I see why you like responding like this.
It allows you to pretend you have addressed everything while ignoring parts of the post which truly expose your BS.
Mmmhmmm. It's easy to tell us that it does without showing any proof.
Again, it comes down to explanatory power.
Gravity provides a consistent system, which explains why things fall, why there is a pressure gradient in fluids, why this pressure gradient is related to the density of the fluid, and why objects immersed in a fluid are pushed up by the fluid, either reducing their weight or making them actually move up.
Conversely you have no explanation at all.
Pure BS, you say.
If it is pure BS, you need to refute the explanation, not just dismiss it as BS, or dismiss it as throwing around fake math formulae.
So if you want to pretend it is BS, clearly explain what is wrong with it.
If you consider a column of fluid of area A, and height h, and assume that for simplicity the density of the fluid and g remains constant, then the weight of that fluid will be given by:
W=rho*g*h*A.
This weight acts on an area of A, giving an increase in pressure of:
W/A=rho*g*h.
I'm not even good at math
Then you shouldn't be dismissing the formulae.
But what your problem is far more fundamental, you just hate gravity and will object to it however you can.
even I noticed from a cursory look that this "formula" inserts gravity in, instead of calculating for material
You mean this formula uses gravity to explain things, as it is intended to do so.
Why wouldn't people start with gravity when they are demonstrating gravity's ability to explain something?
Further, the way the layers of atmosphere are arranged is in defiance of gravity, which has heavier things hold down lighter things. Based on this model, the most dense layers should be at the top, and the least dense at the bottom.
Just what are you smoking?
Yet again you spout pure nonsense about gravity.
Why should gravity have heavier things on top?
You have no reason for it at all.
If you wish to assert such delusional BS, then explain it. Explain why this should happen.
The formula above shows the pressure gradient.
If you have a compressible fluid such as air, this will result in the air lower down being compressed by the air above.
This more compressed air will be denser than the uncompressed air above, and thus sink.
More importantly, if you put an object inside it, this pressure gradient will act as a force pushing the object up.
Assuming for simplicity an object with a cross sectional area of A and a height of h, then the force will be given by P*A=rho*g*h*A=rho*g*V, where rho is the density of the fluid.
And we know the downwards force is rho_obj*g*h.
So if the downwards force due to gravity is less than the upwards force due to buoyancy as a result of gravity, the object will go upwards.
So gravity indicates that fluids should layer based upon density.
But if you put it in a zero g environment, it wont. Like shown in the video you chose to ignore.
And additionally, you can replace gravity with another inertial force, such as a car accelerating, which results in helium filled balloons moving forwards:
This is because acceleration causes a pressure gradient just like gravity does, which pushes the object forward.
There is no magical layering of the atmosphere just because it wants it.
A force causes that layering.
However, that doesn't work, as by definition layers are able to organize based on density.
No, they don't.
Instead, gravity and the normal reaction force to it, causes layers to organise based on density.
So your "definition" relies on gravity.
If you put it in a zero g environment, it doesn't.
Just like shown in this video that you chose to ignore:
If left to gravity, we all matter would be crushed under massive amounts of water or lava.
Again, WHY?
You are just spouting delusional garbage with no justification at all, to pretend gravity causes problems.
In order to explain something, you have to actually use plain terms
You mean plain terms like pressure, area, acceleration due to gravity, density, and height?
There is nothing complex in there.
If you can't understand it, ask about parts you don't understand.
not throw around crappy math
There is nothing crappy about the math.
But the math does explain it.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to use math?
Density of object > density of medium (e.g. water), object sinks.
WHY?
That is what you leave out.
You have no explanation at all why this occurs. Gravity provides that explanation.
The answer to why is that gravity creates a pressure gradient in the medium (which must be a fluid), based upon the strength of gravity and the density of the fluid.
This pressure gradient then causes an upwards force on the object, which if you do the math is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced (Assuming g is non-zero).
This means an object will either have its apparent weight reduced by the weight of the fluid displaced, or if that would result in a negative weight, it causes it to move upwards.
This is also important for objects like boats, made of solid steel, where it needs to displace water to float, and if it gets a hole in the hull it sinks.
And where the centre of buoyancy, based upon the shape of the hull and the orientation of it, and the centre of gravity, can play a significant role in the stability of a ship.
Real life sometimes needs things more complex than goes up/goes down.
And you need math to figure out some of that.
No, that's not true.
No, it is entirely true. You have no explanation.
Why does a fish jumping out of water fall back down?
Gravity.
From water into air, a fish isn't built to fly (aside from the "flying" fish (which actually glides).
So what?
Without gravity, what prevents it continuing to go up?
Again, you have no explanation.
You have no explanation for why objects fall, you have no explanation for why there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere which is maintained instead of destroying itself, you have no explanation for why objects can defy this pressure gradient and fall through it.
In short, because you hate gravity, you have no explanation for any of that.
No, it's rubbish because it is rubbish.
You dismissing it as rubbish doesn't make it rubbish.
If it was actually rubbish you would have an explanation for why.
What birds cannot fly?
Ones without wings which are capable of generating sufficient lift to push them upwards.
Birds don't fly through density.
a jumbo jet weighing in the tens or hundreds of tons shouldn't be able to get off the ground by virtue of the effect gravity has on it.
Only if you dishonestly ignore the lift generated by its wings.
Try taking the wings off it and seeing if it can fly.
As I already told you, all that is needed for buoyancy equation is to compare object density.
I didn't ask for buoyancy equation.
I asked for an explanation. And that is what you don't have.
You have no explanation for why an object has weight in the first place.
You have no explanation for why an object should fall down, rather than remain in place or go in any particular direction.
Even appealing to the fluid it is immersed in, you have no explanation for why being denser than the fluid should make it go down, rather than remaining in place or going up or to the right or any particular direction, nor why being lighter should cause it to go up.
A denser medium pushes a light object back up
Wrong again.
A medium pushes ALL objects up.
For the same reason a heavier object can push a light object around a table.
A light object can also push a heavy object around a table.
So no idea what you are trying to suggest there.