Gravitation forces are 39,543 times stronger than Buoyancy forces.

Quote

I did show you the math, showing the actual volume of air displaced rather than your pathetic strawman where you only looked at the volume of the helium atom rather than the volume of air displaced.

Are you saying that by placing one atom in a chamber that it will not displace anything?
Talk about a strawman argument…

Yes, talk about a strawman argument, where you go to the complete opposite of what I said.
If you put a helium atom in a chamber at any "normal" temperature, it will displace more than the volume of the atom, much more.

Where did I (or anyone) ever indicate that it wouldn't displace anything?
The person closest to suggesting that would be you.

Quote

We are talking about 1 atom in a box with loads of other atoms, comprising a gas, which thus will displace more than just the physical volume of the atom.

Please make up your mind if the Helium will displace anything or not. You are jumping back and forth, in your assumptions.

No, I'm not.
I have continually said that helium will displace the gas unless it is a liquid, in which case the air would be as well, unless you go to magic fantasy land.

So no, I have been consistent in my assumption that the helium atom will behave realistically.

Quote

So why are you trying to apply it to a gas?

Hello, anybody home, a gas is a form of a liquid. Oh really what makes a hot air balloon go up in the air, gravity? Then my next question is what keeping you down, because you write with a lot of hot air…

No it isn't.
Both gases and liquids are forms of fluids.
Fluids are substances which flow freely (i.e. you don't need to break it up) and conform to the shape of their container.
Liquids are one with a fairly constant volume, while gases will expand to fill the volume of their container (at least at small scales while the pressure is still significant).

So no, a gas is not a liquid.

My point was that you were wrong, yet again. Are you going to admit it this time?

Quote

Yes it does. If the helium is frozen without any thermal energy, it will not rise.

Stop trying to change the subject. I never ever said at what temperature the helium atom is. You are trying to weasels your way out of this and you can’t!!!

No, you didn't directly say it. But the only way for it to only displace the size of the atom is if it is at 0K.
So your analysis requires the temperature to be 0K. As such, it doesn't matter if you said it or not, it is a requirement of your analysis.
Stop trying to weasel your way out of this, you can't.

Quote

We are talking about volume of air displaced, which again is dependent on temperature and pressure.

Are you telling the world that if I place one Helium atom in the  chamber of the size of 1 cubic meter , that the temperature and pressure will change. Are you in grade school and not taken any chemistry class….

No, when did I ever say this?
However, if you don't remove anything from the box and the box cannot expand, then you cannot keep the temperature and pressure constant by introducing a gas molecule to it.

Remember, PV=nRT=NkT. As we are dealing with atoms, I will use the latter form:
PV=NkT
N=PV/kT

Now then, your volume is constant, k is a constant.
You wish to keep the Pressure and temperature constant.
That would require N to be constant.

So how about you tell me this?
How do you plan to change N (the number of atoms in the box) without changing any of the other parameters?

You can also do this focusing on the air in the box excluding the helium atom.
In this case you can get this form:
V=NkT/P
Now, N is constant (as you aren't taking any of the air out of the box), k is a constant and you want to keep T and P constant.
That means the volume the gas takes up must be constant.
So how are you planning on putting some helium gas in to displace some of the air to reduce the volume occupied by the air?

Are you still in pre-school?
Haven't you learnt that in equations (or relations) like that, you cannot just change one variable, you need to change at least 2?

I just realized that I can’t discuss with you about this subject because you have no idea what you are talking about.

You mean I understand too well and will keep on refuting you, so you need to find some excuse to ignore me?

How about you go to the below thread and try to answer the question of a free body diagram of a real airplane taking off and landing on real runways

How about you stop trying to detract from your failings and instead just admit you were wrong?

Quote

I did show you the math, showing the actual volume of air displaced rather than your pathetic strawman where you only looked at the volume of the helium atom rather than the volume of air displaced.

Are you saying that by placing one atom in a chamber that it will not displace anything?
Talk about a strawman argument…

Quote

We are talking about 1 atom in a box with loads of other atoms, comprising a gas, which thus will displace more than just the physical volume of the atom.

Please make up your mind if the Helium will displace anything or not. You are jumping back and forth, in your assumptions.

Quote

So why are you trying to apply it to a gas?

Hello, anybody home, a gas is a form of a liquid. Oh really what makes a hot air balloon go up in the air, gravity? Then my next question is what keeping you down, because you write with a lot of hot air…

Quote

Yes it does. If the helium is frozen without any thermal energy, it will not rise.

Stop trying to change the subject. I never ever said at what temperature the helium atom is. You are trying to weasels your way out of this and you can’t!!!

Quote

We are talking about volume of air displaced, which again is dependent on temperature and pressure.

Are you telling the world that if I place one Helium atom in the  chamber of the size of 1 cubic meter , that the temperature and pressure will change. Are you in grade school and not taken any chemistry class….


I just realized that I can’t discuss with you about this subject because you have no idea what you are talking about.

How about you go to the below thread and try to answer the question of a free body diagram of a real airplane taking off and landing on real runways

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0

Did you not read what I said?

Even then, your calculation won't be correct. Because air AS A FLUID can't be exerting pressure on ONE SINGLE ATOM. I mean it's so fundamentally...wrong. Pressure is defined by the force that the molecules exert on a given surface area. One molecule of water, or one molecule of oxygen would be larger than the helium atom, so it ISN'T A FLUID EXERTING PRESSURE ON AN OBJECT. Because the buoyant force is describing the net force of A FLUID and gravity. When you just have a couple atoms, it isn't a fluid. So, NO you can't use buoyancy for ONE SINGLE HELIUM ATOM. I mean, I don't think I've ever heard an idea more ridiculous than this.

You can't use buoyancy for a single atom. Then it isn't a fluid exerting pressure on it.

Quote

So why are you trying to apply it to a gas?

Hello, anybody home, a gas is a form of a liquid. Oh really what makes a hot air balloon go up in the air, gravity?

I just had to comment on this gross error!
Gases and liquids are both fluids, but are otherwise quite different. See

Difference Between Gas and Liquid
Liquids
The molecules of liquids have a moderate force of attraction; the force between molecules is less than solids and more than gases. This results in the movement of molecules more easily and freely within liquids. The molecular movement results in liquids having a definite and fixed volume. Liquids take the shape of the container they are stored in as the molecules move to fill the space. They have no definite shape and have the ability to flow. Liquids can flow; thus, they are also called “fluid.” Liquids are not hard. When frozen they get hard. For example, when water is frozen below 0 degrees Celsius, it hardens into ice. Some examples of liquids are: water, oils, milk, juices, etc.

Gases
The molecules in gases have a very weak force of attraction between them and are very loosely packed. Thus they do not have a definite shape, and they take the shape of the container. Due to their molecular structure, gases do not have a definite volume also and become the volume of the container in which they are kept.ii
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Read more: Difference Between Gas and Liquid

A bit of reading on the Kinetic Theory of Gases would be a good idea.

Now for the volume of one atom of helium you have taken simply the size of the atom, but in gaseous form the atom will be moving along with the air molecules.

For one atom, the best estimate you could make of the volume to divide your 1 m³ by the number of atoms in that volume, r 2.6858x10^{25 [1]}
So instead of displacing 1.3726x10^-31m³ it would effectively displace 1/2.6858x10²⁵ or 3.72x10^-26 m³.

This makes helium 0.146 tomes the density if air. Looks about right.


[1]

Calculate the number of molecules/m^3 in an ideal gas at STP?
Best Answer: For an ideal gas at STP, the number of molecules per cubic meter is 2.6858x10²⁵.

The answer doesn't depend on the type of gas, as long as it's an ideal gas, and you have all the information needed to solve the problem. Here's how I did it, but there's more than one way to go about it...

From:Calculate the number of molecules/m^3 in an ideal gas at STP?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 05:17:41 AM

Quote

I did show you the math, showing the actual volume of air displaced rather than your pathetic strawman where you only looked at the volume of the helium atom rather than the volume of air displaced.

Are you saying that by placing one atom in a chamber that it will not displace anything?
Talk about a strawman argument…

Yes, talk about a strawman argument, where you go to the complete opposite of what I said.
If you put a helium atom in a chamber at any "normal" temperature, it will displace more than the volume of the atom, much more.

Where did I (or anyone) ever indicate that it wouldn't displace anything?
The person closest to suggesting that would be you.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 05:17:41 AM

Quote

We are talking about 1 atom in a box with loads of other atoms, comprising a gas, which thus will displace more than just the physical volume of the atom.

Please make up your mind if the Helium will displace anything or not. You are jumping back and forth, in your assumptions.

No, I'm not.
I have continually said that helium will displace the gas unless it is a liquid, in which case the air would be as well, unless you go to magic fantasy land.

So no, I have been consistent in my assumption that the helium atom will behave realistically.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 05:17:41 AM

Quote

So why are you trying to apply it to a gas?

Hello, anybody home, a gas is a form of a liquid. Oh really what makes a hot air balloon go up in the air, gravity? Then my next question is what keeping you down, because you write with a lot of hot air…

No it isn't.
Both gases and liquids are forms of fluids.
Fluids are substances which flow freely (i.e. you don't need to break it up) and conform to the shape of their container.
Liquids are one with a fairly constant volume, while gases will expand to fill the volume of their container (at least at small scales while the pressure is still significant).

So no, a gas is not a liquid.

My point was that you were wrong, yet again. Are you going to admit it this time?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 05:17:41 AM

Quote

Yes it does. If the helium is frozen without any thermal energy, it will not rise.

Stop trying to change the subject. I never ever said at what temperature the helium atom is. You are trying to weasels your way out of this and you can’t!!!

No, you didn't directly say it. But the only way for it to only displace the size of the atom is if it is at 0K.
So your analysis requires the temperature to be 0K. As such, it doesn't matter if you said it or not, it is a requirement of your analysis.
Stop trying to weasel your way out of this, you can't.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 05:17:41 AM

Quote

We are talking about volume of air displaced, which again is dependent on temperature and pressure.

Are you telling the world that if I place one Helium atom in the  chamber of the size of 1 cubic meter , that the temperature and pressure will change. Are you in grade school and not taken any chemistry class….

No, when did I ever say this?
However, if you don't remove anything from the box and the box cannot expand, then you cannot keep the temperature and pressure constant by introducing a gas molecule to it.

Remember, PV=nRT=NkT. As we are dealing with atoms, I will use the latter form:
PV=NkT
N=PV/kT

Now then, your volume is constant, k is a constant.
You wish to keep the Pressure and temperature constant.
That would require N to be constant.

So how about you tell me this?
How do you plan to change N (the number of atoms in the box) without changing any of the other parameters?

You can also do this focusing on the air in the box excluding the helium atom.
In this case you can get this form:
V=NkT/P
Now, N is constant (as you aren't taking any of the air out of the box), k is a constant and you want to keep T and P constant.
That means the volume the gas takes up must be constant.
So how are you planning on putting some helium gas in to displace some of the air to reduce the volume occupied by the air?

Are you still in pre-school?
Haven't you learnt that in equations (or relations) like that, you cannot just change one variable, you need to change at least 2?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 05:17:41 AM

I just realized that I can’t discuss with you about this subject because you have no idea what you are talking about.

You mean I understand too well and will keep on refuting you, so you need to find some excuse to ignore me?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 05:17:41 AM

How about you go to the below thread and try to answer the question of a free body diagram of a real airplane taking off and landing on real runways

How about you stop trying to detract from your failings and instead just admit you were wrong?

Your logic, the heliocentric hypothesis is true or else you will be force to attend our indoctrination program, where you can have a class like this one

Your logic, the heliocentric hypothesis is true or else you will be force to attend our indoctrination program, where you can have a class like this one

No, not my logic at all.

Do you have any rational argument against anything I have said?
If not, act like a rational adult for once and admit you were wrong, or fuck off.

Let's get back to our subject

Let's get back to our subject

About what? How you don't know what buoyancy is?

Let's get back to our subject

Yes lets do so.
The force due to buoyancy, when considering the actual volume of air displaced, assuming no magic, is roughly 10 times greater than the force due to gravity.

Do you have any rational objection?

If you don't want to assume STP, you can use Rab's way. (I have realised I shouldn't have used 20 C, you actually stated 15C in your question, but that wont change it much)

Air density at 15 degrees Celsius = 1.225 kg/m3

Baring magic, as the helium is in contact with it (and ignoring the complexities of treating it atomically and thus taking an average including averaging over time) you have the helium at that temperature as well.
And we know it is a gas.


We have a 1m^3 box. Air in it has a density of 1.225 kg/m3, so we have 1.225 kg of air.
The average molar mass of air is 28.97 g/mol.
So we have 42.285 moles of air, or roughly 25464100793924749741111495 molecules/atoms of air.
In total we thus have 25464100793924749741111496 molecules/atoms (as the helium is in there), and they all take up equal volume (as it is practically an ideal gas).

As such, the volume occupied by the helium atom is 1 m^3 * 1(the number of helium atoms considered)/25464100793924749741111495 (the total number of atoms) and we get the volume occupied as 3.9270972420851435891526985544703e-26 m.

So now, sticking that back into our equation for buoyancy Fb=p*V*g
Fb=1.225 (kg/m^3)*3.9270972420851435891526985544703e-26 m^3 * 9.8 * m/s^2=4.7144802391232148787778146146416e-25 N.
Now compare that to the force due to gravity:
- 6.522617 x10^-26 N

Which is larger (in magnitude):
4.7E-25 or -6.5E-26?

I think the E-25.
In fact, we can find the net force by adding the 2. (This is where the sign convention comes in handy):
Ft=Fb+Fg=4.7144802391232148787778146146416e-25 N- 6.522617 x10^-26 N~=4.714 e-25 N- 0.652 x10^-25 N=4.062 e-25 N

So the force due to buoyancy is greater.

Any objection? No. Good.

Let's get back to our subject

Well read my last post Re: Gravitation forces are 39,543 times stronger than Buoyancy forces. « Reply #32 on: July 22, 2017, 04:10:10 PM ».
That is precisely on topic and shows exactly what is wrong with your calculations.

You were taking the volume occupied by your helium atom as simply the volume of a helium atom, but in gaseous phase an atom occupies far nore than that.

How about try this one to explain about gravity and buoyancy
...

Let’s do the math for the gravitational forces and the buoyancy forces to see which is stronger. If the buoyancy forces are stronger, then it should rise. If the gravitational forces are stronger it should sink.

Fg = - G M m /d^2

Where,
G is the gravitational constant (6.67 × 10-11 Nm2/kg2),
M is the mass of Earth = 5.972 × 10^24 kg
m is the mass of Helium Atom = 6.6464764 × 10^-27 kg
d is the radius of Earth = 6.371x 10^6 m

Gravity = (6.67 × 10^-11 Nm2/kg2) * (5.972 × 10^24 kg) * (6.6464764 × 10^-27 kg) / (6.371x 10^6 m)^2 = - 6.522617 x10^-26 N (Note the – sign is for directional purposes only)

...

Buoyancy Forces are smaller than Gravity Forces, so why does the Helium rise, since gravity is 39,543 times stronger than Buoyancy Forces???

Ok, you calculated gravitational force for Helium (molecular weight 2).
What about gravitational force for the air (molecular weight 28).
Could it be, for example, 14 times stronger? (28 / 2 = 14)

Which one will get pulled harder by gravity, and because of that easier fall below the other?

BTW, Atomic mass of Helium is 4, not 2, but it is still 7.5 times less hard pulled down by gravity than air.

How about try this one to explain about gravity and buoyancy


Try to explain the below with the use of gravity.

You have 1 box 1 cubic meters in volume filled with air. You place 1 Helium atom in the box and it rises on top of the box do to buoyancy. Molecule weight of air = 28 and where Helium is 2

Let’s do the math for the gravitational forces and the buoyancy forces to see which is stronger. If the buoyancy forces are stronger, then it should rise. If the gravitational forces are stronger it should sink.

Fg = - G M m /d^2

Where,
G is the gravitational constant (6.67 × 10-11 Nm2/kg2),
M is the mass of Earth = 5.972 × 10^24 kg
m is the mass of Helium Atom = 6.6464764 × 10^-27 kg
d is the radius of Earth = 6.371x 10^6 m

Gravity = (6.67 × 10^-11 Nm2/kg2) * (5.972 × 10^24 kg) * (6.6464764 × 10^-27 kg) / (6.371x 10^6 m)^2 = - 6.522617 x10^-26 N (Note the – sign is for directional purposes only)


Buoyancy = Fb = ρgV
 ρ = density
 g = gravity 
V = volume of liquid displaced


Helium radius = 32 × 10 12 m

Volume of Helium atom = 4/3 * π r^3 = 4/3 * (3.14) * (32 x 10^-12)^3 = 1.3726 x10^-31 m^3

In 1 cubic meter of air, 1 helium atom will displace 1.3726E-31 m^3

Air density at 15 degrees Celsius = 1.225 kg/m3


Fb = (1.225 kg/m^3)(9.81 m/s2)( 1.3726 x10^-31 m^3) =  1.6495x 10^-30 N

Gravity Force = 6.522617 x10^-26 N
Buoyancy Forces = 1.6495x 10^-30 N

Buoyancy Forces are smaller than Gravity Forces, so why does the Helium rise, since gravity is 39,543 times stronger than Buoyancy Forces???

Brilliantly done. You clearly have a deep understanding of math and physics. I love how flat earthers beat globers at their own game!

Brilliantly done. You clearly have a deep understanding of math and physics. I love how flat earthers beat globers at their own game!

Did you miss the part where we was repeatedly refuted?

Quote from: Open your eyes on July 22, 2017, 09:35:43 PM

Brilliantly done. You clearly have a deep understanding of math and physics. I love how flat earthers beat globers at their own game!

Did you miss the part where we was repeatedly refuted?

If you were not paying attention, in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.

You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...

You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...

God is great!!!

Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2017, 03:31:22 AM

Quote from: Open your eyes on July 22, 2017, 09:35:43 PM

Brilliantly done. You clearly have a deep understanding of math and physics. I love how flat earthers beat globers at their own game!

Did you miss the part where we was repeatedly refuted?

If you were not paying attention, in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.

You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...

You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...

God is great!!!

We're paying attention...

You got totally beat down, we all saw it!

The fact that you have zero understanding of pressure altitude is quite clear!

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 23, 2017, 06:53:11 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2017, 03:31:22 AM

Quote from: Open your eyes on July 22, 2017, 09:35:43 PM

Brilliantly done. You clearly have a deep understanding of math and physics. I love how flat earthers beat globers at their own game!

Did you miss the part where we was repeatedly refuted?

If you were not paying attention, in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.

You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...

You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...

God is great!!!

We're paying attention...

You got totally beat down, we all saw it!

The fact that you have zero understanding of pressure altitude is quite clear!

is that what your superiors told you to say???

I think you should go work for CNN

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 23, 2017, 07:57:50 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 23, 2017, 06:53:11 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2017, 03:31:22 AM

Quote from: Open your eyes on July 22, 2017, 09:35:43 PM

Brilliantly done. You clearly have a deep understanding of math and physics. I love how flat earthers beat globers at their own game!

Did you miss the part where we was repeatedly refuted?

If you were not paying attention, in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.

You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...

You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...

God is great!!!

We're paying attention...

You got totally beat down, we all saw it!

The fact that you have zero understanding of pressure altitude is quite clear!

is that what your superiors told you to say???

I think you should go work for CNN

I though you religious types were against all things hypocritical...yet you do the very things you complain about......

Was this your teacher



PS, great son, but it was way before your time

If you were not paying attention, in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.

I have been paying attention. I saw you pull your typical dishonest, stupid BS and get your ass handed to you yet again.

Now like you said, how about we get back on topic?
I have shown that the buoyant force on a helium atom is roughly 10 times the force of gravity on it.
Are you going to rationally respond to that?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 23, 2017, 06:53:11 AM

If you were not paying attention, in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.

I have been paying attention. I saw you pull your typical dishonest, stupid BS and get your ass handed to you yet again.

Now like you said, how about we get back on topic?
I have shown that the buoyant force on a helium atom is roughly 10 times the force of gravity on it.
Are you going to rationally respond to that?

No, it has been shown that the buoyancy forces are 39,000 less than the gravitational forces!!!

Quote from: Kami on July 22, 2017, 07:44:44 AM

He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.

I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.

But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?

I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:

fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc =  rand([2 100]);
fluc2 =  (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');

I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference

Have you not been paying attention? In another thread your clear lack of basic comprehension skills was already proven.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2017, 03:31:22 AM

Quote from: Open your eyes on July 22, 2017, 09:35:43 PM

Brilliantly done. You clearly have a deep understanding of math and physics. I love how flat earthers beat globers at their own game!

Did you miss the part where we was repeatedly refuted?

If you were not paying attention, in another thread a pilot of 13,000 hour of flight just stated that he never dipped his airplane to follow the earth curvature.

You know have a big problems on your hand, to try to explain how the gyroscopes that keep the airplane level are always parallel to a curved earth...

You have been demolished, and all this on a Sunday...

God is great!!!

Yep. God IS great. But you're not. You are an idiot.

No, it has been shown that the buoyancy forces are 39,000 less than the gravitational forces!!!

Only when you blatantly lie about the volume taken up.
What has actually been shown with an honest, rational assessment is that buoyancy is 10 times as great as gravity.



You are yet to try and refute that in any way other than just spouting the same refuted crap.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 23, 2017, 10:44:52 PM

No, it has been shown that the buoyancy forces are 39,000 less than the gravitational forces!!!

Only when you blatantly lie about the volume taken up.
What has actually been shown with an honest, rational assessment is that buoyancy is 10 times as great as gravity.



You are yet to try and refute that in any way other than just spouting the same refuted crap.

Lie, you attacked everything that goes against your religion without ever demanding to see the data.

Remember that hoax of a thread, in all your arguments to disprove him, you never even once asked to see the data, but as soon you read that it can go against your religion, you attacked it.

Who was the one that asked to see the data, ME.

You will attack everything that will question your Heliocentric Hypothesis.

True scientist, don't act this way, only religious cult members do!!!

Nice work, but the wolf pack will find some little thing to discredit you. They will throw everything at you, even the kitchen sink, but my advice, is to put them down with facts and science.

When you use science, they will start pulling rabbits out of the hat.

I too am an ME and believe in the Flat Earth, since it is the only thing that hold up in true science.

I have placed them up against a wall with my last thread,

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0

In which I give then two real airports and I ask them to draw me a Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and to show all the forces, especially the ones that keep the airplane in sync with the ground. So far, I have not had any Free Body Diagrams, because they can’t do the physics.

But I’m curtain that they will pull some Dark Matter energy to try to confuse the subject, because that is what they do. When they are placed on the wall, they will start stating nonsense in order to discourage you.

I suggest, instead of showing the graphs, do some statistical analysis with standard deviations and averages to prove your point with math. It was very smart of you to do 100 jumps. If you need help, send me a message.

Good luck

they attacked him because it was clearly BS. You on the other hand supported him because it supported your pre-existing bias.

YOU supported a hoax because it confirmed your bias.

Just accept your actual level of intelligence (which isn't bad, you aren't actually dumb) and you won't feel the need to get into these stupid debates any more.

Let it go.

Lie, you attacked everything that goes against your religion without ever demanding to see the data.

PURE BULLSHIT!
I attack things which go against reality. I point out errors when I see them (at least most).
I do demand evidence.

Remember that hoax of a thread, in all your arguments to disprove him, you never even once asked to see the data, but as soon you read that it can go against your religion, you attacked it.

Really? I take it you never saw my first post then?
Here it is (just the key parts):

Unless you can show how, I'm calling bullshit, as it is physically impossible to measure to that degree of accuracy using that camera showing that much.
Tell us your exact methodology.
Tell us exactly what you measured and how.
Tell us what calculations you then did.
Tell us how you determined your camera's frame rate, including what it actually uses and what effects things like temperature might have on that.

Sure seems like I was asking to see the data.
Unlike you, I wanted the raw, unprocessed data, as well as the method by which he processed it.

Meanwhile, all you were doing in the thread was bitching and moaning about how we always proved you to be full of shit and how you had to make up pathetic strawmen or red herrings to pretend to be right.

Who was the one that asked to see the data, ME.

Who was the one that asked to see it in their first reply?
ME!
Who was the one that only bothered asking for it after others pointed out that he physically coudln't get the results he claimed based upon the camera and had previously just been bitching and moaning?
YOU!

You will attack everything that will question your Heliocentric Hypothesis.

True scientist, don't act this way, only religious cult members do!!!

No, I will point out bullshit where I see it. That is how scientists act.
You are the one acting like a cult member, attacking everything that goes against your FE delusions.

Now then, HOW ABOUT WE GET BACK TO THE TOPIC YOU ARE FAILING SO HARD AT???

I have shown, by correctly calculating the volume of air displaced, that the buoyant force is roughly 10 times the gravitational one.

Do you have anything rational to refute that with?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 06:40:37 AM

Nice work, but the wolf pack will find some little thing to discredit you. They will throw everything at you, even the kitchen sink, but my advice, is to put them down with facts and science.

When you use science, they will start pulling rabbits out of the hat.

I too am an ME and believe in the Flat Earth, since it is the only thing that hold up in true science.

I have placed them up against a wall with my last thread,

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0

In which I give then two real airports and I ask them to draw me a Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and to show all the forces, especially the ones that keep the airplane in sync with the ground. So far, I have not had any Free Body Diagrams, because they can’t do the physics.

But I’m curtain that they will pull some Dark Matter energy to try to confuse the subject, because that is what they do. When they are placed on the wall, they will start stating nonsense in order to discourage you.

I suggest, instead of showing the graphs, do some statistical analysis with standard deviations and averages to prove your point with math. It was very smart of you to do 100 jumps. If you need help, send me a message.

Good luck

they attacked him because it was clearly BS. You on the other hand supported him because it supported your pre-existing bias.

YOU supported a hoax because it confirmed your bias.

Just accept your actual level of intelligence (which isn't bad, you aren't actually dumb) and you won't feel the need to get into these stupid debates any more.

Let it go.

In order to prove if something is true or not you ask to see the data.

If I would way to you that I will conducting an experiment that will measure the cooling affect of the moon's light between a shaded region and an unshaded region, would you immediately say it is bogus, without looking at the data?

Really? Do you wake up and feel the need to prove you can't fly every morning?

It was a nonsense argument posted to ensnare any blindly faithful flat earther that came along. Others didn't need to 'prove' it was BS as they could see it was.

I have ZERO scientific training and even I could see what he was saying was BS. It just took reasonable comprehension skills and a basic understanding of how things like digital cameras work.

Quote from: Edge_Loop on July 24, 2017, 04:08:31 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 06:40:37 AM

Nice work, but the wolf pack will find some little thing to discredit you. They will throw everything at you, even the kitchen sink, but my advice, is to put them down with facts and science.

When you use science, they will start pulling rabbits out of the hat.

I too am an ME and believe in the Flat Earth, since it is the only thing that hold up in true science.

I have placed them up against a wall with my last thread,

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0

In which I give then two real airports and I ask them to draw me a Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and to show all the forces, especially the ones that keep the airplane in sync with the ground. So far, I have not had any Free Body Diagrams, because they can’t do the physics.

But I’m curtain that they will pull some Dark Matter energy to try to confuse the subject, because that is what they do. When they are placed on the wall, they will start stating nonsense in order to discourage you.

I suggest, instead of showing the graphs, do some statistical analysis with standard deviations and averages to prove your point with math. It was very smart of you to do 100 jumps. If you need help, send me a message.

Good luck

they attacked him because it was clearly BS. You on the other hand supported him because it supported your pre-existing bias.

YOU supported a hoax because it confirmed your bias.

Just accept your actual level of intelligence (which isn't bad, you aren't actually dumb) and you won't feel the need to get into these stupid debates any more.

Let it go.

In order to prove if something is true or not you ask to see the data.

If I would way to you that I will conducting an experiment that will measure the cooling affect of the moon's light between a shaded region and an unshaded region, would you immediately say it is bogus, without looking at the data?

No, but part of that data is your experiment setup and controls.  Since that is a very important piece of the data, and should be presented first, if it is massively flawed then the results are not useful.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 24, 2017, 04:45:42 AM

Quote from: Edge_Loop on July 24, 2017, 04:08:31 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 06:40:37 AM

Nice work, but the wolf pack will find some little thing to discredit you. They will throw everything at you, even the kitchen sink, but my advice, is to put them down with facts and science.

When you use science, they will start pulling rabbits out of the hat.

I too am an ME and believe in the Flat Earth, since it is the only thing that hold up in true science.

I have placed them up against a wall with my last thread,

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0

In which I give then two real airports and I ask them to draw me a Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and to show all the forces, especially the ones that keep the airplane in sync with the ground. So far, I have not had any Free Body Diagrams, because they can’t do the physics.

But I’m curtain that they will pull some Dark Matter energy to try to confuse the subject, because that is what they do. When they are placed on the wall, they will start stating nonsense in order to discourage you.

I suggest, instead of showing the graphs, do some statistical analysis with standard deviations and averages to prove your point with math. It was very smart of you to do 100 jumps. If you need help, send me a message.

Good luck

they attacked him because it was clearly BS. You on the other hand supported him because it supported your pre-existing bias.

YOU supported a hoax because it confirmed your bias.

Just accept your actual level of intelligence (which isn't bad, you aren't actually dumb) and you won't feel the need to get into these stupid debates any more.

Let it go.

In order to prove if something is true or not you ask to see the data.

If I would way to you that I will conducting an experiment that will measure the cooling affect of the moon's light between a shaded region and an unshaded region, would you immediately say it is bogus, without looking at the data?

No, but part of that data is your experiment setup and controls.  Since that is a very important piece of the data, and should be presented first, if it is massively flawed then the results are not useful.

let's say I have three well insulated compartment, that will house a temperature instrument that have been calibrated.

In one compartment, the moonlight will hit it directly, the next compartment, our control unit will not allow the moonlight to enter it and the third compartment will not have direct moonlight.

The three compartments will be housed in a large storage compartment that will be also insulated form the environment.

The experiment will run for the whole night and will video record the temperature readings.

The next night, the compartment will be rotated so the one that was in the shade will be in the direct moonlight and the one in the direct moonlight will be in the shade.

If the moonlight cools, it will be apparent in both tests.