And once more you flee from the topic, completely incapable of explaining what magic causes boats to disappear from the bottom up in your fantasy.
I will when you prove to me that Sir Isaac Newton was actually responsible for his own physics formulas.
So you just want to attack a person, rather than the ideas attributed to them?
It really doesn't matter if it was Newton or someone else, the fact remains that you are spouting nonsense.
But this theory is very easy to test as false. Drop an bullet rather than firing it. No wind resistance, no deal with forward momentum (so you can't say it is affected somehow by curvature). No nothing really.
According to Newton, this object, now that it is in motion, should continue to be in motion (either drilling through the ground, or moving across it like a torpedo on water).
You mean it is very easy for you to blatantly misrepresent it yet again.
Drop a bullet and it will fall until it hits the ground, when it hits the ground, the ground exerts a force on it.
This force is primarily a result of the electrostatic interactions between the atoms in the bullet and the atoms in the floor.
But the key point is that you now have a force acting on the bullet which will affect its trajectory.
As such there is no reason to think it should magically drill into the ground or move accross it.
The fact you even suggest it moving accross it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what you are talking about.
Momentum and velocity both have directionality as a fundamental component of it.
If an object starts going down towards the floor, and then it ends up going sideways along the floor, then it has had a change in momentum, and thus would need a force to act on it.
We can easily see a similar force by hitting a ball with a bat.
In order for your BS "test" to work, you would need the ball to phase through the bat.
Try again. With less dishonest BS this time. Or better still, tell us what magic causes the boat to appear to sink and disappear from the bottom up.
You've heard the expression "bird brain" but apparently birds are smarter than people on this forum.
Well they certainly seem smarter than you.
The real science of buoyancy predated Newton by centuries
Really? So who worked out gravity then?
The real science of buoyancy is that gravity creates a pressure gradient in the fluid causing an upwards force on an object immersed in that fluid.
It relies upon gravity (or some other comparable force, like the inertial forces acting on objects in an accelerating reference frame).
even though it absurdly behaves differently for liquids in a sink and what scientists say happens in the ocean
Care to elaborate on that BS claim of yours?
Even though it somehow doesn't pull people into space from the far greater
You have already had your pure BS on orbits exposed.
Why repeat it?
If you fill a balloon with helium, a substance lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other elements which compose the air around it
Then the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, which exists due to gravity, will exert an upwards force on the balloon greater than the downwards force due to gravity causing the balloon to rise.
Exactly what I said.
Yes, exactly the BS you said and had refuted.
What I'm doing is skepticism.
No it isn't.
Skepticism would require you to actually take on board what other people say, which would result in you recognising when you are spouting pure BS and stop repeating it.
Yet you happily repeat the same refuted BS as if it hasn't already been refuted.
What you are doing is blatant rejection of reality based upon nothing more than your wilful ignorance and misrepresentation of reality.
he was around well before IQ tests. So I can indeed call him an idiot
How? You have nothing to demonstrate he is an idiot except your own pathetic wilful rejection of reality. So really nothing.
Yes, I am definitely the one lying.
Well you finally got something right.
Meanwhile, parabola theory successfully (given my limitations)
Entirely fails to explain anything.
As clearly demonstrated by your refusal to answer trivial questions which expose it as BS and demonstrate it doesn't explain observations.
I can pick up a ball, and swing it on a string around my shoulder, and get exactly this response.
Try swinging it at the half the speed of the hour hand on a clock.
Yet again you resort to dishonest BS.
Water slowly drips off a completely still ball.
When suspended inside the Roche limit of a much larger ball.
So exactly what you would expect with gravity.
I thought the purpose of gravity was to force water to cling to a ball
Pure BS. That is just your pathetic strawman.
The simplest explanation is that gravity is a force acting between masses which is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them why.
So when you have water near a tiny, pathetic mass, and a massive mass, which do you think it will go to?
Any honest person would recognise that the predicted result of gravity is for the water to go to the much larger and much more massive ball. That would be Earth.
You have had this clearly explained to you before. Yet you repeat the same pathetic dishonest BS. Why?
And we've now seen the fruit of these theories.
You mean people like you, who appear incapable of understanding anything who insist on repeating the same refuted delusional BS?
But anyone with an ounce of common sense understands that is the gravity of the Earth were able to hold up all objects there is during constant spinning, we would be unable to fly a plane of this size.
No, anyone with a brain who chooses to use it would recognise that planes have big wings which generate lift which allows them to fly.
One of you tried to flip my parabola
To show what you actually need.
Your BS indicates objects should disappear from the top down.
But in reality, they are observed to appear to sink and disappear from the bottom up.
Your BS indicates that the lower down an object is, the further away you should be able to see it.
But in reality, the higher an object is, the further away you can see it.
In short, your parabola directly contradicts what is observed in reality.