buoyancy of water is completely a hoax

  • 68 Replies
  • 1590 Views
Re: buoyancy of water is completely a hoax
« Reply #60 on: March 07, 2019, 01:55:52 AM »
This theory is just for hiding events inside water and hiding the absense of gravity.

buoyancy of water always upward, right? And it only works for objects lighter than water. water never performs a lifting force on objects whose weighter than it. (it is related to the ratio of space within the vessels to remain its on the water, not the bouyancy) This is completely nothing more than a nonsense or deceit.

If an object is lighter than water, so it remains above the water. If an object weighter than the water, so it falls down. neither the bouyancy of water, nor the gravity does not affect it at all. Both buoyancy of water and gravity nothing but hoax.
What is the mechanism that causes some things to float and others to sink?  How can you predict what will float and what won't?

Which thing's specific weight is more than the other one, sinks. Valid in environments whose water, air or something like these. That's all.
That's not an explanation of how this would work.  Nor do you provide any method of predicting results.  If you are going to claim this replaces gravity and buoyancy then you should already have had an analytical model to replace it...right?

I did not do it because Sandokhan has already did it. This is enough for me. I do not need to make another explanation on it:

Modern science has no trouble explaining why a simple scale does not register anything under any pressure change.

I told you that you haven't done your homework on this topic at all.

You simply have no idea how Nasa or the best mainstream RE physicists try to justify the fact that a scale should be registering a full ton, yet it does not.

“A column of air one square meter in cross section is said to weigh over 100,000 Newtons or 10.2 metric tonnes or 11.2 (short) tons at sea level. This leads any child to ask how the human body can stand up under so much weight. And if we do a websearch, we do indeed find an answer for children at a NASA information site:

Why doesn't all that pressure squash me? Remember that you have air inside your body too, that air balances out the pressure outside so you stay nice and firm and not squishy.

That answer is so misleading I think we can call it an outright lie. The human body is not filled with air, except in the case of flatulent answers like this. The body is about 62% water, so the water must equalize most of any air pressure that exists. The body is made up of cells, remember, and cells are not filled with air. Cells can be as much as 90% water. Yes, the body contains oxygen that it gets from the air, but this oxygen is dissolved in the blood. It does not persist as air or continue to have air pressure once it enters the blood stream. Your lungs are the only things “filled with air” and only when you breathe in. If the air in your lungs was equalizing several tons of pressure, then when you breathed out your body would implode.

Let's go to a different sort of website: David Esker's site, which is often quite informative. David says this about atmospheric pressure:

The area on the face of an average adult's hand is about 0.0116 m2 or 18.0 square inches so there is about 1200 N (270 pounds) of force bearing down on an average adult human hand. Since the pressure is the same for both inside and outside of us, the net forces balance out to zero. Rather than weighing us down, we are indifferent to this force.

We may be indifferent to this force, but David should not be so indifferent to the questions begged here. If we have 270 pounds bearing down on one hand, why doesn't that force register on a normal scale? Go look at your bathroom scale. The atmosphere should be pressing down on that scale right now. Why doesn't it register a number? That scale is probably about a square foot, so it should register about a ton, or 2,000 pounds. Why don't we have to re-zero all bathroom scales to 2,000 pounds? If we did that, wouldn't that mean that I really weigh 2,170 lbs?

The only remaining dodge at this point is for the mainstream scientist to mimic the NASA feint and claim the scale is full of air. “For the scale to compress, there must be space underneath it, and that space is filled with air. The pressure underneath the scale equals the pressure above it, so it doesn't register the weight of the air.” This ridiculous argument is actually the accepted one: I am not making it up. The problem, if you don't already see it, is that these scientists have claimed the human body is also filled with one atmosphere of pressure, from air or otherwise; and if we weigh that body, it is standing on a scale also “floating” on air. Therefore the human body should also weigh nothing on the scale, according to this logic. If a column of air weighing 11 tons can be completely levitated by air pressure, why not a 170 pound man? The experts might say it is a matter of density, but neither Newton's nor Einstein's equations have a density variable in them. The force of gravity is supposed to be a function of mass, not density. If it is a matter of density, how does the field know I am denser than the column of air? Mr. Gravity is looking up at me and the column from underneath: how does he know I have more density than the column of air?

Or, return to David Esker's example. If I put my hand flat on a table, he claims there is 270 pounds of force bearing down on it. My hand is acting like a scale, and it “feels” 270 pounds of weight. But, like the scale, my hand is already pressurized. Why does my hand feel the weight but not the scale? If I lift my hand a fraction of an inch off the table, there is now air underneath it. Is my hand now equalized, like the scale? Do I now feel no force from the atmosphere? If I feel no force from the atmosphere, why does my hand not swell up to twice its size, like an astronaut in a hard vacuum without a spacesuit?

What if I lay my hand on the scale: am I to believe that my hand feels the force but not the scale? One of these scientists answered me that the top of my hand equalized the weight of the air, so that it was not transferred to the scale. The problem here, if you cannot see it already, is that if the top of my hand is capable of pushing back with 270 pounds of force, the bottom of my hand should be, too. In which case the scale will be feeling that force.

These scientists want us to believe that if we removed the atmosphere, we could wear cows as hats without stooping and could jump up to the clouds just by the strength of our calf muscles. If my outstretched arm can resist 800 pounds of atmospheric weight, then, without the atmosphere, I should be able to lift 800 pounds with one hand. Do you believe that? I don't. Can you lift 300 pounds with one arm, straight out to the side, on the top of a tall mountain? You should be able to, according to their math. Can you even lift a third more weight than normal at the top of a tall mountain? No, and it has nothing to do with being shagged out from lack of oxygen.

Let me explain what I mean by “levitating force.” Current theory tries to explain the zero-weight of the atmosphere on scales by one of two dodges. I have already ridiculed one dodge. The other dodge is that the lower atmosphere levitates the upper atmosphere, via air pressure. Each level is levitated by the level below it. The lowest level of the atmosphere is in equilibrium, being caught between the upper levels and the surface of the Earth. The air pressure of this lowest level pushes equally against the Earth and the upper levels, so the net force is zero. Scales exist in this lowest level, so they do not register a weight or force.

Again, I did not make this up. Many or most people are satisfied with that kind of answer, which makes one frightened for the future. Even someone with the intelligence of David Esker is satisfied with that kind of answer. He has not seen fit to question it. In fact, NO ONE has questioned it, that I know of. As I have shown in my book, hundreds of extremely transparent questions are begged in broad daylight, and thousands of truly despicable answers are posted to simple questions—as above with NASA—and no one ever budges an inch. Not only does your average web surfer not blink an eye, all the Russells and Feynmans and Godels and Hilberts and Wiles have passed them by without a pause—too busy with fake math to notice that the atmosphere doesn't register on a scale and things like that.

But just stop and analyze that answer for a moment. Gasses are hard to picture, so let us replace that lowest level of the atmosphere by Atlas. Say we let Atlas hold up the atmosphere. He puts one hand on the Earth and holds the atmosphere up with the other hand. Like the gas, he would create an equal and opposite force in each direction. And, also like the gas, we could sum those forces. Since they are in vector opposition, the vertical forces would sum to zero. So far so good. But now let us put a scale under his hand on the Earth. According to the answer above, the scale would read nothing, since the forces have summed to zero. Do you still believe that? Do you really think that one hand of Atlas could hold up the sky without creating any pressure on that scale with the other hand? If you believe it, you must also believe in the sky hook.

No, we have a real problem here. We have a reverse Chicken Little problem, since the standard model cannot explain why the sky is not falling. The sky has mass, so it should have weight, but it registers nothing on the scale. How is that possible? How can a column of air that weighs 11 tons fail to fall or register on a scale? Anything else that weighed 11 tons would fall and would register on the scale. If you propose that air pressure levitates the column of air, you must explain why that same air pressure does not levitate an elephant. If you claim that it is because there isn't enough air under the elephant to do the job, you imply that more air might do the job. If we took the elephant up to an altitude of five miles, would he be levitated then? Would he be partially levitated?

And that brings us back to the air in the scale. It was claimed above that the air in or under the scale was enough to levitate the 11 ton column of air. If the air under the scale can levitate an 11 ton column of air, why can it not levitate a 4 ton elephant?”

I do not accept your "HYDRODYNAMIC GRAVITY EQUATION IX".

You are going to have to accept these undeniable facts.

The value chosen in 1954 by the 10th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) for the standard atmosphere is directly related to the sacred cubit.

https://www.bipm.org/jsp/en/ViewCGPMResolution.jsp?CGPM=10&RES=4

1013250 dynes per square centimetre (101325 Pa).

4 x 101,325 = 405,300

405,3001/2 = 636.63176

2/π = one sacred cubit = 0.636619772

A four digit perfect match.



100,000/101,325 = 0.9869233

π2/10 = 0.98696044

A four digit perfect match.


Dr. C. Goldblatt, one of the foremost experts on atmospheric physics in the world (Space Science and Astrobiology Division, NASA Ames Research Center) explains the total and complete random nature of the Earth's atmosphere evolution.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.10557.pdf

Then, he explains these facts in the context of the faint young sun paradox:

https://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf

"Geology has been viewed as a collection of events derived from insignificant causes, a string of accidents."

Yet, out of this string of accidents, we obtain a four digit perfect match between the value of the standard atmosphere and the magnitude of the g acceleration, and between the sacred cubit and the value of the standard atmosphere.

The main reason why the technical atmosphere (one kilogram-force per square centimeter) was phased out is connected in a direct way to the fact that by using this value, the figure for the column of water will be exactly 10 meters, a fact impossible to explain in the context of the random fluctuations of the atmosphere's chemical composition/mass.

980.665 mbar = 98.0665 kPa technical atm = 28.959136 inHg = 32.8093 ft of water = 10.00027464 m

The ratio 100,000/101,325 equals exactly π2/10 (g acceleration divided by 10, the height of the column of water using the technical atmosphere).

In 1982, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) recommended that for the purposes of specifying the physical properties of substances, “standard pressure” should be precisely 100 kPa (1 bar) = 100,000 Pa.

http://goldbook.iupac.org/html/S/S05921.html

Have you a trouble with this?
I do have a problem with this.  There is nothing in that rambling post that resembles anything akin to a predictive analytical model.  Not is there anything resembling a description of the mechanism of operation that answers me question.  Maybe you should re-read my post because your replay has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 3.64¢.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 15128
  • Backstage
Re: buoyancy of water is completely a hoax
« Reply #61 on: March 07, 2019, 02:12:20 AM »
This theory is just for hiding events inside water and hiding the absense of gravity.

buoyancy of water always upward, right? And it only works for objects lighter than water. water never performs a lifting force on objects whose weighter than it. (it is related to the ratio of space within the vessels to remain its on the water, not the bouyancy) This is completely nothing more than a nonsense or deceit.

If an object is lighter than water, so it remains above the water. If an object weighter than the water, so it falls down. neither the bouyancy of water, nor the gravity does not affect it at all. Both buoyancy of water and gravity nothing but hoax.
What is the mechanism that causes some things to float and others to sink?  How can you predict what will float and what won't?

Which thing's specific weight is more than the other one, sinks. Valid in environments whose water, air or something like these. That's all.
That's not an explanation of how this would work.  Nor do you provide any method of predicting results.  If you are going to claim this replaces gravity and buoyancy then you should already have had an analytical model to replace it...right?

I did not do it because Sandokhan has already did it. This is enough for me. I do not need to make another explanation on it:

Modern science has no trouble explaining why a simple scale does not register anything under any pressure change.

I told you that you haven't done your homework on this topic at all.

You simply have no idea how Nasa or the best mainstream RE physicists try to justify the fact that a scale should be registering a full ton, yet it does not.

“A column of air one square meter in cross section is said to weigh over 100,000 Newtons or 10.2 metric tonnes or 11.2 (short) tons at sea level. This leads any child to ask how the human body can stand up under so much weight. And if we do a websearch, we do indeed find an answer for children at a NASA information site:

Why doesn't all that pressure squash me? Remember that you have air inside your body too, that air balances out the pressure outside so you stay nice and firm and not squishy.

That answer is so misleading I think we can call it an outright lie. The human body is not filled with air, except in the case of flatulent answers like this. The body is about 62% water, so the water must equalize most of any air pressure that exists. The body is made up of cells, remember, and cells are not filled with air. Cells can be as much as 90% water. Yes, the body contains oxygen that it gets from the air, but this oxygen is dissolved in the blood. It does not persist as air or continue to have air pressure once it enters the blood stream. Your lungs are the only things “filled with air” and only when you breathe in. If the air in your lungs was equalizing several tons of pressure, then when you breathed out your body would implode.

Let's go to a different sort of website: David Esker's site, which is often quite informative. David says this about atmospheric pressure:

The area on the face of an average adult's hand is about 0.0116 m2 or 18.0 square inches so there is about 1200 N (270 pounds) of force bearing down on an average adult human hand. Since the pressure is the same for both inside and outside of us, the net forces balance out to zero. Rather than weighing us down, we are indifferent to this force.

We may be indifferent to this force, but David should not be so indifferent to the questions begged here. If we have 270 pounds bearing down on one hand, why doesn't that force register on a normal scale? Go look at your bathroom scale. The atmosphere should be pressing down on that scale right now. Why doesn't it register a number? That scale is probably about a square foot, so it should register about a ton, or 2,000 pounds. Why don't we have to re-zero all bathroom scales to 2,000 pounds? If we did that, wouldn't that mean that I really weigh 2,170 lbs?

The only remaining dodge at this point is for the mainstream scientist to mimic the NASA feint and claim the scale is full of air. “For the scale to compress, there must be space underneath it, and that space is filled with air. The pressure underneath the scale equals the pressure above it, so it doesn't register the weight of the air.” This ridiculous argument is actually the accepted one: I am not making it up. The problem, if you don't already see it, is that these scientists have claimed the human body is also filled with one atmosphere of pressure, from air or otherwise; and if we weigh that body, it is standing on a scale also “floating” on air. Therefore the human body should also weigh nothing on the scale, according to this logic. If a column of air weighing 11 tons can be completely levitated by air pressure, why not a 170 pound man? The experts might say it is a matter of density, but neither Newton's nor Einstein's equations have a density variable in them. The force of gravity is supposed to be a function of mass, not density. If it is a matter of density, how does the field know I am denser than the column of air? Mr. Gravity is looking up at me and the column from underneath: how does he know I have more density than the column of air?

Or, return to David Esker's example. If I put my hand flat on a table, he claims there is 270 pounds of force bearing down on it. My hand is acting like a scale, and it “feels” 270 pounds of weight. But, like the scale, my hand is already pressurized. Why does my hand feel the weight but not the scale? If I lift my hand a fraction of an inch off the table, there is now air underneath it. Is my hand now equalized, like the scale? Do I now feel no force from the atmosphere? If I feel no force from the atmosphere, why does my hand not swell up to twice its size, like an astronaut in a hard vacuum without a spacesuit?

What if I lay my hand on the scale: am I to believe that my hand feels the force but not the scale? One of these scientists answered me that the top of my hand equalized the weight of the air, so that it was not transferred to the scale. The problem here, if you cannot see it already, is that if the top of my hand is capable of pushing back with 270 pounds of force, the bottom of my hand should be, too. In which case the scale will be feeling that force.

These scientists want us to believe that if we removed the atmosphere, we could wear cows as hats without stooping and could jump up to the clouds just by the strength of our calf muscles. If my outstretched arm can resist 800 pounds of atmospheric weight, then, without the atmosphere, I should be able to lift 800 pounds with one hand. Do you believe that? I don't. Can you lift 300 pounds with one arm, straight out to the side, on the top of a tall mountain? You should be able to, according to their math. Can you even lift a third more weight than normal at the top of a tall mountain? No, and it has nothing to do with being shagged out from lack of oxygen.

Let me explain what I mean by “levitating force.” Current theory tries to explain the zero-weight of the atmosphere on scales by one of two dodges. I have already ridiculed one dodge. The other dodge is that the lower atmosphere levitates the upper atmosphere, via air pressure. Each level is levitated by the level below it. The lowest level of the atmosphere is in equilibrium, being caught between the upper levels and the surface of the Earth. The air pressure of this lowest level pushes equally against the Earth and the upper levels, so the net force is zero. Scales exist in this lowest level, so they do not register a weight or force.

Again, I did not make this up. Many or most people are satisfied with that kind of answer, which makes one frightened for the future. Even someone with the intelligence of David Esker is satisfied with that kind of answer. He has not seen fit to question it. In fact, NO ONE has questioned it, that I know of. As I have shown in my book, hundreds of extremely transparent questions are begged in broad daylight, and thousands of truly despicable answers are posted to simple questions—as above with NASA—and no one ever budges an inch. Not only does your average web surfer not blink an eye, all the Russells and Feynmans and Godels and Hilberts and Wiles have passed them by without a pause—too busy with fake math to notice that the atmosphere doesn't register on a scale and things like that.

But just stop and analyze that answer for a moment. Gasses are hard to picture, so let us replace that lowest level of the atmosphere by Atlas. Say we let Atlas hold up the atmosphere. He puts one hand on the Earth and holds the atmosphere up with the other hand. Like the gas, he would create an equal and opposite force in each direction. And, also like the gas, we could sum those forces. Since they are in vector opposition, the vertical forces would sum to zero. So far so good. But now let us put a scale under his hand on the Earth. According to the answer above, the scale would read nothing, since the forces have summed to zero. Do you still believe that? Do you really think that one hand of Atlas could hold up the sky without creating any pressure on that scale with the other hand? If you believe it, you must also believe in the sky hook.

No, we have a real problem here. We have a reverse Chicken Little problem, since the standard model cannot explain why the sky is not falling. The sky has mass, so it should have weight, but it registers nothing on the scale. How is that possible? How can a column of air that weighs 11 tons fail to fall or register on a scale? Anything else that weighed 11 tons would fall and would register on the scale. If you propose that air pressure levitates the column of air, you must explain why that same air pressure does not levitate an elephant. If you claim that it is because there isn't enough air under the elephant to do the job, you imply that more air might do the job. If we took the elephant up to an altitude of five miles, would he be levitated then? Would he be partially levitated?

And that brings us back to the air in the scale. It was claimed above that the air in or under the scale was enough to levitate the 11 ton column of air. If the air under the scale can levitate an 11 ton column of air, why can it not levitate a 4 ton elephant?”

I do not accept your "HYDRODYNAMIC GRAVITY EQUATION IX".

You are going to have to accept these undeniable facts.

The value chosen in 1954 by the 10th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) for the standard atmosphere is directly related to the sacred cubit.

https://www.bipm.org/jsp/en/ViewCGPMResolution.jsp?CGPM=10&RES=4

1013250 dynes per square centimetre (101325 Pa).

4 x 101,325 = 405,300

405,3001/2 = 636.63176

2/π = one sacred cubit = 0.636619772

A four digit perfect match.



100,000/101,325 = 0.9869233

π2/10 = 0.98696044

A four digit perfect match.


Dr. C. Goldblatt, one of the foremost experts on atmospheric physics in the world (Space Science and Astrobiology Division, NASA Ames Research Center) explains the total and complete random nature of the Earth's atmosphere evolution.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.10557.pdf

Then, he explains these facts in the context of the faint young sun paradox:

https://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf

"Geology has been viewed as a collection of events derived from insignificant causes, a string of accidents."

Yet, out of this string of accidents, we obtain a four digit perfect match between the value of the standard atmosphere and the magnitude of the g acceleration, and between the sacred cubit and the value of the standard atmosphere.

The main reason why the technical atmosphere (one kilogram-force per square centimeter) was phased out is connected in a direct way to the fact that by using this value, the figure for the column of water will be exactly 10 meters, a fact impossible to explain in the context of the random fluctuations of the atmosphere's chemical composition/mass.

980.665 mbar = 98.0665 kPa technical atm = 28.959136 inHg = 32.8093 ft of water = 10.00027464 m

The ratio 100,000/101,325 equals exactly π2/10 (g acceleration divided by 10, the height of the column of water using the technical atmosphere).

In 1982, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) recommended that for the purposes of specifying the physical properties of substances, “standard pressure” should be precisely 100 kPa (1 bar) = 100,000 Pa.

http://goldbook.iupac.org/html/S/S05921.html

Have you a trouble with this?
I do have a problem with this.  There is nothing in that rambling post that resembles anything akin to a predictive analytical model.  Not is there anything resembling a description of the mechanism of operation that answers me question.  Maybe you should re-read my post because your replay has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

Mike

It is absoultely contains what you ask and you are absolutely unable to get it. An engineer wrote it and a second engineer verified. Who you are denying it, a scam artist?
ANNIHILATOR OF JOHN DAVIS


*

Heiwa

  • 7322
Re: buoyancy of water is completely a hoax
« Reply #62 on: March 07, 2019, 04:30:19 AM »
This theory is just for hiding events inside water and hiding the absense of gravity.

buoyancy of water always upward, right? And it only works for objects lighter than water. water never performs a lifting force on objects whose weighter than it. (it is related to the ratio of space within the vessels to remain its on the water, not the bouyancy) This is completely nothing more than a nonsense or deceit.

If an object is lighter than water, so it remains above the water. If an object weighter than the water, so it falls down. neither the bouyancy of water, nor the gravity does not affect it at all. Both buoyancy of water and gravity nothing but hoax.
What is the mechanism that causes some things to float and others to sink?  How can you predict what will float and what won't?

Which thing's specific weight is more than the other one, sinks. Valid in environments whose water, air or something like these. That's all.
That's not an explanation of how this would work.  Nor do you provide any method of predicting results.  If you are going to claim this replaces gravity and buoyancy then you should already have had an analytical model to replace it...right?

I did not do it because Sandokhan has already did it. This is enough for me. I do not need to make another explanation on it:

Modern science has no trouble explaining why a simple scale does not register anything under any pressure change.

I told you that you haven't done your homework on this topic at all.

You simply have no idea how Nasa or the best mainstream RE physicists try to justify the fact that a scale should be registering a full ton, yet it does not.

“A column of air one square meter in cross section is said to weigh over 100,000 Newtons or 10.2 metric tonnes or 11.2 (short) tons at sea level. This leads any child to ask how the human body can stand up under so much weight. And if we do a websearch, we do indeed find an answer for children at a NASA information site:

Why doesn't all that pressure squash me? Remember that you have air inside your body too, that air balances out the pressure outside so you stay nice and firm and not squishy.

That answer is so misleading I think we can call it an outright lie. The human body is not filled with air, except in the case of flatulent answers like this. The body is about 62% water, so the water must equalize most of any air pressure that exists. The body is made up of cells, remember, and cells are not filled with air. Cells can be as much as 90% water. Yes, the body contains oxygen that it gets from the air, but this oxygen is dissolved in the blood. It does not persist as air or continue to have air pressure once it enters the blood stream. Your lungs are the only things “filled with air” and only when you breathe in. If the air in your lungs was equalizing several tons of pressure, then when you breathed out your body would implode.

Let's go to a different sort of website: David Esker's site, which is often quite informative. David says this about atmospheric pressure:

The area on the face of an average adult's hand is about 0.0116 m2 or 18.0 square inches so there is about 1200 N (270 pounds) of force bearing down on an average adult human hand. Since the pressure is the same for both inside and outside of us, the net forces balance out to zero. Rather than weighing us down, we are indifferent to this force.

We may be indifferent to this force, but David should not be so indifferent to the questions begged here. If we have 270 pounds bearing down on one hand, why doesn't that force register on a normal scale? Go look at your bathroom scale. The atmosphere should be pressing down on that scale right now. Why doesn't it register a number? That scale is probably about a square foot, so it should register about a ton, or 2,000 pounds. Why don't we have to re-zero all bathroom scales to 2,000 pounds? If we did that, wouldn't that mean that I really weigh 2,170 lbs?

The only remaining dodge at this point is for the mainstream scientist to mimic the NASA feint and claim the scale is full of air. “For the scale to compress, there must be space underneath it, and that space is filled with air. The pressure underneath the scale equals the pressure above it, so it doesn't register the weight of the air.” This ridiculous argument is actually the accepted one: I am not making it up. The problem, if you don't already see it, is that these scientists have claimed the human body is also filled with one atmosphere of pressure, from air or otherwise; and if we weigh that body, it is standing on a scale also “floating” on air. Therefore the human body should also weigh nothing on the scale, according to this logic. If a column of air weighing 11 tons can be completely levitated by air pressure, why not a 170 pound man? The experts might say it is a matter of density, but neither Newton's nor Einstein's equations have a density variable in them. The force of gravity is supposed to be a function of mass, not density. If it is a matter of density, how does the field know I am denser than the column of air? Mr. Gravity is looking up at me and the column from underneath: how does he know I have more density than the column of air?

Or, return to David Esker's example. If I put my hand flat on a table, he claims there is 270 pounds of force bearing down on it. My hand is acting like a scale, and it “feels” 270 pounds of weight. But, like the scale, my hand is already pressurized. Why does my hand feel the weight but not the scale? If I lift my hand a fraction of an inch off the table, there is now air underneath it. Is my hand now equalized, like the scale? Do I now feel no force from the atmosphere? If I feel no force from the atmosphere, why does my hand not swell up to twice its size, like an astronaut in a hard vacuum without a spacesuit?

What if I lay my hand on the scale: am I to believe that my hand feels the force but not the scale? One of these scientists answered me that the top of my hand equalized the weight of the air, so that it was not transferred to the scale. The problem here, if you cannot see it already, is that if the top of my hand is capable of pushing back with 270 pounds of force, the bottom of my hand should be, too. In which case the scale will be feeling that force.

These scientists want us to believe that if we removed the atmosphere, we could wear cows as hats without stooping and could jump up to the clouds just by the strength of our calf muscles. If my outstretched arm can resist 800 pounds of atmospheric weight, then, without the atmosphere, I should be able to lift 800 pounds with one hand. Do you believe that? I don't. Can you lift 300 pounds with one arm, straight out to the side, on the top of a tall mountain? You should be able to, according to their math. Can you even lift a third more weight than normal at the top of a tall mountain? No, and it has nothing to do with being shagged out from lack of oxygen.

Let me explain what I mean by “levitating force.” Current theory tries to explain the zero-weight of the atmosphere on scales by one of two dodges. I have already ridiculed one dodge. The other dodge is that the lower atmosphere levitates the upper atmosphere, via air pressure. Each level is levitated by the level below it. The lowest level of the atmosphere is in equilibrium, being caught between the upper levels and the surface of the Earth. The air pressure of this lowest level pushes equally against the Earth and the upper levels, so the net force is zero. Scales exist in this lowest level, so they do not register a weight or force.

Again, I did not make this up. Many or most people are satisfied with that kind of answer, which makes one frightened for the future. Even someone with the intelligence of David Esker is satisfied with that kind of answer. He has not seen fit to question it. In fact, NO ONE has questioned it, that I know of. As I have shown in my book, hundreds of extremely transparent questions are begged in broad daylight, and thousands of truly despicable answers are posted to simple questions—as above with NASA—and no one ever budges an inch. Not only does your average web surfer not blink an eye, all the Russells and Feynmans and Godels and Hilberts and Wiles have passed them by without a pause—too busy with fake math to notice that the atmosphere doesn't register on a scale and things like that.

But just stop and analyze that answer for a moment. Gasses are hard to picture, so let us replace that lowest level of the atmosphere by Atlas. Say we let Atlas hold up the atmosphere. He puts one hand on the Earth and holds the atmosphere up with the other hand. Like the gas, he would create an equal and opposite force in each direction. And, also like the gas, we could sum those forces. Since they are in vector opposition, the vertical forces would sum to zero. So far so good. But now let us put a scale under his hand on the Earth. According to the answer above, the scale would read nothing, since the forces have summed to zero. Do you still believe that? Do you really think that one hand of Atlas could hold up the sky without creating any pressure on that scale with the other hand? If you believe it, you must also believe in the sky hook.

No, we have a real problem here. We have a reverse Chicken Little problem, since the standard model cannot explain why the sky is not falling. The sky has mass, so it should have weight, but it registers nothing on the scale. How is that possible? How can a column of air that weighs 11 tons fail to fall or register on a scale? Anything else that weighed 11 tons would fall and would register on the scale. If you propose that air pressure levitates the column of air, you must explain why that same air pressure does not levitate an elephant. If you claim that it is because there isn't enough air under the elephant to do the job, you imply that more air might do the job. If we took the elephant up to an altitude of five miles, would he be levitated then? Would he be partially levitated?

And that brings us back to the air in the scale. It was claimed above that the air in or under the scale was enough to levitate the 11 ton column of air. If the air under the scale can levitate an 11 ton column of air, why can it not levitate a 4 ton elephant?”

I do not accept your "HYDRODYNAMIC GRAVITY EQUATION IX".

You are going to have to accept these undeniable facts.

The value chosen in 1954 by the 10th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) for the standard atmosphere is directly related to the sacred cubit.

https://www.bipm.org/jsp/en/ViewCGPMResolution.jsp?CGPM=10&RES=4

1013250 dynes per square centimetre (101325 Pa).

4 x 101,325 = 405,300

405,3001/2 = 636.63176

2/π = one sacred cubit = 0.636619772

A four digit perfect match.



100,000/101,325 = 0.9869233

π2/10 = 0.98696044

A four digit perfect match.


Dr. C. Goldblatt, one of the foremost experts on atmospheric physics in the world (Space Science and Astrobiology Division, NASA Ames Research Center) explains the total and complete random nature of the Earth's atmosphere evolution.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.10557.pdf

Then, he explains these facts in the context of the faint young sun paradox:

https://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf

"Geology has been viewed as a collection of events derived from insignificant causes, a string of accidents."

Yet, out of this string of accidents, we obtain a four digit perfect match between the value of the standard atmosphere and the magnitude of the g acceleration, and between the sacred cubit and the value of the standard atmosphere.

The main reason why the technical atmosphere (one kilogram-force per square centimeter) was phased out is connected in a direct way to the fact that by using this value, the figure for the column of water will be exactly 10 meters, a fact impossible to explain in the context of the random fluctuations of the atmosphere's chemical composition/mass.

980.665 mbar = 98.0665 kPa technical atm = 28.959136 inHg = 32.8093 ft of water = 10.00027464 m

The ratio 100,000/101,325 equals exactly π2/10 (g acceleration divided by 10, the height of the column of water using the technical atmosphere).

In 1982, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) recommended that for the purposes of specifying the physical properties of substances, “standard pressure” should be precisely 100 kPa (1 bar) = 100,000 Pa.

http://goldbook.iupac.org/html/S/S05921.html

Have you a trouble with this?
I do have a problem with this.  There is nothing in that rambling post that resembles anything akin to a predictive analytical model.  Not is there anything resembling a description of the mechanism of operation that answers me question.  Maybe you should re-read my post because your replay has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

Mike

It is absoultely contains what you ask and you are absolutely unable to get it. An engineer wrote it and a second engineer verified. Who you are denying it, a scam artist?
microbrain mike worked inside US nuclear submarines many years and never understood how they could sink below water due to negative buoyancy. He was for years subject to nuclear radiation from the sub engine, so it didn't help either. But it seems he survived and now lives as a troll on the internet.

Re: buoyancy of water is completely a hoax
« Reply #63 on: March 10, 2019, 06:51:10 PM »
This theory is just for hiding events inside water and hiding the absense of gravity.

buoyancy of water always upward, right? And it only works for objects lighter than water. water never performs a lifting force on objects whose weighter than it. (it is related to the ratio of space within the vessels to remain its on the water, not the bouyancy) This is completely nothing more than a nonsense or deceit.

If an object is lighter than water, so it remains above the water. If an object weighter than the water, so it falls down. neither the bouyancy of water, nor the gravity does not affect it at all. Both buoyancy of water and gravity nothing but hoax.
What is the mechanism that causes some things to float and others to sink?  How can you predict what will float and what won't?

Which thing's specific weight is more than the other one, sinks. Valid in environments whose water, air or something like these. That's all.
That's not an explanation of how this would work.  Nor do you provide any method of predicting results.  If you are going to claim this replaces gravity and buoyancy then you should already have had an analytical model to replace it...right?

I did not do it because Sandokhan has already did it. This is enough for me. I do not need to make another explanation on it:

Modern science has no trouble explaining why a simple scale does not register anything under any pressure change.

I told you that you haven't done your homework on this topic at all.

You simply have no idea how Nasa or the best mainstream RE physicists try to justify the fact that a scale should be registering a full ton, yet it does not.

“A column of air one square meter in cross section is said to weigh over 100,000 Newtons or 10.2 metric tonnes or 11.2 (short) tons at sea level. This leads any child to ask how the human body can stand up under so much weight. And if we do a websearch, we do indeed find an answer for children at a NASA information site:

Why doesn't all that pressure squash me? Remember that you have air inside your body too, that air balances out the pressure outside so you stay nice and firm and not squishy.

That answer is so misleading I think we can call it an outright lie. The human body is not filled with air, except in the case of flatulent answers like this. The body is about 62% water, so the water must equalize most of any air pressure that exists. The body is made up of cells, remember, and cells are not filled with air. Cells can be as much as 90% water. Yes, the body contains oxygen that it gets from the air, but this oxygen is dissolved in the blood. It does not persist as air or continue to have air pressure once it enters the blood stream. Your lungs are the only things “filled with air” and only when you breathe in. If the air in your lungs was equalizing several tons of pressure, then when you breathed out your body would implode.

Let's go to a different sort of website: David Esker's site, which is often quite informative. David says this about atmospheric pressure:

The area on the face of an average adult's hand is about 0.0116 m2 or 18.0 square inches so there is about 1200 N (270 pounds) of force bearing down on an average adult human hand. Since the pressure is the same for both inside and outside of us, the net forces balance out to zero. Rather than weighing us down, we are indifferent to this force.

We may be indifferent to this force, but David should not be so indifferent to the questions begged here. If we have 270 pounds bearing down on one hand, why doesn't that force register on a normal scale? Go look at your bathroom scale. The atmosphere should be pressing down on that scale right now. Why doesn't it register a number? That scale is probably about a square foot, so it should register about a ton, or 2,000 pounds. Why don't we have to re-zero all bathroom scales to 2,000 pounds? If we did that, wouldn't that mean that I really weigh 2,170 lbs?

The only remaining dodge at this point is for the mainstream scientist to mimic the NASA feint and claim the scale is full of air. “For the scale to compress, there must be space underneath it, and that space is filled with air. The pressure underneath the scale equals the pressure above it, so it doesn't register the weight of the air.” This ridiculous argument is actually the accepted one: I am not making it up. The problem, if you don't already see it, is that these scientists have claimed the human body is also filled with one atmosphere of pressure, from air or otherwise; and if we weigh that body, it is standing on a scale also “floating” on air. Therefore the human body should also weigh nothing on the scale, according to this logic. If a column of air weighing 11 tons can be completely levitated by air pressure, why not a 170 pound man? The experts might say it is a matter of density, but neither Newton's nor Einstein's equations have a density variable in them. The force of gravity is supposed to be a function of mass, not density. If it is a matter of density, how does the field know I am denser than the column of air? Mr. Gravity is looking up at me and the column from underneath: how does he know I have more density than the column of air?

Or, return to David Esker's example. If I put my hand flat on a table, he claims there is 270 pounds of force bearing down on it. My hand is acting like a scale, and it “feels” 270 pounds of weight. But, like the scale, my hand is already pressurized. Why does my hand feel the weight but not the scale? If I lift my hand a fraction of an inch off the table, there is now air underneath it. Is my hand now equalized, like the scale? Do I now feel no force from the atmosphere? If I feel no force from the atmosphere, why does my hand not swell up to twice its size, like an astronaut in a hard vacuum without a spacesuit?

What if I lay my hand on the scale: am I to believe that my hand feels the force but not the scale? One of these scientists answered me that the top of my hand equalized the weight of the air, so that it was not transferred to the scale. The problem here, if you cannot see it already, is that if the top of my hand is capable of pushing back with 270 pounds of force, the bottom of my hand should be, too. In which case the scale will be feeling that force.

These scientists want us to believe that if we removed the atmosphere, we could wear cows as hats without stooping and could jump up to the clouds just by the strength of our calf muscles. If my outstretched arm can resist 800 pounds of atmospheric weight, then, without the atmosphere, I should be able to lift 800 pounds with one hand. Do you believe that? I don't. Can you lift 300 pounds with one arm, straight out to the side, on the top of a tall mountain? You should be able to, according to their math. Can you even lift a third more weight than normal at the top of a tall mountain? No, and it has nothing to do with being shagged out from lack of oxygen.

Let me explain what I mean by “levitating force.” Current theory tries to explain the zero-weight of the atmosphere on scales by one of two dodges. I have already ridiculed one dodge. The other dodge is that the lower atmosphere levitates the upper atmosphere, via air pressure. Each level is levitated by the level below it. The lowest level of the atmosphere is in equilibrium, being caught between the upper levels and the surface of the Earth. The air pressure of this lowest level pushes equally against the Earth and the upper levels, so the net force is zero. Scales exist in this lowest level, so they do not register a weight or force.

Again, I did not make this up. Many or most people are satisfied with that kind of answer, which makes one frightened for the future. Even someone with the intelligence of David Esker is satisfied with that kind of answer. He has not seen fit to question it. In fact, NO ONE has questioned it, that I know of. As I have shown in my book, hundreds of extremely transparent questions are begged in broad daylight, and thousands of truly despicable answers are posted to simple questions—as above with NASA—and no one ever budges an inch. Not only does your average web surfer not blink an eye, all the Russells and Feynmans and Godels and Hilberts and Wiles have passed them by without a pause—too busy with fake math to notice that the atmosphere doesn't register on a scale and things like that.

But just stop and analyze that answer for a moment. Gasses are hard to picture, so let us replace that lowest level of the atmosphere by Atlas. Say we let Atlas hold up the atmosphere. He puts one hand on the Earth and holds the atmosphere up with the other hand. Like the gas, he would create an equal and opposite force in each direction. And, also like the gas, we could sum those forces. Since they are in vector opposition, the vertical forces would sum to zero. So far so good. But now let us put a scale under his hand on the Earth. According to the answer above, the scale would read nothing, since the forces have summed to zero. Do you still believe that? Do you really think that one hand of Atlas could hold up the sky without creating any pressure on that scale with the other hand? If you believe it, you must also believe in the sky hook.

No, we have a real problem here. We have a reverse Chicken Little problem, since the standard model cannot explain why the sky is not falling. The sky has mass, so it should have weight, but it registers nothing on the scale. How is that possible? How can a column of air that weighs 11 tons fail to fall or register on a scale? Anything else that weighed 11 tons would fall and would register on the scale. If you propose that air pressure levitates the column of air, you must explain why that same air pressure does not levitate an elephant. If you claim that it is because there isn't enough air under the elephant to do the job, you imply that more air might do the job. If we took the elephant up to an altitude of five miles, would he be levitated then? Would he be partially levitated?

And that brings us back to the air in the scale. It was claimed above that the air in or under the scale was enough to levitate the 11 ton column of air. If the air under the scale can levitate an 11 ton column of air, why can it not levitate a 4 ton elephant?”

I do not accept your "HYDRODYNAMIC GRAVITY EQUATION IX".

You are going to have to accept these undeniable facts.

The value chosen in 1954 by the 10th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) for the standard atmosphere is directly related to the sacred cubit.

https://www.bipm.org/jsp/en/ViewCGPMResolution.jsp?CGPM=10&RES=4

1013250 dynes per square centimetre (101325 Pa).

4 x 101,325 = 405,300

405,3001/2 = 636.63176

2/π = one sacred cubit = 0.636619772

A four digit perfect match.



100,000/101,325 = 0.9869233

π2/10 = 0.98696044

A four digit perfect match.


Dr. C. Goldblatt, one of the foremost experts on atmospheric physics in the world (Space Science and Astrobiology Division, NASA Ames Research Center) explains the total and complete random nature of the Earth's atmosphere evolution.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.10557.pdf

Then, he explains these facts in the context of the faint young sun paradox:

https://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf

"Geology has been viewed as a collection of events derived from insignificant causes, a string of accidents."

Yet, out of this string of accidents, we obtain a four digit perfect match between the value of the standard atmosphere and the magnitude of the g acceleration, and between the sacred cubit and the value of the standard atmosphere.

The main reason why the technical atmosphere (one kilogram-force per square centimeter) was phased out is connected in a direct way to the fact that by using this value, the figure for the column of water will be exactly 10 meters, a fact impossible to explain in the context of the random fluctuations of the atmosphere's chemical composition/mass.

980.665 mbar = 98.0665 kPa technical atm = 28.959136 inHg = 32.8093 ft of water = 10.00027464 m

The ratio 100,000/101,325 equals exactly π2/10 (g acceleration divided by 10, the height of the column of water using the technical atmosphere).

In 1982, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) recommended that for the purposes of specifying the physical properties of substances, “standard pressure” should be precisely 100 kPa (1 bar) = 100,000 Pa.

http://goldbook.iupac.org/html/S/S05921.html

Have you a trouble with this?
I do have a problem with this.  There is nothing in that rambling post that resembles anything akin to a predictive analytical model.  Not is there anything resembling a description of the mechanism of operation that answers me question.  Maybe you should re-read my post because your replay has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

Mike

It is absoultely contains what you ask and you are absolutely unable to get it. An engineer wrote it and a second engineer verified. Who you are denying it, a scam artist?
microbrain mike worked inside US nuclear submarines many years and never understood how they could sink below water due to negative buoyancy. He was for years subject to nuclear radiation from the sub engine, so it didn't help either. But it seems he survived and now lives as a troll on the internet.
Wow.  I wasn't even talking to you and yet you make up some stupid shit.  If you can't provide any real debate, STFU.
Since it costs 1.82¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 3.64¢.

Re: buoyancy of water is completely a hoax
« Reply #64 on: April 08, 2019, 11:23:57 PM »
I do not believe bouyancy at all. And I do not believe also caisson disease. I mean, divers are having a problem, but not because of pressure changing. because, while the diver is swimming to upward, he is damaged by the water that hits his head. I believe that a diver who wears a protective helmet will not experience caisson disease.

Buoyancy is real and so is pressure.  You can see the presser exerted by water in this video and you can do this for yourself at home and see.  Buoyancy is exerted on any object that is submerged in water, heavy or light.  This is how it works:  when you submerge the object, it will increase the water level and this takes energy.  objects less dense than water will float, objects more dense will sink (but their weight will decrease by the amount of water that they displace).  Objects of the same density will be "weightless" in the water (neutrally buoyant).  The bends happens because the solubility of nitrogen increases as the pressure increases.  If the diver is too deep for too long (a function of both time and pressure) and they come up too quickly, bubbles will form in their blood causing the bends.  This is not caused by water, but pressure.  You can have the same thing happen so someone who is in a pressure chamber.  Or alternatively, you can see this for yourself with a can of soda.  If you open a can of soda, it will form bubbles.  If you open a can of soda so slowly that the pressure is able to be released at a very slow rate, the CO2 can off-gas slow enough as to not form bubbles. 


*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1299
  • Show me the evidence
Re: buoyancy of water is completely a hoax
« Reply #65 on: April 09, 2019, 01:07:34 AM »
Quote
I do not believe bouyancy at all. And I do not believe also caisson disease. I mean, divers are having a problem, but not because of pressure changing. because, while the diver is swimming to upward, he is damaged by the water that hits his head. I believe that a diver who wears a protective helmet will not experience caisson disease.

I dive a bit now, but used to be a rescue diver in my better days when I did dive a lot.
Any diver can go down much faster than they go up. I used to race people down to 30-40 m without any issues in less than a minute. If you surfaced from that depth in less than 2 minutes you will end up in a decompression chamber or dead.
I have had to pull a lady out of the water that popped up from 35ish meters deep. She went from 35m to surface in about 1-2 min. Doing CPR was a waste of time (we still tried) as her lunges where essentially shredded to bits as the air bubbles in her lunges expanded and destroyed the alveoli.

Also, you can take a 2l coke bottle down under water with you. At about 10 or 20m, you open the bottle up and fill it with air. Just turn it upside down and let bubbles go into the opening. When it is full you close it tight and release it so it goes to the surface. If the bottle does not explode on the way up, it becomes rock hard at the surface as the air pressure inside of it has increased massively. equivalent to 2 bar if you fill it at 20m. Water pressure is a very real thing.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 15099
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: buoyancy of water is completely a hoax
« Reply #66 on: April 10, 2019, 04:39:20 PM »

She went from 35m to surface in about 1-2 min. Doing CPR was a waste of time (we still tried) as her lunges where essentially shredded to bits as the air bubbles in her lunges expanded and destroyed the alveoli.

You mean she failed to exhale and the resultant pressure damaged her lungs, right?
Because 'the bends' does not cause bubbles in your Alveoli.
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1299
  • Show me the evidence
Re: buoyancy of water is completely a hoax
« Reply #67 on: April 10, 2019, 11:30:24 PM »

She went from 35m to surface in about 1-2 min. Doing CPR was a waste of time (we still tried) as her lunges where essentially shredded to bits as the air bubbles in her lunges expanded and destroyed the alveoli.

You mean she failed to exhale and the resultant pressure damaged her lungs, right?
Because 'the bends' does not cause bubbles in your Alveoli.


Mostly.
You need to breathe out on your way up to give your body time to remove saturated gas from your blood (and muscle tissue, bone ext). However you can only remove the saturated gas out from your lungs, that also requires your body to pump all of your blood through your lungs to do that. If you go up too fast, aside from the fact that your body does not have enough time to do that, regardless of how hard you try to breathe out, air bubbles expanding too fast can get stuck in capillaries, blocking flow. Seeing that your lungs has a lot of blood flow and very soft tissue matter, it can tear up fairly quickly.

To be honest, I have no idea if it was capillaries or alveoli that was ripped up, It was quite a few years ago, and have not kept up to date with my training. No one really knows what happened to her underwater for her to pop up. But the chances of survival from a rapid ascent from 30m+ is fairly 50/50 if you know what you are doing.

Re: buoyancy of water is completely a hoax
« Reply #68 on: April 20, 2019, 08:21:16 AM »
If you think that a set of scales should register a ton or so due to the column of air above them, how is it that you don't get forced to the ground when opening an umbrella?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2019, 08:30:51 AM by turtles »
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." - House

"If you could reason with flat earthers, there would be no flat earthers." - Turtles

The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.