Why don’t things just float down to earth if no gravity.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 08, 2022, 06:25:16 AM

Why do you think .986 is the gravitational amount? Any guesses?

Don't you mean 9.80665 m/s²?

No, I mean .986. Stop playing the Mandela Effect game. I remember what I remember, and no amount of time rippling can change that. You don't like the answer, so you try to change reality so that now I'm wrong.

Oceania Has Always Been at War with Eurasia

Sorry but it hasn't.

And just what do you mean by "atomic matrix"?

In a given stretch of land, atoms are chained together. Let's say we're looking at five ft of land, including the air and earth.

We have rocky ground  followed by hard soil so it's like...

O2--O2--O2--CO2--O2--O2--O2--CO2--O2--O2--O2
O2-O2-O2-CO2-O2-O2-O2-CO2-NO2-O2-O2
O2-O2-O2-CO2-O2-O2-O2-CO2-O2-O2-O2
O2-O2-O2-CO2-O2-O2-O2-CO2-NO2-O2-O2
O2-O2-O2-CO2-O2-O2-O2-CO2-O2-O2-O2
NH4-SiO4SiO4-SiO4SiO4SiO4-NH4
NH4--SiO4--SiO4--SiO4--SiO4--SiO4--Fe2O3
(Et cetera)

The hyphens represent that there are gaps between molecules. For example, it is easier to dig through soil where there are a great deal of gaps than where you're basically contending with rocks. Likewise, it is easier to breathe air when it is plentiful than to try to do it on Mt Everest.

This is an atomic matrix. And it's how things break surface tension. They are more dense so they go down through. Or they are less dense and float above.

Quote from: Stash on November 08, 2022, 10:57:18 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 08, 2022, 06:25:16 AM

Why do you think .986 is the gravitational amount? Any guesses?

Don't you mean 9.80665 m/s²?

No, I mean .986. Stop playing the Mandela Effect game. I remember what I remember, and no amount of time rippling can change that. You don't like the answer, so you try to change reality so that now I'm wrong.

Quote

Oceania Has Always Been at War with Eurasia

Sorry but it hasn't.

Quote

And just what do you mean by "atomic matrix"?

In a given stretch of land, atoms are chained together. Let's say we're looking at five ft of land, including the air and earth.

We have rocky ground  followed by hard soil so it's like...

O2--O2--O2--CO2--O2--O2--O2--CO2--O2--O2--O2
O2-O2-O2-CO2-O2-O2-O2-CO2-NO2-O2-O2
O2-O2-O2-CO2-O2-O2-O2-CO2-O2-O2-O2
O2-O2-O2-CO2-O2-O2-O2-CO2-NO2-O2-O2
O2-O2-O2-CO2-O2-O2-O2-CO2-O2-O2-O2
NH4-SiO4SiO4-SiO4SiO4SiO4-NH4
NH4--SiO4--SiO4--SiO4--SiO4--SiO4--Fe2O3
(Et cetera)

The hyphens represent that there are gaps between molecules. For example, it is easier to dig through soil where there are a great deal of gaps than where you're basically contending with rocks. Likewise, it is easier to breathe air when it is plentiful than to try to do it on Mt Everest.

This is an atomic matrix. And it's how things break surface tension. They are more dense so they go down through. Or they are less dense and float above.

Instead of random babbling by you.

At this thread:
Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91034.0

Show how density has the property of a force.

Quote from: Stash on November 08, 2022, 10:57:18 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 08, 2022, 06:25:16 AM

Why do you think .986 is the gravitational amount? Any guesses?

Don't you mean 9.80665 m/s²?

No, I mean .986. Stop playing the Mandela Effect game. I remember what I remember, and no amount of time rippling can change that. You don't like the answer, so you try to change reality so that now I'm wrong.

Where's you get .986 from?

No, I mean .986.

So you mean an entirely fictional number that you have made up, just to attack the RE model?
Just where is this number coming from, because it has never been the value of g.
And like I said, you can get an accelerometer to easily confirm it yourself.

The hyphens represent that there are gaps between molecules.

And those gaps means that the "matrix" is already broken, so you can just push the molecules out of the way and go through it.

This is an atomic matrix. And it's how things break surface tension.

No, in a liquid, there aren't those gaps. Instead the matrix is continually breaking and reforming.
In a gas, there is no surface tension.

They are more dense so they go down through. Or they are less dense and float above.

Again, WHY?
Why does something being more dense make it go down and something being less dense make it go up?
What gives rise to this directionality?
Why is the weight of the object still reduced by immersing it in a fluid it is more dense than?
What gives it the rate of acceleration?

So many questions that you still can't answer.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 09, 2022, 05:52:13 AM

Quote from: Stash on November 08, 2022, 10:57:18 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 08, 2022, 06:25:16 AM

Why do you think .986 is the gravitational amount? Any guesses?

Don't you mean 9.80665 m/s²?

No, I mean .986. Stop playing the Mandela Effect game. I remember what I remember, and no amount of time rippling can change that. You don't like the answer, so you try to change reality so that now I'm wrong.

Where's you get .986 from?

So you mean an entirely fictional number that you have made up, just to attack the RE model?
Just where is this number coming from, because it has never been the value of g.

It has always been .986. Then you guys changed it because you couldn't stand the fact that it was a stupid number.

It was changed to 9.8 with the speed of gravity, and .926 with that density picture. But I know. It has always been .986 until you guys either time traveled or mass-altered pictures and links.

Msss isn’t a force.

Msss. 

No, in a liquid, there aren't those gaps. Instead the matrix is continually breaking and reforming.
In a gas, there is no surface tension.

Yes, this is correct. But this is part of the uncertainty principle. That is, we can't be sure where this matrix is, but in general, solids have higher density than liquids or gases. Essentially, there are giant holes in the matrix of a gas.
Which is why solids tend to fall through layers of gas.

It is not true that there is no surface tension though. Gases tend not to fall through other gases. Not that it matters. Nobody cares that a couple of clouds don't pass through each other.

Quote from: Stash on November 09, 2022, 08:17:24 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 09, 2022, 05:52:13 AM

Quote from: Stash on November 08, 2022, 10:57:18 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 08, 2022, 06:25:16 AM

Why do you think .986 is the gravitational amount? Any guesses?

Don't you mean 9.80665 m/s²?

No, I mean .986. Stop playing the Mandela Effect game. I remember what I remember, and no amount of time rippling can change that. You don't like the answer, so you try to change reality so that now I'm wrong.

Where's you get .986 from?

Quote

So you mean an entirely fictional number that you have made up, just to attack the RE model?
Just where is this number coming from, because it has never been the value of g.

It has always been .986.

Where'd you get .986 from?

I think it's from sidereal days.

Just multiply by 10 and fiddle a bit, and you get the supposed gravitational constant. But it was .986 too before.



Just as this .926 used to be .986 before they changed it. It's a number REers pulled out of their ass from 360/365 and they use it for everything, then suddenly deny that when someone calls them on it.

I think it's from sidereal days.

What do sidereal days have to do with the gravitational constant?

Just multiply by 10 and fiddle a bit, and you get the supposed gravitational constant.

Just randomly multiply by X and "fiddle a bit". How scientific and precise of you.

But it was .986 too before.

Says who? Source?

Just as this .926 used to be .986 before they changed it.

Who is "they" and when was it changed? Source?

It's a number REers pulled out of their ass from 360/365 and they use it for everything, then suddenly deny that when someone calls them on it.

You haven't called anyone on anything. You're literally making things up. Sidereal days? What REers are you referring to?

Cuz gravity makes the Earth move this way. Or something.

It's all bullshit, so far as I am concerned. So yea.

.986 to .98 and change some of the decimals. So freaking what. Then you just multiply by 10 and tell people it's a different number. Same number. Not fooled.

I don't need a source. I know.

They.


They, who have the technology and resources to make such sweeping changes.

Cuz gravity makes the Earth move this way. Or something.

Or something. Ignorance on display.

It's all bullshit, so far as I am concerned. So yea.

.986 to .98 and change some of the decimals. So freaking what. Then you just multiply by 10 and tell people it's a different number. Same number. Not fooled.

I don't need a source. I know.

Of course you don't need a source because you just made it up. So somehow you're right yet the world functions quite well using something you think is wrong. Got it.

They.

They, who have the technology and resources to make such sweeping changes.

What sweeping change?

Changing .986 to 9.80 when I pointed out the number was mathematically insignificant.

But in any case here's the thing. The number cannot be 9.80 because we should be able to notice such a result in an area of controlled antigravity. That is, if no gravity is around, you should be able to measure the mass, and be aware that it is 9 times what it was before. Does this seem realistic to you?

No, I'm reminded of an Orson Scott Card book Treasuee Box. In it, a guy meets a woman that seems to have all the boxes checked. Only he finds out it is an illusion, and the woman is actually a little girl (a spoiled child who wants the box in question).
The scene I'm mentioning is that at one point he cuts his skin, and the blood is too little, then the girl noting his disbelief, makes it bleed out gushes of blood.

The value of g moved from irrelevant to unbelievable. At that amount, birds should be pinned prone to the ground, rather than flying. Illusion is illusion. The reasoned mind breaks all such nonsense by holding it to the light of logic. Is it logical that the force of an object is nine times its mass? I weigh somewhere around 165 lb or so, but even if I weighed 100 lb, this is 980 lb of force exerted by gravity against me. Is that logical? No, not even .986 would have been logical for human body weight (hauling 98.6 extra lb for a 100 lb female), though it barely makes a dent when used in equations. Now that it's 9.80, this gravity measurement is just some value chosen because it is, as Trump puts it, bigly. Further, it makes absolutely no sense to include a constant that is based on motion and has a m/s or whatever value.

So the entire thing is, again, a rather bad magic trick designed to separate the audience from their money.

But I'm not going to the show. I didn't pay up, I'm not interested.

The value of g moved from irrelevant to unbelievable.

When did it move?

At that amount, birds should be pinned prone to the ground, rather than flying.

How so? What's your calculation to determine that?

It has always been .986.

I have NEVER seen it as that number.
If you wish to claim it has been, then prove it.
Otherwise, you are just making up an elaborate strawman to attack.

Yes, this is correct. But this is part of the uncertainty principle. That is, we can't be sure where this matrix is, but in general, solids have higher density than liquids or gases.

No, the density of solids and liquids depends a lot on what they are made of.
And in some cases, even for the same substance, a solid can have a lower density than the liquid (e.g. ice).

But again, none of this explains why things fall.
You are yet to provide any justification for the directionality or the rate.

It is not true that there is no surface tension though. Gases tend not to fall through other gases.

Gases of comparable density mix. Gases of significantly different density, if left in a calm environment, can remain unmixed.
That has nothing to do with surface tension.

I think it's from sidereal days.

So an entirely different topic, with nothing at all to do with this, but you want to pretend it is?

Just as this .926 used to be .986 before they changed it.

Again, prove it.

Same number. Not fooled.

Fundamentally different number, with fundamentally different units, for a fundamentally different purpose. We are not getting fooled by your BS.

If you want to spout such BS, you will need to justify it.

Changing .986 to 9.80 when I pointed out the number was mathematically insignificant.

And just when did you allegedly do this?
Before I was born?
Because I have NEVER seen your BS used for g.

The number cannot be 9.80 because we should be able to notice such a result in an area of controlled antigravity. That is, if no gravity is around, you should be able to measure the mass, and be aware that it is 9 times what it was before. Does this seem realistic to you?

No, that sounds like delusional nonsense which still demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.

Weight and mass are different.
Gravity does not magically change the mass.

If you go to an area of weightlessness (e.g. in orbit around Earth in the ISS, or in the vomit commit), then the MASS remains exactly the same.
What changes is the weight, which drops to 0.
That does seem realistic and has been observed.

The value of g moved from irrelevant to unbelievable.

No, it didn't.
You provided a BS number, and got called out on it.

At that amount, birds should be pinned prone to the ground, rather than flying.

Why?
They have evolved in an environment with that value of g, developing wings to be able to generate lift to overcome the weight due to that g.
Why should that cause them to be pinned to the ground?
Yet again, you are just spouting delusional garbage with no justification at all, to pretend there is a problem.
Probably to avoid your complete inability to justify your attempt at replacing gravity with mass just magically falling for no reason.

Is it logical that the force of an object is nine times its mass?

It isn't 9 times its mass.
They have different units.
If an object has a mass of 1 kg, then it's weight is ~9.8 N.
This is logical. This is measurable.
You not liking it wont change that fact.

I weighed 100 lb, this is 980 lb of force exerted by gravity against me. Is that logical?

No, it is your delusional BS where you blatantly misrepresent gravity.
It isn't 980 lb. It is 980 lb m/s^2.
If you want lbf instead of a pound, that already has the 9.8 built in, so a 100 lb human would experience a weight of ~100 lbf.

Now that it's 9.80, this gravity measurement is just some value chosen because it is, as Trump puts it, bigly.

No, it is chosen because it is the measured value.
I have already told you how you can measure it.

Further, it makes absolutely no sense to include a constant that is based on motion and has a m/s or whatever value.

And once again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the topic being discussed.
A force can act on a mass to accelerate it. The greater the force, the faster the acceleration.
This is often stated as F=a*m.
This means any measure of force needs the units for mass (e.g. kg), and the units for acceleration (e.g. m/s^2).

As g is the MEASURED gravitational acceleration of an object in free fall close to the surface of Earth, it certainly makes sense for it to be measured in m/s^2.

I'm not interested.

Of course not. WHy would you be interested in reality.

So, 980 lb is getting beat down upon us every squared m/s  something 100 lb travels. Golly, not that you explained that, it is so much more believable. Thanks liars from the RE groups! I feel so enlightened!
And human beings couldn't even withstand their own body weight pushed against them, no matter how they weight trained. Nine times that is absurd. But I'll note that when I suggested gravity was at nine times, you immediately default back to the true measurement, which is 1. Gravity at 1 is just a number added in for filler, exactly as I said.

Why?
They have evolved in an environment with that value of g, developing wings to be able to generate lift to overcome the weight due to that g.
Why should that cause them to be pinned to the ground

I want you to try to fly (even stand up) when 9x your body  weight is exerted against you. Evolution to that? No, that would snap all of their bones like a twig.



We see the effects of gravity twice, first when he adjusts to only a few increments of G force (which by your own model would represent multiplicative amounts of weight), and second when a freak storm causes the G force to be at 100. But we don't have fast adaptation like Goku.

You don't evolve to something like that. You die. Or it isn't there.

So, 980 lb is getting beat down upon us every squared m/s  something 100 lb travels.

How did you calculate to 980lbs?

You could use the average atmospheric pressure of 14.7 lb/square inch at the earth's surface to estimate the atmosphere's total weight. That pressure means a column of air above every square inch of the Earth's surface weighs 14.7 lbs.

Do you feel all that?

Changing .986 to 9.80 when I pointed out the number was mathematically insignificant.

But in any case here's the thing. The number cannot be 9.80 because we should be able to notice such a result in an area of controlled antigravity. That is, if no gravity is around, you should be able to measure the mass, and be aware that it is 9 times what it was before. Does this seem realistic to you?

No, I'm reminded of an Orson Scott Card book Treasuee Box. In it, a guy meets a woman that seems to have all the boxes checked. Only he finds out it is an illusion, and the woman is actually a little girl (a spoiled child who wants the box in question).
The scene I'm mentioning is that at one point he cuts his skin, and the blood is too little, then the girl noting his disbelief, makes it bleed out gushes of blood.

The value of g moved from irrelevant to unbelievable. At that amount, birds should be pinned prone to the ground, rather than flying. Illusion is illusion. The reasoned mind breaks all such nonsense by holding it to the light of logic. Is it logical that the force of an object is nine times its mass? I weigh somewhere around 165 lb or so, but even if I weighed 100 lb, this is 980 lb of force exerted by gravity against me. Is that logical? No, not even .986 would have been logical for human body weight (hauling 98.6 extra lb for a 100 lb female), though it barely makes a dent when used in equations. Now that it's 9.80, this gravity measurement is just some value chosen because it is, as Trump puts it, bigly. Further, it makes absolutely no sense to include a constant that is based on motion and has a m/s or whatever value.

So the entire thing is, again, a rather bad magic trick designed to separate the audience from their money.

But I'm not going to the show. I didn't pay up, I'm not interested.

By all means, provide your maths to this debate…

Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91034.0

So, 980 lb is getting beat down upon us every squared m/s

No.
Again you just throw the units out.
It is 100 lbf.
This is numerically 980 lb m/s^2. Note that it is only the s that is squared.

This explains why things accelerate at the observed rate.

And human beings couldn't even withstand their own body weight pushed against them

Do you mean on top of their current body weight?
So if they had their weight magically double?

Nine times that is absurd.

What is absurd is you just repeating this BS.
It is 1 times their weight.
It is 9.8 m/s^2 times their mass.

Again, mass and weight are different.

But I'll note that when I suggested gravity was at nine times, you immediately default back to the true measurement, which is 1.

No, the true measurement is roughly 9.8 m/s^2.
This is measurable.
You can even measure it yourself.

If it was 1 m/s^2, then if you were to jump from a roof (say 5 m), then as you fell, you would be accelerating incredibly slowly.
It would take roughly 3 seconds to hit the ground, and you would be travelling at roughly 3 m/s.
Compare this to pole vault:

The current record for women is at roughly 5 m (for the pole).
So they should take over 3 seconds to hit the mat.
Yet when watched in real time, they go much faster.

You can even do a simple experiment, hold something up at 2 m height, and drop it, and see how long it takes to hit the ground.
If your BS was true, it should take at least 2 seconds (it would be 2 seconds in a vacuum).
Conversely in reality it takes less than 1.

I want you to try to fly (even stand up) when 9x your body  weight is exerted against you.

Stop just repeating the same delusional BS.
It is 1 times my weight.
It is 9.8 m/s^2 times my mass.
Mass and weight are different.
This is not a difficult concept to understand.
Why must you continually ignore it to repeat such delusional BS?

And yet again you avoid telling us what is causing things to fall in your fantasy, what gives it its directionality.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 10, 2022, 05:58:43 AM

So, 980 lb is getting beat down upon us every squared m/s  something 100 lb travels.

How did you calculate to 980lbs?

You could use the average atmospheric pressure of 14.7 lb/square inch at the earth's surface to estimate the atmosphere's total weight. That pressure means a column of air above every square inch of the Earth's surface weighs 14.7 lbs.

Do you feel all that?

Let's set up a play.
-------------------------------------------------------

Teacher (Me): Okay, class. Today we're going to learn about multiplication!
Class (Also Me, Tbh): Yaaaaayyyy!!!
Teacher: Now, what can you get when you multiply 100 lb by 9.80665?
Class: Uhhhh, 980.665 lb?
Teacher: Now can you think of any reason why being given that number, you would think the number you'd get was, say 100? Say, if you were doing it by m/s?
Class: (laughs) Who came up with such an idea? They must be an idiot.
Teacher: Good, good class. That's right, they are idiots. Way more of an idiot than someone doing a sock puppet show with a teacher and a bunch of students.
Student: I heard that some of them even expect people to use average atmospheric pressure of 14.7 lb/square inch at the earth's surface to somehow make this weight okay.
Teacher: That's enough Charlie, now sit down. Now class, how many inches tall is a human?
Other Student: My dad said he's six feet
More Students: My mom's five foot four. (Talking together)
Teacher: Okay, okay. So you kids can lift about 14 lb.
Students: (They shrug) I guess so? We're just kids though. I don't think we could lift too much more.
Teacher: And how many inches are in a foot?
Students: I think it's 12.
Teacher: So, if you were only 1 foot tall, that should be a weight of 14.7 times 12 right? And that's just one foot. You kids are about three feet, and I'm about 5'8". How much weight should I be lifting?
Smart Kid: That would be... 529.2 lb of weight for kids around our height, as assuming we were as wide as we are tall. And 999.6 lb of weight for you, assuming the same. But you'd also have to calculate for your body width, so it would be...
Teacher: Okay, that's fine David. The point is, it's unrealistic to expect little kids to be lifting even part of that with each inch of their body, much less grown adults. Isn't that right?
Students: That's right!
-------------------------------------------------------
Now that I'm done with that puppet show (where the kids are too smart and the teacher is okay calling people idiots)... Obviously, it isn't a square inch that humans are, because they tend to be taller than they are wide. But they aren't that much narrower. The amount of weight exerted on an average person would be enormous. And here's the thing. I know that alot of kids have trouble lifting 30 lb unassisted. These weights should be noticeable, but they aren't. These kids in this imaginary classroom can jump around, run, climb, use monkey bars, and never seem to be burdened by anything.

So yeah, you've got a bunch of imaginary kids calling you "some kind of idiot." Congratulations.

Quote from: Stash on November 10, 2022, 10:31:03 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 10, 2022, 05:58:43 AM

So, 980 lb is getting beat down upon us every squared m/s  something 100 lb travels.

How did you calculate to 980lbs?

You could use the average atmospheric pressure of 14.7 lb/square inch at the earth's surface to estimate the atmosphere's total weight. That pressure means a column of air above every square inch of the Earth's surface weighs 14.7 lbs.

Do you feel all that?

Let's set up a play.

Teacher (You): Okay, class. Today we're going to learn about multiplication!
Class (Everyone): Yaaaaayyyy!!!
Teacher: Now, what can you get when you multiply 100 lb by 9.80665?
Class: Uhhhh, 980.665 lb?
Teacher: Now can you think of any reason why being given that number, you would think the number you'd get was, say 100? Say, if you were doing it by m/s?
Class: (laughs) Why 100? Where did that come from. You just arbitrarily picked that number from no where. You really don't know anything about a model you dismiss. Wow, how ignorant, not to mention you fabricate things with zero evidence and not even remotely based on facts nor in reality. You must be an idiot.
Teacher: Um, well, I really like Michael Bay summer blockbusters and fringe borderline insane rando bloggers to inform my world view. Oh yeah, and I'm a smidge anti-semetic.
Class: (laughs)

If you want lbf instead of a pound, that already has the 9.8 built in, so a 100 lb human would experience a weight of ~100 lbf.

That's where that stupidity came from. Not from me.

Also, While we're discussing stupid things, the word is anti-semitic (not anti-semetic).

Seme is Italian for seed. I am not a person that destroys seeds.

Semitic: [adjective] of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic.
(It also refers to the region of the world that speaks these languages)

acceleration=V_delta/T_delta
find V_delta by taking V_f-V₀
find T_delta by taking T_f-T₀

T₀ and V₀ is the starting time and velocity, respectively.
T_f and V_f are the ending time and velocity, respectively.

Use a timer and a meter(yard) stick (or are those not correct)

Run the test about 10 times, and take the average of all the numbers. It should be about 9-10.

Quote

If you want lbf instead of a pound, that already has the 9.8 built in, so a 100 lb human would experience a weight of ~100 lbf.

That's where that stupidity came from. Not from me.

Apparently your reading comprehension sucks. Try reading what whomever wrote again, really slowly. I'll give you a hint, ruminate on "...9.8 built in..."

Also, While we're discussing stupid things, the word is anti-semitic (not anti-semetic).

My bad, I misspelled a word. When people start talking shit like Gentiles own the city, Jews are just occupiers, they are treading perilously on racist, anti-semitic territory.
It's bizarre how a lot of Christians aren't very Christian when it comes to loving thy neighbor.

Teacher: Now, what can you get when you multiply 100 lb by 9.80665?
Class: Uhhhh, 980.665 lb?

Teacher: And what do you get when you leave out the units?
Class: A bunch of nonsensical garbage which means nothing at all.
Teacher: That's right. You would have to be an idiot to ignore units and pretend that mass and weight are the same things. So what's the real calculation?
Class: 45 kg * 9.8 m/s^2.
Teacher: And what does that give you?
Class: 441 N.

Teacher: So, if you were only 1 foot tall, that should be a weight of 14.7 times 12 right? And that's just one foot. You kids are about three feet, and I'm about 5'8". How much weight should I be lifting?

Class: No teacher, that's just dumb. You are getting your units (and directions) all wrong again.

Now that I'm done with that puppet show

And demonstrated what? Your own stupidity? Your complete lack of understanding of the topic?

If you think that weight is too much, you must thing people are killed from the weight if they dive down just 10 m into water.
Yet again you demonstrate either complete dishonestly with wilful misrepresentation of reality; or a complete lack of understanding of the topic being discussed. Which is it?

The amount of weight exerted on an average person would be enormous.

But as it is pressure, and the inside of the person is at the same pressure (at least roughly), it isn't felt.

But this pressure can be used to lift quite a lot.

These weights should be noticeable, but they aren't.

Again, stop just asserting vague delusional BS.
Clearly explain just how you think this weight should be noticeable.
Making sure you understand the difference between mass, weight and pressure.

So yeah, you've got a bunch of imaginary kids calling you "some kind of idiot." Congratulations.

No, we have a bunch of imaginary idiots from your fantasy, and you, calling us idiots, while the smart imaginary kids see straight through your BS and call you an idiot.

That's where that stupidity came from. Not from me.

No, the stupidity certainly came from you, failing to comprehend the difference between mass and weight, acting like a mass of 100 lb should generate a weight equivalent to 980 lb.
That is pure stupidity or pure dishonesty. Which is it?

And yet again, you still refuse to tell us why down.
And yet again, you ignore the simple fact that this 9.8 m/s^2 is directly measurable by almost any idiot.
Do you have a measurement to refute it?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 10, 2022, 06:45:33 PM

Quote

If you want lbf instead of a pound, that already has the 9.8 built in, so a 100 lb human would experience a weight of ~100 lbf.

That's where that stupidity came from. Not from me.

Apparently your reading comprehension sucks. Try reading what whomever wrote again, really slowly. I'll give you a hint, ruminate on "...9.8 built in..."

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 10, 2022, 06:45:33 PM

Also, While we're discussing stupid things, the word is anti-semitic (not anti-semetic).

My bad, I misspelled a word. When people start talking shit like Gentiles own the city, Jews are just occupiers, they are treading perilously on racist, anti-semitic territory.
It's bizarre how a lot of Christians aren't very Christian when it comes to loving thy neighbor.

So basically, like in that article, you're back pedaling because your exact words are garbage. I can ruminate all I want, and just calling it "built-in" doesn't magically solve the problem. You're talking about a VAT tax on weight. But it would mean that this skinny and sexy 100 lb lady is measured instead as way more.
 Her height dimensions are 5'4" and she's 39-24-36 (based upon ideal female proportions).

Using this Hamwi formula, a 5-feet-4-inch woman has an ideal body weight of 108 pounds if she has a small frame, 120 pounds if she’s medium-framed and 132 pounds if she has a large frame.

https://www.yourtango.com/2018311615/what-scientifically-perfect-female-body-type-looks-like-based-on-measurements-proportions-ideal-waist-to-hip-ratio

Researchers found that the ideal female body has a height of 1.68 meters (5 feet, 5 inches) and has a bust, weight, and waist to hip ratio that measures 99 x 63 x 91 cm (39 x 24 x 36 in), which is an almost exact match to Brook's own measurements.

Personally, that's top heavy, but anyway.

14.7 per sq inch. Remember that.

 5'4" is 64 inches. Her measurements average at 33 inches. You get square inches by multiplying width and height. 2112 sq inch. Times 14.7. So it turns out that the math is even more egregious, and we haven't even added 9.8. If you say that this gravity is built into her, them Little Miss Hot Body weighs 31,046.4 lb not 100 lb as her scale says.

But lets give benefit of the doubt, and say that instead of sq in it's average inches (48.5 between height and width) times 14.7. Little Miss Hotness now weighs 712.95 lb.

But enough body shaming her. It's not her weight, it's gravity exerted on her. Without multiplying by 9.8, she is crushed under the Earth's supposed force.

OR NOT. Little Miss Hot Body weighs 100 lb. That weight is more than enough to weigh more than the Earth's atmosphere, though a cyclone force wind might still pull her into the air. No artificial weight exerted on her is needed, just her own body mass.

And the teacher is right. You guys should have figured out that this weight doesn't work.

Quote from: Stash on November 10, 2022, 09:28:21 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 10, 2022, 06:45:33 PM

Quote

If you want lbf instead of a pound, that already has the 9.8 built in, so a 100 lb human would experience a weight of ~100 lbf.

That's where that stupidity came from. Not from me.

Apparently your reading comprehension sucks. Try reading what whomever wrote again, really slowly. I'll give you a hint, ruminate on "...9.8 built in..."

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 10, 2022, 06:45:33 PM

Also, While we're discussing stupid things, the word is anti-semitic (not anti-semetic).

My bad, I misspelled a word. When people start talking shit like Gentiles own the city, Jews are just occupiers, they are treading perilously on racist, anti-semitic territory.
It's bizarre how a lot of Christians aren't very Christian when it comes to loving thy neighbor.

So basically, like in that article, you're back pedaling because your exact words are garbage. I can ruminate all I want, and just calling it "built-in" doesn't magically solve the problem. You're talking about a VAT tax on weight. But it would mean that this skinny and sexy 100 lb lady is measured instead as way more.
 Her height dimensions are 5'4" and she's 39-24-36 (based upon ideal female proportions).

Quote

Using this Hamwi formula, a 5-feet-4-inch woman has an ideal body weight of 108 pounds if she has a small frame, 120 pounds if she’s medium-framed and 132 pounds if she has a large frame.

https://www.yourtango.com/2018311615/what-scientifically-perfect-female-body-type-looks-like-based-on-measurements-proportions-ideal-waist-to-hip-ratio

Quote

Researchers found that the ideal female body has a height of 1.68 meters (5 feet, 5 inches) and has a bust, weight, and waist to hip ratio that measures 99 x 63 x 91 cm (39 x 24 x 36 in), which is an almost exact match to Brook's own measurements.

Personally, that's top heavy, but anyway.

14.7 per sq inch. Remember that.

 5'4" is 64 inches. Her measurements average at 33 inches. You get square inches by multiplying width and height. 2112 sq inch. Times 14.7. So it turns out that the math is even more egregious, and we haven't even added 9.8. If you say that this gravity is built into her, them Little Miss Hot Body weighs 31,046.4 lb not 100 lb as her scale says.

But lets give benefit of the doubt, and say that instead of sq in it's average inches (48.5 between height and width) times 14.7. Little Miss Hotness now weighs 712.95 lb.

But enough body shaming her. It's not her weight, it's gravity exerted on her. Without multiplying by 9.8, she is crushed under the Earth's supposed force.

OR NOT. Little Miss Hot Body weighs 100 lb. That weight is more than enough to weigh more than the Earth's atmosphere, though a cyclone force wind might still pull her into the air.

Instead of changing the subject and distract by your endless babbling, you could concisely and easily show all your proof in solving this debate problem.

Use density to break 2X4 no force/gravity
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91034.0


You won’t participate in the listed thread because you know flat earth is dead as a “model” to help create solutions and safe equipment/buildings in the real world.

Flat earth offers about zero in offering modeling that predicts our known world, and creating effective engineering solutions.

Your only goal is to distract and try to keep the flat earth delusion on life support. 

Quote from: Stash on November 10, 2022, 09:28:21 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 10, 2022, 06:45:33 PM

Quote

If you want lbf instead of a pound, that already has the 9.8 built in, so a 100 lb human would experience a weight of ~100 lbf.

That's where that stupidity came from. Not from me.

Apparently your reading comprehension sucks. Try reading what whomever wrote again, really slowly. I'll give you a hint, ruminate on "...9.8 built in..."

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 10, 2022, 06:45:33 PM

Also, While we're discussing stupid things, the word is anti-semitic (not anti-semetic).

My bad, I misspelled a word. When people start talking shit like Gentiles own the city, Jews are just occupiers, they are treading perilously on racist, anti-semitic territory.
It's bizarre how a lot of Christians aren't very Christian when it comes to loving thy neighbor.

I can ruminate all I want, and just calling it "built-in" doesn't magically solve the problem. Y

Of course you can ruminate all you want. But if you want to make a claim then you need to back it up with some shred of evidence, which you never do. Ruminating on the average body type is meaningless. Ruminating in general is meaningless.

I can ruminate all I want, and just calling it "built-in" doesn't magically solve the problem.

The only problem to be solved is how you entirely ignore units and want to pretend fundamentally different units are the same.

100 lb or 45 kg is a mass, not a weight.
100 lbf or 45 kgf or 441 N is a weight, not a mass.

There is no magical increase in weight or tax on weight or any other BS like that.
A person with a mass of 45 kg will have a weight of roughly 441 N.

Again, this weight matches the downwards acceleration due to gravity which can easily be measured.

14.7 per sq inch. Remember that.

Why? So you can yet again show a complete lack of understanding of how pressure works?

OR NOT. Little Miss Hot Body weighs 100 lb.

No, your fantasy has a mass of 100 lb and a weight of ~441 N.

No artificial weight exerted on her is needed, just her own body mass.

Not artificial weight, just natural weight from Earth's gravity.
Again, mass doesn't explain why things fall.
It provides neither a directionality nor a rate.

It's her weight.

She gets on a scale and that's what the scale says. Not just her mass. Even includes her muscle and bone density.

No scale on Earth records this invisible gravity. She weighs 100 lb for the scale, she is able to walk on roofs and creaky stairs, and she is able to use high heels with a thin glass platform.

You squawk all you want about how the parabola doesn't exist, but you can figure out about it with a simple panoramic shot. Forward to straight up, backward to straight up. Splice the pictures and you get a parabolic image. Just don't do what I did. For some reason, the way I held my kindle either ensured that my finger blocked something, or that the gyroscope went east of center, stopping the upward arc. After about seven tries, I was pissed off. I got one shot of about 80 degrees, then the gyroscope cut out and developed before I could tilt back.

Meanwhile, gravity most certainly doesn't exist. But simple mass falling meant that the gyroscope couldn't continue pictures with certain arcs.

It's her weight.

External source

In science and engineering, the weight of an object is the force acting on the object due to gravity.[1][2][3]


In SI base units: kg⋅m⋅s

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

Why water falling can be converted by a wheel and axil so grindstones can overcome the force of friction to spin.

She gets on a scale

If there is no gravity.  Explain how she can get on scale to exert any force to flex a load-cell or compress a spring to measure weight?

 

and that's what the scale says.

Because gravity provides a force to flex a load cell or compress a spring.

External source

A load cell converts a force such as tension, compression, pressure, or torque into an electrical signal that can be measured and standardized. It is a force transducer. As the force applied to the load cell increases, the electrical signal changes proportionally. The most common types of load cell are pneumatic, hydraulic, and strain gauges.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_cell

No applied force to a mass like gravity, scales doesn’t work

Even includes her muscle and bone density.

By all means, work mathematically with no assumption to solve for bone density.

No scale on Earth records this invisible gravity.

What it does do is use force like gravity to flex a load cell, compress or elongate a spring to invoke some change in a physical characteristic that can be measured.  Uses work vs elasticity.

 

She weighs 100 lb for the scale, she is able to walk on roofs and creaky stairs, and she is able to use high heels with a thin glass platform.

As long through gravity she doesn’t have enough force to work the material into a state beyond its elastic characteristics for example where it deforms/breaks and she falls through.  Like my grandmother miscarried because she fell through a ceiling.

You squawk all you want about how the parabola doesn't exist,

Not squawk.  Proven there is no parabola. 

Intellectually  dishonest argument by you…

Wrong.

Parabola theory says that objects only appear to curve,

How are these two different sets of towers parallel on the horizon?





With no sign /indication of these distortions:


https://www.vision-doctor.com/en/optical-errors/distortion.html

In your parabola delusion where the “lensing” effect has to be powerful enough to hide the sun at sunset on the flat earth fantasy?


How would laser range finders be accurate in that your parabola delusion is actually distorting the media the laser travels through?


***** There is no proof / evidence of your parabola. There is no practical application of your parabola delusion *****

but you can figure out about it with a simple panoramic shot.

No.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 08, 2022, 06:34:50 AM

But the curvature isn't a wall.

Ok?

And with the spherical earth you get other things that are impossible for flat earth because of that curvature. 

Like sunlight on the bottom of clouds.


Sun relatively below an airplane.

Quote

It's more like a hill.

Still makes a shadow that blocks the sun from view, and creates night.  When the sun is directly behind it, or relatively below it, it becomes effectively a wall.

Quote

Depending on whether curvature theory put you at the top or bottom of this hill, light passes over a hill.

Except for a small percentage that can be attributed to refraction.  Still not accounting why the sun physically becomes blocked from view, and why the sun’s light is blocked.

Quote

You can see sun over two hills.

Except for what’s down in the valley  / gully the hill blocks from view.

Quote

Meanwhile, the parabola actually is like a wall.

There is no probable.  All you did was increase your position higher up relative to the hill.  That lets more items in view because the angle of the hill is now lower in your line of sight. 







It has nothing to do with your delusional parabola bending / lensing light which you cannot name a force nor an apparatus to cause such lensing.



And there is none of these effects for a parabola delusion that has to hide the sun on a flat earth three miles to the horizon. 

Quote

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a perfect lens, just as it's hard to find a perfect person, and there will always be some distortion – you just notice it a lot more with cheaper lenses. It's not necessarily about spending more, however. Certain types of lenses, such as wide-angles and zooms, will always be prone to some distortion.


https://www.learningwithexperts.com/photography/blog/look-out-for-lens-distortion

[img with=400]https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/52bdbceae4b0d1154ee9cae6/1437869831727-MXPHEQAL07A9A19LJQHI/image-asset.jpg[/img]

https://purveyoroflight.com/blog/correcting-lens-distortion-in-adobe-lightroom

You again.

Quote

Meanwhile, the parabola actually is like a wall.

How does your imaginary lens act like a blind or curtain.   And not block something like a laser range finder.  Or radar.  Or line of sight communications like line of sight internet.  Or back in the day, microwave rely towers which usually only had 40 to 60 miles range because of the earths curvature.  A range that could be increased by height.


You

Quote

Or rather a glass geodesic dome where the glass is dirty near the edges because kids touched it.

And there is no evidence of such a dome.  Not in straight rays of sunlight with no lensing effect seen in reality. 




To earth based radar surveys of Venus

Quote

Radar astronomy was born in 1946, when a radio signal was sent from Earth and "bounced" off the surface of the Moon. Radar was first reflected off the surface of Venus in 1961. This 1988 radar map of the surface of Venus was produced by the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico.

A dome which should have inches of cosmetic dust covering the topi of it by now.

You again…

Quote

The least visible point is at the edge where objects shrink and lower from sight.

Contradicting yourself.  The sun doesn’t shrink at sunset.  It’s light becomes physically blocked from view.

Note.  Fixed syntax to show pic

It's her weight.
She gets on a scale and that's what the scale says.

No, it's her mass.
Scales are made to determine the mass of something, and do so by measuring weight.

No scale on Earth records this invisible gravity.

But they rely upon it to work.
No gravity, then no downwards force to push the scale down.

You squawk all you want about how the parabola doesn't exist, but you can figure out about it with a simple panoramic shot. Forward to straight up, backward to straight up. Splice the pictures and you get a parabolic image.

You mean you get a slice of vision that doesn't show any parabola at all?

Meanwhile, gravity most certainly doesn't exist.

Then why are you unable to show any fault with it or provide a viable alternative?