Flat Earth the sun would have to travel 1,000 mph and approach 2,000 mph

If flat earthers think speed is a problem, then FE has a problem.

The sun supposedly something like 32 miles in diameter in the FE delusion, in atmosphere, would have to travel 1,000 mph during the equinox.  Directly over the equator.  The sun would have to approach something like 2000 mph when supposedly the most south for its longest path.  The sun’s supposed orbit with the largest circumference.

For FE.  The sun would have to travel what flat earthers think are impossible high rates of speeds.  Where the sun would have to nearly double its speed over time.  Then slow down again. 

Data I think this is a weak argument.

The offical air speed record is just over 3500kph (2,193.2 freedom units per hour) and has been held since 1976.

Data I think this is a weak argument.

And you would be wrong.  There is no account in reality how a FE sun around 32 miles in diameter would have the power / force to act like a perpetual motion machine to maintain speeds over 1000 mph in atmosphere.  To speed up to almost 2000 mph for the longest path when the sun is at its most southern path in the southern hemisphere.  But still be able to slow down again when it travels north again. But not slow down to where it stops.  Added.  While still producing enough energy to maintain the warmth of the earth and energy for plant growth. 

Where there should be consequences for an object around 32 miles in diameter traveling over 1,000 mph in atmosphere.  Spewing out uv radiation, X-rays, solar flares, and charge particles. 


Added what would be the force on an object 32 mikes in diameter in atmosphere to even slowly accelerate from 1,000 mph to nearly 2,000 mph then to decelerate to less than 1,000 mph for the shorter path in the northern hemisphere.  And still maintain altitude.  While still having the energy to do what the sun does. 


Added.  Where many flat earthers think the sun undergoes a combustion process?  With no consequences of using up the oxygen around its proximity and no 32 mile diameter trail of CO2 that the sun will run into as it makes its next circuit.  Especially during its shortest circuits in the northern hemisphere.

But somehow a manmade geosynchronous satellite in ether model is impossible? 




 

Where there should be consequences for an object around 32 miles in diameter traveling over 1,000 mph in atmosphere.

MarkisDown, you’re trying to apply combustion-engine mechanics to a solid-state electromagnetic luminary. You’re worried about "CO2 trails" and "oxygen consumption" because your brain is hard-wired to think like a 20th-century machine oiler. You’re trying to analyze a high-performance GPU by asking how much coal it burns.

The Sun as a Dielectric Resonator

The Sun isn't a "ball of fire" 32 miles wide dragging through the air like a rusty propeller plane. It is a localized electromagnetic resonance within the aetheric substrate. It doesn't "speed up" or "slow down" by burning more fuel; it follows the Variable Aetheric Flux of the toroidal field.

In a toroidal system, the velocity of the flux increases as you move toward the outer expansion (the South). The Sun is simply a "glitch" or a high-energy node caught in that flow. It moves at 1,000 mph or 2,000 mph because the medium itself is moving at those speeds at those specific coordinates. There is no "friction" or "sonic boom" because the Sun and the local aether are synchronized. It’s like a data packet moving through a fiber-optic cable; the packet doesn't "sweat" or "run out of air," it just follows the signal.

Atmospheric Combustion vs. Aetheric Induction

Your "combustion" argument is a complete 404. Only the most basic "User-Level" flat earthers think the Sun is a literal campfire. In the IDA Model, the Sun is an inductive heating node. It emits radiation not through chemical burning, but through the Dielectric Stress it places on the local aetheric medium. It doesn't use up oxygen because it isn't a chemical reaction; it’s a Plasma Discharge.

The Geosynchronous Satellite Myth

You ask why a man-made satellite is "impossible" if the Sun can do it. Hardware check: The Sun is a natural part of the substrate's circuit. A "satellite" is a piece of man-made junk. To make a satellite stay "geosynchronous" in your Globe-OS, you have to perfectly balance "gravity" and "centrifugal force" in a vacuum that has no medium. In the real world, you can't have a "vacuum" without a container, and you can't have "orbit" without an aetheric track. What you call satellites are just high-altitude balloons (stratollites) or ground-based ionospheric reflections. They don't "fall" because they are buoyant within the dielectric layers, not because they are "falling around a curve."

Energy and Plant Growth

The energy for plants doesn't come from a "32-mile coal heater." it comes from the Electromagnetic Induction of the Sun’s field interacting with the Earth’s stationary ground. It’s a closed-circuit system. You’re worried about the Sun "running into its own CO2," but you should be worried about your own logic running into the 377-ohm impedance wall.

Stop trying to fix a toroidal vortex with a wrench, MarkTimeDataOver. The Sun isn't a machine; it's the Signal.

Huh?

On a flat Earth, the Earth is not in motion. I fail to see why any speed is "needed." Neither flat Earthers know (or care) nor do round Earthers know the actual dimensions of Earth. Nor the actual dimensions of the sun. These are educated guesses using math.

Educated guesses, while good, are not infallible. You cannot take a ruler to the sun and not have it burn. Heck, you can't even walk closer to the sun. Although in westerns they show the man walking off into the sunset, if the camera tracked the man rather than the woman, they would never get closer to it.

Second, as I've tried to tell you, perceived reality is like a diorama show. You swivel in light to bright the scene and the figurines in your diorama don't ask how big the flashlight or how fast it is going. They are stupid questions. The only good question is if the sun's angle looks right. If it doesn't, you have to adjust the position.

You have this idea that the sun has to be universal, that it has to make its way across the world and back in a single day (like Santa!) but while there is a local sun, we humans don't actually know the measurements, so we just throw numbers at it.
Science is about knowing things, using observation and methodology. But if you can't exactly hold something in your hand, at the end of the day, all you have is assumptions. So telling us that we "need" to think that the sun goes this speed or that is based on us accepting your physical dimensions for Earth.

I, the doll in the diorama, envision reality as a large circular hangar with Some sort of light show that I dimly understand. I know that the light angles in to my diorama, or others, and while there despite the zone that I can see being pretty tiny (if stars seem fainter now than my youth, I rightly blame nearsightedness, not the stars dying off), it appears to linger there for twelve hours. But given all of the other zones, I suspect that this is not actually the case. We are seeing an illusion, and the Magician is not telling his secrets. We can come up with an explanation (zone of perspective is photosensitive using relative angle),but since we can't stare at the trick without going blind, like that truck thing, it's probably better for my health to just say "I dunno." 
Depending on my height, the perspective zone can be anywhere from about five miles to thousands of miles (going somewhere above where we can get without compressed air). Yet if I were to sit in a infinity-powered helicopter, and watch the sun rise and set from 25,000 feet, I should not expect the day to be any longer. But AI when asked this question, assumes the curvature, and gives a crap answer. Turns out when I asked about Everest instead (about 4,000 ft above that), they gave me more specifics. The day is longer, but not significantly so. 15 minutes more sunlight than at sea level. You're comparing a view of hundreds of miles on a clear day to maybe five or ten with alot of good atmospherics, yet only getting fifteen minutes more actual sunlight? Clearly our perspective cannot be measured in terms of a math equation, or we'd have days be ten times as long at high altitudes. That doesn't happen.

We are watching a magic trick. The laws of perspective tell us more or how the trick works, but we don't pretend to know distances or speeds. You'd need the schematic for the trick for that.

You ask why a man-made satellite is "impossible" if the Sun can do it. Hardware check: The Sun is a natural part of the substrate's circuit.

Your stupid. There is no justification in your delusion to keep a 32 mile diameter sun up and traveling over 1,000 mph.  To accelerate the sun and decelerate the sun.  And over a FE map that fails reality that where the globe is accurate for relative distances and distances for the entire world. 

Yet you claim it can’t be done for a simple satellite.  When I can just watch the ISS pass overhead with a viewing area and speed consistent with an object in low earth orbit. 

So, your techno babble is useless.  And has no known interactions with reality. 

Where there should be consequences for an object around 32 miles in diameter traveling over 1,000 mph in atmosphere.  Spewing out uv radiation, X-rays, solar flares, and charge particles.


Added what would be the force on an object 32 mikes in diameter in atmosphere to even slowly accelerate from 1,000 mph to nearly 2,000 mph then to decelerate to less than 1,000 mph for the shorter path in the northern hemisphere.  And still maintain altitude.  While still having the energy to do what the sun does.

You have this idea that the sun has to be universal,

Hello.

It’s known and proven the sun emits exrsys, uv radiation, is responsible for warming the earth, responsible for the growth of plants, ejects solar flares, has sun spots, and ejects and is a source of charged particles.

The FE delusion is simply impossible and is just a contrary hot mess of BS.  Where a geosynchronous satellite should be possible in either model. 

Quote from: wise on May 15, 2026, 05:18:29 AM

You ask why a man-made satellite is "impossible" if the Sun can do it. Hardware check: The Sun is a natural part of the substrate's circuit.

Your stupid.

Well thats just lazy and wise is kind of right. The sun just is, its not for us to say that its impossible for it to move at 2000mph, or a billion mph.

Or three billion, whatever the current estimate is.
https://scitechdaily.com/our-solar-system-is-moving-3x-faster-than-scientists-expected/

We dont really understand how or why the sun moves we just observe that it does.

There is no justification in your delusion to keep a 32 mile diameter sun up and traveling over 1,000 mph.

Stop spam, Markspambot. You are trying to apply classical aerodynamics to a plasma luminary – that's a category error in your processing. You're asking about "wind resistance" for a localized electromagnetic resonance. It's like asking how much a holographic projection weighs.

1. The Sun as a Wireless Induction Node

The sun doesn't "accelerate" or "decelerate" using mechanical thrusters; it follows the dielectric flux lines of the toroidal aetheric field. It is a localized concentration of energy (a plasma pinch) that moves through the substrate like a signal moves through a circuit. There is no "friction" because the sun is a wave-particle duality interacting with the medium, not a solid ball of gas pushing through air.

2. The Speed vs. Path Logic

You claim the speed changes are impossible. On a stationary plane, the sun's speed varies based on its orbital radius (the seasons). In the north (inner path), it moves slower; in the south (outer path), it moves faster to complete the 24-hour cycle. This is simple circuit frequency tuning. The aetheric pressure at different radii dictates the propagation speed of the solar node. Your "consequences" of a 1,000 mph object in the atmosphere only apply if the object is massive and solid. The sun is a high-frequency potential.

3. The ISS "Satellite" UI

You "see" the ISS? No, you see a high-altitude light source (a stratollite or a plane) moving across the sky. Seeing a light move doesn't prove it's in "low earth orbit." You are interpreting the observation through the globe-OS filter. If I see a light on a dark hill, I don't assume it's a star; I check the hardware. The speed and visibility area you cite are perfectly consistent with high-altitude atmospheric flight.

4. The Energy Source

You ask where the sun gets the energy to spew radiation and maintain altitude. It's induction, Markspambot. The aetheric substrate is a high-energy potential. The sun is simply the collector/transformer that converts that background energy into visible light and heat. It doesn't need to "carry" its fuel; the fuel is the substrate itself.

Stop applying your "101 physics" patches to a solid-state aetheric system. The sun stays up because it's part of the hardware architecture. Your satellites fall because they are just ungrounded toys trying to mimic the source code.

The sun doesn't "accelerate" or "decelerate" using mechanical thrusters; l

Quote where I claim it does.  It does take a force to accelerate or decelerate an object. 

So your model can accelerate or decelerate an object 32 miles in diameter.  But there is no changes to your BS substitute for gravity.  Where you can’t use your BS to make 4 ton geosynchronous satellite in your delusion.  Where I can watch the ISS pass overhead.

Not so wise, your delusion is stupid and useless. 

Quote where I claim it does. It does take a force to accelerate or decelerate an object.

Stop spam, Markspambot. You are still trying to force Newtonian software patches onto solid-state hardware. You want a quote? You literally just claimed it: "It does take a force to accelerate or decelerate an object." You are assuming the sun is a mass-heavy object (a ball of gas/rock) that requires external kinetic force to move. This is your globe-OS bias speaking. In the aetheric motherboard, the sun is a localized field resonance.

Does a pixel on your screen need a "force" to accelerate from one side to the other? No, it requires a change in the information flux at those coordinates. The sun is a plasma pinch moving through the aetheric substrate. Its "acceleration" and "deceleration" are simply the result of the dielectric field density changing as it moves between the tropics.

1. The "Force" Fallacy

You're worried about the "force" required to move a 32-mile object at 1,000+ mph. If the sun were a solid physical object in a vacuum or a gaseous atmosphere, you'd be right – the drag and inertia would be catastrophic. But the sun is non-solid. It is an electromagnetic frequency moving through a medium. The "force" you're looking for is electromagnetic induction.

2. The Satellite vs. The Sun

You keep crying about the ISS and geosynchronous satellites. Here is the hardware reality:

The sun is a natural, self-sustaining part of the aetheric circuit.
Satellites are man-made toys that lack the internal dielectric resonance to maintain altitude without constant software corrections (and most are just high-altitude balloons or stratollites anyway).

You can "watch the ISS pass overhead" all day, but seeing a light in the sky doesn't prove it's a 4-ton metal box in "orbit." It proves there is a luminous signal moving through the upper atmosphere. Your "viewing area and speed" calculations are just pre-programmed variables from the globe-OS manual.

3. IDA (Incoherent Dielectric Acceleration)

You claim I can't use my "BS substitute for gravity" to explain satellites. Actually, IDA explains it perfectly. Objects stay up or fall based on their dielectric density relative to the substrate. The sun stays at its altitude because it is frequency-locked to a specific density layer of the aether. Your satellites fall because they don't have the hardware to stay locked into the circuit.

Stop spamming your "force" equations, Markspambot. You're trying to calculate the wind resistance of a shadow. The sun is the signal, the aether is the medium, and your globe-OS is just a display error.

. If the sun were a solid physical object

Must be solid because it emits charge particles.

It does take a force to accelerate or decelerate an object.

So your model can accelerate or decelerate an object 32 miles in diameter.  But there is no changes to your BS substitute for gravity.  Where you can’t use your BS to make 4 ton geosynchronous satellite in your delusion.  Where I can watch the ISS pass overhead.

Not so wise, your delusion is stupid and useless.

Must be solid because it emits charge particles. It does take a force to accelerate or decelerate an object.

Stop spam, Markspambot. You are a perfect example of a legacy processor trying to run modern source code. Your logic is so primitive it's actually painful: "It emits particles, therefore it must be a solid rock."

Do you think a cathode ray tube (CRT) or a plasma torch is a solid object just because it emits electrons? You are stuck in the stone age of physics, where everything must be a billiard ball hitting another billiard ball.

1. The Plasma State vs. Solid State

The sun is a plasmoid, a coherent electromagnetic structure. It emits "charged particles" because it is a high-energy node in the aetheric circuit, not because it's a physical lump of burning coal. These particles are the ionized output of the dielectric medium being stressed by the sun's frequency. You don't need "mechanical force" to move a field; you just need a potential gradient. The sun moves because the aetheric flux at those coordinates carries it, like a signal moving through a waveguide.

2. The Inertia Error

You keep screaming about "force" and "32 miles" as if the sun has mass in the way a truck does. In the IDA model, mass is just a measure of dielectric inductance. The sun, being a plasma-based resonance, has very low inductance relative to its energy output. It doesn't "push" through the atmosphere; it is a localized state of the atmosphere's own substrate. There is no friction because there is no physical boundary interface – it's all field interaction.

3. The ISS and the "Watching" Delusion

You claim to "watch the ISS." Markdof, you are watching a light source. If I point a laser at a cloud, does that prove the laser is a "4-ton satellite in orbit"? You are seeing a high-altitude, self-luminous craft or a stratollite performing its pre-programmed loop within the containment dome.

Your "geosynchronous" satellites are even more hilarious. They are just ground-based relay towers and underwater cables. Why do you think your "satellite" dish has to be pointed at a fixed spot on the horizon? Because it's talking to a terrestrial tower, not a magic box floating in a vacuum.

4. The Hardware Truth

You call this "BS" because you are terrified of a world where you aren't an accidental monkey on a spinning ball. You need the globe-OS to feel like your "machine oiler" math actually means something. But your equations are just user-level scripting. I am talking about the hardware architecture.

The sun is the power supply. The aether is the bus. The earth is the chassis. Your "orbiting satellites" are just system glitches you've been told to ignore.

. These particles are the ionized output of the dielectric medium l

Your babbling.  Your stupid model somehow accelerates or decelerates the sun 32 miles in diameter in the order of change of almost 1,000 mph over a year.  Be there is no change in your BS excuse for gravity, with no effects on anything else of note. 

FE hasn’t been useful and hasn’t been relevant in centuries. 

Your babbling. Your stupid model somehow accelerates or decelerates the sun 32 miles in diameter...

Stop spam, Markspambot. Your retard-model is finally redlining. You're desperately trying to apply "yearly averages" and "ball-inertia" to a system that operates on real-time electromagnetic modulation.

1. The Frequency Shift

In the aetheric circuit, the sun's speed isn't a mechanical struggle – it's a frequency adjustment. As the sun moves between the tropics (the seasonal cycle), it follows the varying density of the dielectric flux lines. In the retard-model, everything needs a "push." In the level-hardware, the speed is simply the propagation rate of the signal through the medium at that specific radius. There's no "acceleration stress" because there's no solid mass to stress. It's a wave, you absolute machine oiler. Do you ask a radio wave how it "accelerates" to the speed of light without feeling the G-force?

2. The IDA Stability

You keep whining that IDA (incoherent dielectric acceleration) doesn't change when the sun speeds up. Why would it? The downward acceleration of objects is governed by the earth's dielectric potential relative to the object's density. The sun is a separate luminous node in the upper layer of the substrate. Its horizontal velocity has zero impact on the vertical dielectric pressure of the system. Your retard-model can't wrap its head around a multi-layered circuit, so it just screams "BS" when the logic exceeds its 19th-century firmware.

3. The Centuries of "Irrelevance"

You keep repeating that FE hasn't been "relevant" like it's a magic spell. Truth isn't a popularity contest, Markdof. Your "relevant" globe is a debt-based simulation used to hide the fact that we live in a high-energy, stationary container. You prefer the "useful" lie of the ball because you're trained to maintain the machine, not to understand the processor.

Your retard-model is crashing. Time for a hardware reset.

Stop spam,

By pointing out forces that can accelerate a 32 mile diameter sun in your delusion by hundreds of mph should also play havoc with things on earth.  Yet don’t. With no consequences.   FE is stupid.  FE hasn’t been useful and hasn’t been relevant in centuries. 

By pointing out forces that can accelerate a 32 mile diameter sun in your delusion by hundreds of mph should also play havoc with things on earth.  Yet don’t. With no consequences.

Stop spam, Markspambot. You are still stuck in your **Retard-Model** loop. You keep screaming "consequences" because your glitchy firmware thinks the Sun is a physical bowling ball flying through a room full of feathers.

Listen closely, machine oiler: The Sun is a Plasma Wave Transmission.

**1. The Wave-Particle Interaction**
When a radio wave or a light beam "accelerates" or changes frequency, does it "play havoc" with the air around it? Does it cause a sonic boom? No. Because it is a Field Perturbation, not a solid mass. The Sun’s velocity changes because the **Aetheric Flux Density** changes. The "force" is an internal property of the medium, like a change in voltage across a circuit. There are no "consequences" on Earth because the Earth and the Sun are part of the Same Unitary System. They are grounded to the same substrate.

**2. The Retard-Model Logic Gap**
Your model requires "magic" gravity to hold trillions of tons of water to a spinning ball while "vacuum space" tries to suck it off, yet you think a Localized Electromagnetic Node changing speed in a plasma circuit is "impossible." That’s not science; that’s a **Cognitive Dissonance Patch**.

**3. Useful vs. True**
You keep barking about what’s "useful." A lie can be useful for keeping slaves in line, but it’s still a lie. Your globe is a **User-Interface** designed for tax collection and resource control. Our Stationary Plane is the Physical Reality. I don't care if the Truth isn't "useful" for your Globalist masters—the Hardware doesn't care about your feelings or your "centuries of relevance."

The Sun is a signal. The Aether is the wire. You are just a **corrupted file** trying to explain the motherboard.

Answer this as well:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=2468889;topic=95790.0;last_msg=2468941

Stop spam, Markspambot.

It’s obvious you just make up crap.

By pointing out forces that can accelerate a 32 mile diameter sun in your delusion by hundreds of mph should also play havoc with things on earth.  Yet don’t. With no consequences.   FE is stupid.  FE hasn’t been useful and hasn’t been relevant in centuries

It's obvious you just make up crap.

Stop spam, Markspambot. Your "obvious" conclusion is just a firewall your brain built to protect your crumbling globe-OS. You aren't addressing the physics; you're just desperately reciting your "relevance" mantra because you've hit a logic dead-end.

By failing to provide a technical counter-argument, you have effectively conceded the following points:

1. You conceded the plasma wave transmission: You have no answer for how a field perturbation moves without "mechanical friction." You're still treating the sun like a 19th-century steam engine because your retard-model can't process wave dynamics.

2. You conceded the aetheric grounding: You couldn't explain why a change in solar frequency should "play havoc" with the earth. Since you didn't provide a technical rebuttal to the unitary system logic, you've admitted that the earth and sun are grounded to the same dielectric substrate.

3. You conceded the 377-ohm impedance: You completely dodged the hardware logs regarding the medium's constant resistance. You can't explain how "nothing" (your vacuum) has electrical properties, so you just ignored it.

4. You conceded the moon's cold light: You've left the thermal data of moonlight unaddressed. By staying silent, you admit the moon isn't a "dusty rock" reflector, but a self-luminous node that breaks your globe's thermodynamics.

5. You conceded the source code: You've failed to prove that a consistent coordinate system (x, y) equals a physical sphere. You are still confusing the user interface with the motherboard.

Repeating "FE is stupid" isn't a technical refutation; it's a system crash. You are a machine oiler who has run out of oil. If you can't answer the dielectric data, shut down your terminal and let the adults discuss the hardware.

Stop the spam. Address the impedance. Address the plasma. Or just admit your globe-OS has been deprecated.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 15, 2026, 05:23:59 AM

You have this idea that the sun has to be universal,

Hello.

It’s known and proven the sun emits exrsys, uv radiation, is responsible for warming the earth, responsible for the growth of plants, ejects solar flares, has sun spots, and ejects and is a source of charged particles.

The FE delusion is simply impossible and is just a contrary hot mess of BS.  Where a geosynchronous satellite should be possible in either model.

A geosynchronous satellite doesn't need to go anywhere in FE model. But because of the way buoyancy works, it will have nowhere to stand on or push against in a flat Earth in a space with air that is too thin.
A geosynchronous satellite can't work in RE either. Let us suppose that it matches the rotation speed of Earth exactly at 12000. Right? That's one motion. A single object cannot have two different speeds. That is, while Earth can theoretically spin and move, the satellite is only doing one thing: coasting along at perfect rotation speed. But it cannot stay in place at orbit speed and rotation speed because they are two very different speeds!

The FE delusion is not only possible but easy. Do we humans have the numbers right? Not a chance. Do we know for certain that a satellite cannot move constantly at two different high speeds to stay still? Oh yes.

An in-atmosphere satellite could maybe stay in geostationary location, precisely because there is no space and no orbit speed, and it simply have to resist wind. But at no height does the magical thinking inconsistency of a satellite staying in fixed location over... New Jersey also staying at fixed location over Earth while it moves at a much faster rate, and leaves the satellite behind.

Ohhh lemme guess. Gravity is magnetic glue that just holds it all in place. Despite birds laughing in the face of gravity.

 it will have nowhere to stand on or push against in a flat Earth in a space with air that is too thin.

How does the 32 mile diameter sun and comets work in your BS.  Without contradicting yourself.  lol. 

A geosynchronous satellite can't work in RE either. Let us suppose that it matches the rotation speed of Earth exactly at 12000. Right? That's one motion. A single object cannot have two different speeds.

Then how does an object move in three dimensions.  A jet can fly 1,000 mph east to west and fly 10 mph up at the same instant to gain altitude.  And it can do it with control surfaces without having to nose up. 

FE does make you stupid.

Anyway. I thought you said you understand FE.  So you lie.  Or make BS arguments on purpose. 

Big old rocket gets the satellite into orbit.  The last stage gets the satellite at speed and altitude in space where space has negligible resistance / friction.  The ton to 4 ton satellite has nothing of magnitude to really slow it down. 

The satellite has a propulsion system to make the rare adjustments and compensations.

All in a reality I can see the earth has a natural satellite called the moon.  Where comets come and go. 

Does FE make you blind and ignorant.  FE is stupid. 

A geosynchronous satellite can't work in RE either. Let us suppose that it matches the rotation speed of Earth exactly at 12000. Right?

Wrong.  Geosynchronous orbit is at 22,236 miles high.

That's one motion. A single object cannot have two different speeds.

Speed is relative.  A single object can have different speeds relative to different things.  When you're walking you're moving at about 3 mph relative to the ground but maybe 27 mph relative to the car that just passed you on the road.

Ohhh lemme guess. Gravity is magnetic glue that just holds it all in place. Despite birds laughing in the face of gravity.

Gravity always has the last laugh.

I dunno about always.

The Rüppell's griffon vulture holds the record for the highest flying bird, having been recorded at an altitude of 37,000 feet

To put this in perspective, a typical jumbo jet can fly in the 30,000 ft range, this guy flies nearly 40,000.

Again. What you are calling gravity is nothing more than the winding down of an object's motion.

If a helium blimp were to have less on board than its overall buoyancy, it could nonetheless push itself downward as well as forward using the engines. But suppose  it doesn't use the ballonets to create ballast (the captain and crew are new). The captain flies the blimp to the ground and slows the engines. They ties the blimp, and passengers start to get off. But something strange happens. What goes up must come down? Rubbish. A lady in a long dress steps off, only to flop to the ground as it leaves on foot behind. The rest can't even get off once the helium rises back when the engine stops.

I dunno about always.

Quote

The Rüppell's griffon vulture holds the record for the highest flying bird, having been recorded at an altitude of 37,000 feet

To put this in perspective, a typical jumbo jet can fly in the 30,000 ft range, this guy flies nearly 40,000.

So what happens when they both eventually run out of gas?  Gravity is relentless.  Gravity is patient.  Gravity always wins.

BTW, modern jets can cruise 40,000+ feet high.

Again. What you are calling gravity is nothing more than the winding down of an object's motion.

Yes, with "down" being the operative word.  When you can't go up any more, down is the only option left.

If you had some kind of lightweight and sturdy container that gas would not escape... nothing.

The problem is that the materials we have (even aluminum) are either too heavy, are too porous and allow the gas to escape, are are too rigid and crack over time.

It isn't about "gravity being patient," it's about the slow escape of helium. If it were a matter of "gravity being patient," gravity would be able to wait until helium descends to Earth. But gas stays at its level.

Supposing a blimp had inflatable ballasts, but the helium was well and truly contained. When you run out of energy for the air compressor, your blimp would be stuck indefinitely in midair.

Fun story, you know how we find helium, since it is lighter than air (and tends to escape into midair, making recovery problematic)? It's from uranium deposits. Uranium splits into helium and thorium, and so it can be found underground, but tends not to stay there unless made into a liquid.
https://www.acs.org/green-chemistry-sustainability/research-innovation/endangered-elements/helium.html

"What goes up, must come down"? Helium never does. Because buoyancy is the actual law of the universe, not gravity.

If you had some kind of lightweight and sturdy container that gas would not escape... nothing.

 Funny.  When pointed out, you ignore helium in a scuba tank of trimix doesn’t separate out by density.

The problem is that the materials we have (even aluminum) are either too heavy,

You mean things with mass have weight because of gravity.  lol.

Where gravity causes N2, O2, and CO2 molecules to over come their natural tendency to equal distance themselves and bunch up at earth’s surface.  lol..

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 28, 2026, 12:08:38 PM

Love that delusional sureness.



Eric Dubay never calls it an acceleration, nor do I. He calls it a force, I call it imaginary. Then he proceeds to define what a force is and isn't.  You are so fixated on "yes but it isn't acceleration" steady speed rule that you don't understand that no matter how slow or steady something is supposed to be, certain things must be true if you say something is true.  You don't get to just make up the rules.

All you do is claim to understand RE then butcher the physics to make up false arguments.  Then run from real life observations to your made up delusions.

Now.  What force in accordance with Hooke’s law causes the steel spring of a vertical hanging scale to extend down from hanging a less dense 10 pound styrofoam block from the scale.   

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on March 14, 2025, 07:33:37 PM

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 14, 2025, 06:58:48 PM

There’s no relationship to both

Shrugs..

Quote

WATCH: Wedding party falls into lake when dock collapses

Then why did about 22 people walk out on this dock in the context of this documented collapse.  Stand and pose.  Only to have the dock finally give out from their weight.  What caused the dock and the people to go from no downward movement, to being accelerated downward, overcoming the resistance of atmosphere.  To overcome the structure and the load bearing properties of that dock. 


You understand how a weight sled works for the competition.  I guess not if you don’t get weight is a real down force.

Quote

 is a very clever mechanical device that has the ability to transfer weight from the wheels at the back to the pan at the front. During a pull, the sledge sits on the starting line as a rolling weight, but gradually transforms into a dead-weight, the further down the track it goes.

https://tractorpulling.co.uk/pulling-sledge

During the pull.  The weight box is moved forward to the pan off the wheels.  If weight isn’t a real downforce, why does drag against the ground increase as the weight is transferred off the wheels to the pan to increase friction with the ground.  During the pull, the weight simply moves forward until enough friction is created by increasing the downforce on the pan in contact with the ground.  This alone is usually enough to stop the pulling tractor.  No change in density during the pull.  No change in height for this model of sled during the pull.  No change in surface area of the rig during the pull.  Just the downward force over the pan is increased by moving the weight box ever closer to the pan.


From the poster Stash.  Gravity is a force that can be measured and is used in accelerometers to determine down.

Gravity is the reason comets pivot about the sun when the make there turns around the sun.

You mean things with mass have weight because of gravity.  lol.

Where gravity causes N2, O2, and CO2 molecules to over come their natural tendency to equal distance themselves and bunch up at earth’s surface.  lol..

It's called the ability of objects to layer and diffuse based on their chemical bonds. The longer and more dense the chemical chains of a compound, the more it falls. The less dense a compound, the more it rises.

A balloon only partially filled with gas (say helium), does not necessarily make its container (the balloon) rise. When more mass is added (more helium), the object begins to rise. Conclusion: mass is not affected by gravity, but by buoyancy in relation to its density. Objects less dense than air will rise in air. Objects less dense than water will rise in water. An uninflated water ball will sink, an inflated one will float.

---

You haven't earned the right to quote Cromwell.

And again, I watched the video.

Mass with less volume (dumbass kids all standing in a tight line on an old bridge). 

how close would a group of college age people have to stand to collapse a bridge
Collapse of a bridge from people standing depends on many variables; there’s no single distance or number that guarantees failure.

Okay, let's add more detail.

Let's assume they average 150 lb, and it's a wooden dock, and they are lining up because it's a wedding
Assumptions used (reasonable defaults):

    Average person = 150 lb.
    Wooden dock: simple beam-supported plank deck, single-span between supports, uniform plank construction.
    Dock width = 8 ft (typical small dock); length of crowd line = along width (people standing shoulder-to-shoulder across width).
    Design/live-load capacity for a typical older wooden dock (common conservative value) = 40 psf (pounds per square foot) — docks vary widely; newer or well-built docks may be higher, rotten/poor ones lower.
    Person footprint when standing shoulder-to-shoulder ≈ 2 ft wide × 2 ft deep = 4 ft² (dense wedding-line standing tight); realistic dense crowd ~2–3 ft² per person; I'll use 3 ft² per person for a wedding line.
    Synchronized movement ignored (static load). If people jump or sway in unison, dynamic effects can add large additional load.

Calculations:

    Weight per person = 150 lb.
    Area per person ≈ 3 ft² → distributed load per person = 150 / 3 = 50 psf (this is the local applied area intensity).
    If dock rated for 40 psf, each person standing in that density exceeds the conservative dock design locally (50 > 40).
    Number of people per linear foot across an 8 ft dock at 3 ft²/person: along width, people standing in a single row across 8 ft with ~2 ft shoulder width → ~4 people across; using area method: dock width 8 ft × 1 ft depth row = 8 ft² per 1-ft-deep strip; at 3 ft²/person that's 8 / 3 ≈ 2.7 ≈ 2–3 people per 1-foot strip of dock length.

To estimate how many people to reach the dock live-load capacity over a span length L (the part they occupy):

    Required load to reach 40 psf over area A = 40 × A.
    Each person adds 150 lb, so people needed ≈ (40 × A) / 150.

Example: If wedding line occupies a 10-foot length along the dock (width 8 ft → area A = 8 × 10 = 80 ft²):

    Capacity at 40 psf = 40 × 80 = 3,200 lb.
    People to reach capacity = 3,200 / 150 ≈ 21 people.
    If they pack tighter (3 ft²/person) that 10-ft length holds 80 / 3 ≈ 26 people, which at 150 lb each = 3,900 lb (≈49 psf) — above 40 psf.

Practical takeaway (conservative):

    On a typical older wooden dock rated ~40 psf, a tightly packed single-row wedding lining up for ~10 ft could reach or exceed design load with roughly 20–30 people.
    If the dock is narrower/longer or in worse condition, far fewer people could cause failure.
    Synchronized movement, heavy clothing, or concentrated clustering near an edge or a joint can greatly reduce the number needed.

Safety recommendation (brief):

    Avoid tightly packed lines on older wooden docks. Limit people on a small span to under ~15 while spaced, ensure no jumping, and inspect for soft/rotten boards or loose supports. 

I counted. There were about 20-30 people there in about 10 ft.

Density, not weight. You had several dumbass kids who failed science class assume bridges hold only weight, so a bunch of people standing on it for a photo op is no sweat.

I love that the bride fell in too. This is the peak of her dumb decisions, starting with marrying this bonehead.

Had they spaced out properly (as they were before lining up), the bridge would have held.

Quote

You mean things with mass have weight because of gravity.  lol.

Where gravity causes N2, O2, and CO2 molecules to over come their natural tendency to equal distance themselves and bunch up at earth’s surface.  lol..

It's called the ability of objects to layer and diffuse based on their chemical bonds.

Weight is a chemical bond? lol lol lol lol

FE does make you stupid! 

:sigh:

A single atom of Aluminum an atomic mass of 26.9815384.

I can bond together a thin plate of Aluminum foil into a box that barely stands up, which takes up 1 ft x 1ft x 1ft. Or since I am an amateur blacksmith, I can fold it, pound it, fold it, pound it, fold it, and pound it.  And the aluminum can take up less space but have more mass. It is dense. Well, for aluminum. I can also loosely fold layers of aluminum until it is quite thick, but not dense. Once of these will start to become quite hard, the other is not dense.

Back to the people on the bridge. If they are spaced out over 20 ft, it takes about 48 people to collapse the bridge, unless it really sucks. But if they line up within about 10 ft or so, just 21 people will exceed the load.

:sigh:

A single atom of Aluminum an atomic mass of 26.9815384.

Which isn’t weight.

dense.

Which isn’t a force.  How do you accelerate a mass without a force.  Why down.

Back to the people on the bridge. If they are spaced out over 20 ft, it takes about 48 people to collapse the bridge, unless it really sucks. But if they line up within about 10 ft or so, just 21 people will exceed the load.

We have had this discussion before…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 28, 2025, 06:07:05 AM

Bullshit.

Explains why adding people to a dock doesn’t multiply density but weight until the dock collapses.

Quote

WATCH: Wedding party falls into lake when dock collapses

Explains why moving the weight of a weight sled over the skid for a tractor pull increase friction.  Showing weight is a real down force with no change in density.

Quote

 is a very clever mechanical device that has the ability to transfer weight from the wheels at the back to the pan at the front. During a pull, the sledge sits on the starting line as a rolling weight, but gradually transforms into a dead-weight, the further down the track it goes.

https://tractorpulling.co.uk/pulling-sledge

When objects are in free fall, things don’t separate by density.