth does not make that truth fiction.
You want a pressure gradient? Here's one.
No, that is yet another pathetic deflection.
Yes, there are pressure gradients in there, but that is not dealing the pressure gradient being discussed.
Each layer has a pressure gradient across it.
Pure water has a pressure gradient across it.
This CANNOT be explained through buoyancy.
This pressure gradient EXPLAINS buoyancy.
Gravity would say these solid objects should all settle to the bottom.
Only if you entirely ignore the fluid.
Gravity says the fluids will have a pressure gradient with those pressure gradients will push things up, this includes the solid objects.
It is then a competition between the direct force of gravity on the object, and the force of the pressure gradient on the object.
If the upwards buoyant force from the pressure gradient is greater than the downwards force directly from gravity, it goes up. If the direct force of gravity is greater, then it goes down.
So gravity explains it just fine.
Meanwhile your delusional BS can't explain it at all.
Consider a neutrally buoyant object, well according to your fantasy, buoyancy is not trying to move it up or down. That just leaves the pressure gradient to push it up, so it should go up.
Yet again, your BS fails.
You can believe what you want, but the truth is not on your side.
Projecting yet again.
The truth is on our side. We can easily explain what is happening. You can't.
Instead, to pretend you can, you need to entirely ignore things.
Buoyancy is a force.
An UPWARDS force.
If you want to disagree, provide an equation for this force, for an object with a density of rho_o, and volume of V, in a fluid with a density of rho_f.
Tell you what, when you start doing your own experiments and I don't have to, maybe I'll answer your questions.
It has, that gravity works, and buoyancy is an upwards force caused by the pressure gradient, caused by gravity.
Everyone who is FE understands. But if you can't understand, so go ahead and do some juggling.
You mean everyone who is looking to reject reality can pretend to understand because they are desperate for an excuse.
Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
-
Aah so we can ageee on fundame tal physics formuals?
Force = mass x accelllearion.
Mass = desnity × vokume.
What is the Force in relarion to Pressure?
Ahhhhh your spelling is making my eyes bleed.
:eye_bleeding_emoji:
Density = mass/volume
You don't usually calculate for mass that way.
I don't use acceleration. I use velocity. And the formula is for momentum, not "force". Force is a vague term. What force? There's lots of different forces? But you've decided gravity is the force you mean, even though it is by far the weakest of the so-called fundamental forces, so weak in fact, that there is little proof it exists.
Which is my point exactly. Why is buoyancy (or diffusion, don't care which) not the fourth fundamental force? It's far more observable, birds don't defy buoyancy, and it's not pathetically tiny to the point of having to measure by the -11 power.
You want to believe gravity exists? Fine, but there is a far more important (I can even say "fundamental") force which does the job of handling movement of matter far better.
-
I don't use acceleration. I use velocity.
Then how do you measure that rate at which velocity changes?
Why is buoyancy
Which requires a pressure gradient that goes away in simulating near zero gravity by placing objects in free fall.
Then why do these liquids mix?
Liquids in near-Zero G
Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'
What’s your expectation why the liquids mix?
It's far more observable, birds don't defy buoyancy,
Birds generate lift greater than the downward force of their bodyweight due to gravity.
Again. Why can I roll a car in natural all day long on a level floor but can’t push it up hill. Same mechanical advantage from the wheels, so what force keeps me from pushing it up hill.
-
Aah so we can ageee on fundame tal physics formuals?
Force = mass x accelllearion.
Mass = desnity × vokume.
What is the Force in relarion to Pressure?
Ahhhhh your spelling is making my eyes bleed.
:eye_bleeding_emoji:
Density = mass/volume
You don't usually calculate for mass that way.
I don't use acceleration. I use velocity. And the formula is for momentum, not "force". Force is a vague term. What force? There's lots of different forces? But you've decided gravity is the force you mean, even though it is by far the weakest of the so-called fundamental forces, so weak in fact, that there is little proof it exists.
Which is my point exactly. Why is buoyancy (or diffusion, don't care which) not the fourth fundamental force? It's far more observable, birds don't defy buoyancy, and it's not pathetically tiny to the point of having to measure by the -11 power.
You want to believe gravity exists? Fine, but there is a far more important (I can even say "fundamental") force which does the job of handling movement of matter far better.
ah, yes, momentum of course. calls Newton a pick, proceeds to use momentum.
But glad we can agree on the existence of momentum. So, what, according to you, is the formula for momentum?
-
I don't use acceleration. I use velocity. And the formula is for momentum, not "force".
So you do it entirely wrong?
The formula should be for force, not momentum, with that force translating to acceleration.
That is because when you drop something, it accelerates. It doesn't just instantly jump to terminal velocity.
so weak in fact, that there is little proof it exists.
You mean plenty of proof which you just ignore.
Why is buoyancy (or diffusion, don't care which) not the fourth fundamental force?
Because buoyancy is a result of the pressure gradient due to gravity.
It is not a fundamental force.
Diffusion is just the motion of particles and again is not fundamental.
And more importantly, gravity is a far better explanation, capable of explaining more, and not needing a magic direction with no cause, and magic variation with location with no cause.
If you want it to be a fundamental force, then you need to have it as a magical downwards force proportional to mass.
Alternatively, you need to address the massive issues with your BS which you keep ignoring.
birds don't defy buoyancy
They equally defy gravity and your BS buoyancy.
As a reminder, birds are denser than air.
it's not pathetically tiny to the point of having to measure by the -11 power.
So you don't like it?
You want to believe gravity exists? Fine, but there is a far more important (I can even say "fundamental") force which does the job of handling movement of matter far better.
Repeating the same lies wont help you.
Your BS doesn't work, and is far less fundamental.
Again, a nice simple problem, you have an object in a fluid with a pressure gradient, with the object and fluid having the same density.
Your buoyancy BS does nothing.
This just leaves the pressure gradient to push it up.
So if your delusional BS was true, an object of equal density to the fluid should go up.
But it doesn't.
But back in reality, where gravity is a downwards force and the upwards buoyant force is due to this pressure gradient, there is no problem.
Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
-
See he dodged thw question because he knows F = Pressure / Surface area
And (static) fluids exert a force based on pressure and area.
No mention of mass.
So it is imposiible for a force that pushes an objectup, to cause that same object to go down.
Specifically - water knowing a bucket is full of rocks or full of marshmellows.
He know enough not to answer my question because hes a dishonest pos.
-
No I dodged the question because I know my science is right or not, based on instinct and observations.
Let's do something here. We're going to check "gravity" against the standard of a fantasy story and see how well it stacks up. Only instead of scientific terms, we use fantasy terms, specifically the four primal elements.
I throw a box toward you but it falls before it reaches you. Why is it falling? Well, it's because of the wee faeries. The air faeries want to launch that box straight into the air, but there are just so many earth faeries that grab onto that box and pull it to the ground. The water faeries in the moon are attracted to the water faeries in the Earth, so naturally the moon rises the tides. The tide ought to be lowest while the sun is out because fire faeries are natural enemies of water faeries, but you know those particular fire faeries are really sexy. Water clings to a spherical object like the Earth, but when I try to make the same thing happen for a large bouldder, the lesser water faeries just don't find those lesser earth spirits sexy enough. As for why birds can fly when the box fell? It's because birds have a Pact with the air faeries, and earth faeries are not allowed to go near while they flap their wings or glide, only when they lose balance or consciousness.
This is how backward and superstitious your so-called scientific theory looks to me. It presupposes a force that doesn't have any consistency, and ignores the fact that gravity can't be tested on a micro scale by arguing greater force. Buoyancy can be tested locally, magnetism can be tested locally. All forces but gravity to the best of my knowledge can be tested locally. But "The Earth's gravity is more massive," so gravity can't be tested locally. But the sun's gravity is more massive than the Earth's! Why is only gas pulled toward the sky?
Oh I know! Those faeries just aren't sexy enough.
Or maybe, just maybe, the idea of outside forces pulling objects ought to be consigned to the rubbish bin, and we need to start thinking of mass as internal to an object. Buoyancy operates on what's inside.
If I toss a big box, and it is more dense than the air, it falls before it gets to you. Tides are a timing thing, not a pull thing, and tides may be high at any time or low at any time. If it were a pull thing, the sun despite distance, is thousands of times more massive.
How tidal deadzones create tides around themselves (https://vimeo.com/313328450)
Water doesn't stick to spheres. It's contained inside basins. So the Earth must be flat and shaped like a bowl or frypan. Birds fly for the same reason you are able to swim. Propulsion overcomes "gravity" (negative buoyancy). As for why the sun doesn't pull us towards it, the difference between buoyancy and gravity is that buoyancy determines only sinking and floating, it doesn't exert pull. We humans aren't pulled to the sun, that shouldbe proof enough that it is negative buoyancy that causes things to fall, and positice buoyancy that makes them rise, not gravity.
-
Force = Pressure / Area
Point to the item that represents densitt.
-
This is the only formula you need to know (in regards to this, anyway).
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1234911467095064717/density-formula-2543294898.png?ex=6632746d&is=663122ed&hm=c4a43a55c5ac53df85c3698e192dceda0284bcf2c8d547cdea8b6693dc7f3eff&)
Compare two densities. That's about 3rd grade math or so. Stop being dumb about forces.
If P1 > P2, P1 sinks. Otherwise it floats.
-
Force = Pressure / Area
Point to the item that represents densitt.
I think you have force and pressure swapped.
-
This is the only formula you need to know (in regards to this, anyway).
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1234911467095064717/density-formula-2543294898.png?ex=6632746d&is=663122ed&hm=c4a43a55c5ac53df85c3698e192dceda0284bcf2c8d547cdea8b6693dc7f3eff&)
Compare two densities. That's about 3rd grade math or so. Stop being dumb about forces.
If P1 > P2, P1 sinks. Otherwise it floats.
I ask, once again, what is the formula for momentum?
-
But fluids exert pressure on surfaces.
that's the pressure gradient.
that's the bouyancy.
that's the mechanism for why things float up.
the upward force of bouyancy created by the pressure of the fluid on the surface area.
up because greater pressure from below.
pressure gradient.
so.
knowing this.
how does a push up achieve a push down?
-
Force = Pressure / Area
Point to the item that represents densitt.
I think you have force and pressure swapped.
you are correct
F = P x A
-
No I dodged the question because I know my science is right or not, based on instinct and observations.
You mean you dodged the question because you are so desperate for your fantasy to be right, and you know these simple questions destroy it.
Let's do something here. We're going to check "gravity" against the standard of a fantasy story and see how well it stacks up.
You mean you will check your fantasy version of gravity, which ignores so much about reality and does nothing to show any fault with gravity itself.
This is how backward and superstitious your so-called scientific theory looks to me.
No, that is how backwards and superstitious your fantasy invention looks to you.
That is not gravity you are objecting to, as has been explained several times.
It presupposes a force that doesn't have any consistency
Gravity is consistent. You are yet to a show a single inconsistency.
Saying it is inconsistent is like saying because magnets can attract or repel it is inconsistent.
You just fail to honestly represent the force you are arguing against.
ignores the fact that gravity can't be tested on a micro scale
You mean ignoring the lie.
Gravity can be tested at a smaller scale, but it takes care to set up your experiment so it wont be useless due to the much greater force of attraction to Earth.
e.g. the Cavendish experiment.
Buoyancy can be tested locally
Your delusional crap can be tested and shown to be wrong due to the pressure gradient.
If you ignore that, those tests are equally tests of gravity. But you want to reject gravity at all costs so you pretend it can't be gravity but can be your BS.
If you wish to disagree, clearly explain how it is a test of your delusional BS but not gravity, especially when you are doing whatever you can to pretend your delusional BS produces the same results as gravity.
But the sun's gravity is more massive than the Earth's!
Not when you include the distance, as already explained.
And this requires you to ignore the fact that the entire Earth is accelerating towards the sun as it orbits it.
Do you not notice the massive difference between your BS test and Earth orbiting the sun?
Earth orbiting the sun is Earth in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive body.
Your test is your tiny balls sitting on Earth.
They are not comparable.
Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on the sun.
If it were a pull thing, the sun despite distance, is thousands of times more massive.
You can't just ignore distance.
Not when the strength of the force is based upon distance.
Water doesn't stick to spheres. It's contained inside basins.
No, it isn't magically contained. It tries to go to Earth.
If you take the basin and turn it sideways, the water doesn't magically stay inside.
Birds fly for the same reason you are able to swim.
No they don't. We are roughly neutrally buoyant, depending on how much air is in our lungs.
Birds are much more dense than air.
Birds fly by flapping their wings.
We humans aren't pulled to the sun
Only in your fantasy.
that shouldbe proof enough that it is negative buoyancy that causes things to fall, and positice buoyancy that makes them rise, not gravity.
No.
The fact you need to continually ignore the pressure gradient is proof enough that objects fall due to gravity, a pressure gradient is established due to gravity, and this pressure gradient pushes things up as the buoyant force.
This results in a coherent system which actually works. Your delusional BS does not.
This is the only formula you need to know (in regards to this, anyway).
That formula is entirely useless as it doesn't tell me things like what weight would a scale read? How quickly will it accelerate?
Will it go up or down?
These are quite important when considering other forces. Like the force due to the pressure gradient.
Again, if we take an object with the same density as the surrounding fluid, we end up with a force of 0 from your delusional BS.
That means the main force acting will be the pressure gradient, which pushes it up. So an object with equal density should rise.
In order to have them stay put, you need to have your BS force change to a downwards force based upon mass, with the force from the pressure gradient countering that.
Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
Modify message
-
But fluids exert pressure on surfaces.
that's the pressure gradient.
that's the bouyancy.
that's the mechanism for why things float up.
the upward force of bouyancy created by the pressure of the fluid on the surface area.
up because greater pressure from below.
pressure gradient.
so.
knowing this.
how does a push up achieve a push down?
Pressure activates in a number of directions, not just up and down. I can hook a hose to a sprinkler with wheels and the water will push the wheels forward.
This is water pressure, not imaginary gravity pressure.
Water pressure can go up or down. We traveled by ship through China's canal thingy. When the gates closed, the water went up.
The pressure gradient I'm talking about is the gradient of air pressure in the air and water of Earth's atmosphere. I don't care about your pressure gradient. You're asking it with the same insistence they asked about "preexisting conditions" to people who wanted to phase out Obamacare.
My pressure gradients show a clear decrease in atmosphere (a gradient of high to low to extremely low atmosphere). Yours don't even understand what a gradient is.
(https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/210000/velka/gradient-background-1488902636Q53.jpg)
A color gradient.
(https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/physgeoglabmanual1/wp-content/uploads/sites/1318/2021/03/pressure_altitude.jpg)
Gradients of atmospheric pressure.
So you can wave that formula around all you want, and I'll just ignore it. You can't even agree on it!
-
Ever noticed how different space programs Earth images look? Why do the continents change shape?
-
Ever noticed how different space programs Earth images look? Why do the continents change shape?
when?!
-
But fluids exert pressure on surfaces.
that's the pressure gradient.
that's the bouyancy.
that's the mechanism for why things float up.
the upward force of bouyancy created by the pressure of the fluid on the surface area.
up because greater pressure from below.
pressure gradient.
so.
knowing this.
how does a push up achieve a push down?
Pressure activates in a number of directions, not just up and down. I can hook a hose to a sprinkler with wheels and the water will push the wheels forward.
This is water pressure, not imaginary gravity pressure.
Water pressure can go up or down. We traveled by ship through China's canal thingy. When the gates closed, the water went up.
The pressure gradient I'm talking about is the gradient of air pressure in the air and water of Earth's atmosphere. I don't care about your pressure gradient. You're asking it with the same insistence they asked about "preexisting conditions" to people who wanted to phase out Obamacare.
My pressure gradients show a clear decrease in atmosphere (a gradient of high to low to extremely low atmosphere). Yours don't even understand what a gradient is.
(https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/210000/velka/gradient-background-1488902636Q53.jpg)
A color gradient.
(https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/physgeoglabmanual1/wp-content/uploads/sites/1318/2021/03/pressure_altitude.jpg)
Gradients of atmospheric pressure.
So you can wave that formula around all you want, and I'll just ignore it. You can't even agree on it!
Spectacular!
Dybamic vs static pressure was alrwady caveated.
Pressure gradient - so we agree it exists.
So, again
How greater pressure on the bottom, pushing up, results in anpush down.
Ans
explain hiw presure on a surface results in knowing how dense it is?
And no we not fighting about the formula.
EarthIsRound corrected my mistake and i acknowledged it and i was incorrect.
-
Pressure activates in a number of directions, not just up and down. I can hook a hose to a sprinkler with wheels and the water will push the wheels forward.
That's right.
It can go in all directions.
For the net force on an object, do you know what dictates that direction?
The pressure gradient or differential.
If you have a high pressure to the right and a low pressure to the left, then it pushes to the left, from high pressure to low pressure.
The pressure gradient of the atmosphere (and other fluids) is from the bottom to the top. i.e. high pressure at ground level, and low pressure as you get higher.
That means the pressure pushes objects upwards.
I don't care about your pressure gradient.
Why would you when you are spouting pure BS, and this simple pressure gradient shows it.
You need to deal with this pressure for your delusional BS to work.
Saying you don't care, is just a pathetic admission that you know your BS doesn't work.
Yours don't even understand what a gradient is.
Care to elaborate rather than just spout more ignorant BS?
A gradient does not need to be uniform, and this shows a clear gradient.
So you can wave that formula around all you want, and I'll just ignore it.
Of course you will, as it shows you are spouting pure BS.
Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?
Modify message
-
Ever noticed how different space programs Earth images look? Why do the continents change shape?
They don't really change shape.
But I believe the change you are looking for is the same reason as if you hold your eye right up against a ball, you see very little of it, but if you move back, you see more of it, so an object that you could see in both appears to take up less space in the further image.
e.g.:
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/earth-perspective.jpg)
-
How greater pressure on the bottom, pushing up, results in anpush down
It probably doesn't, but here's an example not involving gravity where I noticed pressuee one way also includes pressure in the opposite direction.
I was watering a neighbor's crops as a favor. The hose has a sprayer nozzle, so every time I squeeze the hose feels like it pulls back, as the water releases at volume from the sprayer.
As I may have explained before, one object is push up when another is pushed down. This is Newton's "equal and opposite reaction" meme, even though we arenever sure whether the amount of force actually is equal, or whether it is always opposite, or whether the force in question is gravity. Classic shoehorning a theory when another one is probably the culprit. :grumbles:
Anyway. Just as the hose recoils, a falling or sinking object outweighs the surface (air or water, usually) causing that surface to displace up around the falling object. This is why when I toss a large object in the water like an anvil or a fat kid, we see the splash. Fat kid displaces water all the way into the air. The water in turn is more dense than air so it displaces air as it falls back to where it should be. The big boned one emerges from water all of a sudden, what do we see? Water rushes from his body with rapid suction (this is different from the slow drip we get from gradually getting out of the water).
(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/05/54caa9eca1765_-_splash_physics_08_0710-lg-91677977.jpg)
You're seeing this splash in reverse if he quickly gets out.
-
That push back wouls be mass-flow.
That would be how rockers fly.
That is everyactiongasequaloppositereaction.
That is dynamic pressure.
Now in a static pressure, the fluid isnt moving.
How does pressure below, pushing up, rssult in an object moving down.
Heres a thougt experiment.
You are blindfolded.
You represent the fluid.
You are told there is a bucket on the table.
You can touch the bucket all over.
How do you know whats in the bucket?
-
It probably doesn't, but here's an example not involving gravity where I noticed pressuee one way also includes pressure in the opposite direction.
I was watering a neighbor's crops as a favor. The hose has a sprayer nozzle, so every time I squeeze the hose feels like it pulls back, as the water releases at volume from the sprayer.
That is the action-reaction pair.
There is higher pressure water in the nozzle. This pushes the water out. But for your hand, it results in a force pushing it back.
As I may have explained before, one object is push up when another is pushed down. This is Newton's "equal and opposite reaction" meme, even though we arenever sure whether the amount of force actually is equal, or whether it is always opposite, or whether the force in question is gravity.
Due to a variety of reasons, we are pretty sure if it equal and opposite. As that is the only way which makes sense and produces a coherent model which doesn't violate things like conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.
As for gravity, we can be pretty sure if the force in question in gravity or not.
It is not always.
And some times it is less direct.
Anyway. Just as the hose recoils, a falling or sinking object outweighs the surface (air or water, usually) causing that surface to displace up around the falling object.
So gravity pulls it down?
Again, stick to the massive problem I have raised, an object of equal density to the surrounding fluid.
This does not outweigh the fluid it is in.
So your magic BS buoyancy force should be 0 for it.
This means the only force acting should be the pressure gradient.
This means it should be pushed up, yet it isn't.
Again, to make your nonsense work, you need to reduce your BS buoyancy force by the force from the pressure gradient.
But if you do that, you end up with a downwards force proportional to the mass of the object, i.e. weight; with the pressure gradient providing the upwards force.
That is why we know buoyancy is NOT a fundamental force.
It is the force from the pressure gradient.