Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.

"People have been excluded."

You have two cases out of how many millions of people?

Cool
Those are valid cases.
Lets throw out a whole system bassd on those very very BIG numbers.

"Impose a law vs hiring"


Well if peoplle ARENT hiring based on black.
Will tricking the emploeyer nto an interview magically get interviewee past the bias?

The football WAS the interview.
They KNEW they were going to interview.
And you STILL opposed it.

Youre opposed to a law but your other plan is to overhauling the tax system at the fed and state and county levels...
Cool.
Sounds totally feasible.




And yss.
Some of these affirm action are feom companies that decided policywise they were going hire xyz.

"Premise".

Vs reality.

Theres a difference.

If hr hires an unqualified person, that person will lose their spot.
Justblike any white guy who is hired based on a lie.

The hypothetical was all candidatss were equally qualifed.

You not being able to accept a hypothetical premise is interesting...
Very interesting.
So interesting.

"Affirm vs Prison"

Intent and context.

The goal was to uplift a population out of poverty.
If throwing blackies in prison does that then by all means do it.
But it doesnt...
What would the intent to thfow more whities in jail be?

Ah
Thats a great question that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"



You qiestion on jail, which avoids the question asked about your statement -
"How are ALL white people being punished?"

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 22, 2023, 06:57:43 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 22, 2023, 04:31:49 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 21, 2023, 05:37:00 PM

Well there we go.
The white man somehow more qualified by nature.
So... why do you keeo saying that?

Because I am appealing to cases where that is the fact.

The reason for why isn't important. Again, if you want to target the underlying issues, then target them to make these black people as qualified or more qualified.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 21, 2023, 05:37:00 PM

"Stolen" according to you.

According to you. You were the one who brought it up first.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 21, 2023, 05:37:00 PM

What a nonsense argument.

That does appear to be all you have. Nonsense.

1.
And there are MORE cases showing discrikination against the blackman woman.
Forbthe umpteenth time - Its an equalizing policy.
How many cases you got is like comparing the covid vax adverse cases to the covid plus cases - the math is not on your side.

The ubderlying issues is racism.
How else do you force someone to accept more blackman woman if they are being boxed out?

Just forcing the opporuntity to INTERVIEW gave them more selection.

What is the Rooney Rule? The original Rooney Rule, coming up on its 20th year in the league, dictates that all NFL teams must interview at least one minority candidate for head coaching positions. It has since been expanded to include other positions and more provisions.Jan 9, 2023

This is application of policy.
People need to look at each sector and apply thought and consideration.




2.
I named the word.
You used the definition.
So no.
You brought it up first.



3.
Pulling a sceppy?
Undefensible appears undefensible.

The Rooney Rule is discriminatory.

If 15 people apply for a single position, and you have 10 that are qualified of which 5 are highly qualified (exceed qualifications).  You interview the highly qualified candidates.

If a minority isn't in the qualified group at all, they still get an interview.  What about the other 4 who weren't qualified or the 5 that were qualified, but not highly qualified?

If a minority is qualified, but isn't highly qualified, they still get an interview.  What about the other 4 who were qualified?

If a minority is highly qualified, but another minority of the same or different minority group is just qualified, does they get an interview?  Why or Why Not?

If a minority is highly qualified, but another minority of a different minority group isn't qualified, do they get an interview.  Why or Why Not?


The point I'm making is that even if the rule is done in the name of equality, if the rule isn't applied equally in all circumstances, it's discriminatory.

Found it -nfl interview.

Apogies to jackB
It was NSS who.made the nfl interview question.

And while ibwas looking for that nss comment i found this.

"Raising up" a group is just as bad as "putting down" a group.
Especially as it is a 0 sum game.

Stealing.

jobs are not zero sum.

People create companies.

Entrepreuneurahip is a thing.

In summary

Jack is not racist.
He is a robot and old who i assume was born in the 1950s and grew up enjoying the privledge of that era before the society shift that happened durigth 60-70s.

He wiuld happily apply magical tax utopian reform to solve the problem of poor.
I agree.
Reform would be better.

Meanwhile vs the taxdream he argues reality of the affirm action results in less qualified employees who arent able to learn on thebjob?
Even more realoty
Is prequalified better than learn om rhe job?
A difference between prerequisit vs qualified.
Funfact - most middle managers arent qualifed.
And most ceos have failed companies beforehand.





Lastly
I have no issue with white people.
I have issue with negative actions causing harm.
The intent and context.

"People have been excluded."

You have two cases out of how many millions of people?

Cool
Those are valid cases.
Lets throw out a whole system bassd on those very very BIG numbers.

Again, so you are fine if just a few black people get thrown into prison or shot and killed because of racism, as long as the numbers are low?
How many innocent black people need to be killed by racist cops, shooting them just because they are black, needs to happen before you get upset about that racism?

I provide solid examples of cases where it has been demonstrated it has happened. But this kind of crap happens all the time.

Youre opposed to a law but your other plan is to overhauling the tax system at the fed and state and county levels...

No, I'm opposed to racist laws. And think a much better solution is to treat the underlying issues rather than trying to bandaid the symptoms with blatant racism.

In your ideal, if you live in a poor neighbourhood, you will get a shit education, regardless of race; conversely, if you live in a rich neighbourhood, you will get a much better education, regardless of race.
But then if you are black, you will get benefits, for being black, like a greater chance of being hired. Not for coming from a poor neighbourhood. That is the dishonest BS used to justify it.

This will also lead to continued examples of what you claim to be racism, with people questioning if these black people deserve it.
As well as more examples, where the less qualified black people who were hired are more likely to be disciplined, less likely to be promoted, more likely to be fired and are likely to earn a lower wage.
It also leads to just picking a random crap black candidate to fill the interview quota, only to reject them later, making them waste a lot more time.

This blatantly racist system serves to most benefit the rich black person, and will severely disadvantage the poor white person.
The rich black person didn't need any help. The poor white people are now basically screwed, doomed to be trapped in poverty, because the black people they grow up around are deemed better because they are black. And the poor black people still don't get all that great an outcome either. Again, SA which you brought up is a great example of this, where the rich white elite are still rich and have the majority of the wealth. There are a few rich black elites. Then you have the poor blacks, and then much lower down you have the poor whites.

Totally racist, and in no way actually addressing the problem.

Compare that to my idea, where the funding for schools is normalised, not merely based upon the wealth of those going there, so it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, black, or white, you can get the same education. This means the black and white people, and the rich and poor people naturally end up equally qualified.

Now those poor people which you want to keep down with a poor education will have a decent education, and be just as qualified as the rich kids, allowing them to be competitive.

And if you make the pre-interview process remove any racially identifying attributes, that also means that each person gets evaluated fairly on their own merits.

Notice how this actually addresses the issue?

The hypothetical was all candidatss were equally qualifed.

Again, that is NOT the hypothetical being discussed.
That is what you want to try to shift it to to support your racism.

The reality is such systems are used to hire less qualified diversity candidates.
Plenty of proponents of affirmative action even oppose such merit based or colour-blind systems, claiming that it will result in fewer black people being hired because of systematic discrimination which makes them less qualified.
Including the insane system where the wealth of a population immediately adjacent to a school dictates how good that school is.

So even plenty of people supporting affirmative racism oppose your premise.

"Affirm vs Prison"
Intent and context.

Demonstrating the insanity of your idea of not caring if the numbers are small enough.

If you are fine with a few white people being screwed over because of racism, you should be fine with a few black people being screwed over because of racism.
But you don't, because you are racist and don't care about white people.

And why bother providing a claim about a strawman, when that is basically all you do?
Even now, you resort to a strawman of suggesting I am claiming all white people are being punished.

The one being racist and continually appealing to all white people is YOU!
So you can pretend that because this system doesn't make all white people suffer, it is fine.
So you can pretend that because on average white people are more wealthy we can just ignore the poor white people that get screwed over by your racism.

jobs are not zero sum.

Hiring for jobs is.

A company has 10 positions to fill and wants to hire the 10 most qualified candidates. But racism demands they toss some white candidates aside to get black candidates.
Every diversity candidate you hire takes away a position which could have been filled by a non-diversity candidate.

So yes, zero sum.
You can't give without taking away.

A non zero sum would be:
A company has 10 positions which it fills by hiring the 10 most qualified candidates. Because the government wants more black people, they give the company more money and more work to hire additional black people.

Jack is not racist.

I'm a decent human which opposes blatant racism. Including the blatant racism you are defending.

That does not make me a robot, or old.

I have no issue with white people.

Just poor white people?

I have issue with negative actions causing harm.

Except the racism you fully support.

1.
Jail

Repeotitive straw



2.
Tax.

I already said i agree l.
I disagreee with logsitics to make that ever happen.

3.
Hypothetical vs reality.

Fine.
We re having two different discussions.
Thanks for clarfiyng.
I disagree wirh your point based on other points.
Yoy have your 2 court cases v my nfl.
Cool.

4.
All vs few

You said the words man...
Feel free to clarfiy your original statement insteans of throwing in your jail or stolen job strawman.


5.
Jobs and sums

No
The companys job is zero sum at that one time.
The economy grows.

6.
Commodore 64

You share racist taking points (for misguided noble reasons, not nefarious) because because most likely you grew up during an era where those things were said.
Being unable to learn new thigs makes you old and inability to understand context males you a robot.



7
Whitepeiple

Poor white people are poor due to being unqualified.
Not due to practices to shun them out of work due to them being white.

SOME olaces have actively shunned black peiple out of work despite them BEING qualified.
The qualification over someone else is irrelevant as long as the employer is hapoy with the work.

The affirmed worker proves his her worth through work.
Insyead of questioning how he got there and dogwhistle that blak people or women dont belong, and only got there by affirm action , ask instead - what work did you do?


I have issue wih people putting down other people for no good reaason.

8 is not strealing a job from a white person as said in 5.

1.
Jail
Repeotitive straw

Not in the slightest.
It is pointing out the insanity of your claim that as long as a small enough number of people are affected it doesn't matter.

I disagreee with logsitics to make that ever happen.

So you think government reorganisation of money that the government has is impossible; but think that forcing racists to hire less qualified people (due to worse education), which will just reinforce the racism, will happen and magically solve racism?

Hypothetical vs reality.

Yes, you want to discuss a hypothetical, were the white person and black person is equally qualified and the black person is rejected due to racism.
I want to discuss the reality, where being black gives people bonus points, so they are then compared with and competitive with more qualified white people.

Yoy have your 2 court cases v my nfl.

Your NFL, which you cannot demonstrate had any effect, and there are plenty of examples of black people being employed outside the rule?
And an entirely racist rule which allows them to just appoint a black person, but not a white person?

All vs few
You said the words man...

I know what I said. And it is nothing like your blatant lie.
If you wish to disagree, feel free to provide a quote.

Here is a quote where I used the words "All white people"

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

It’s not at the cost of the poor whiteman.
Because on numbers, the overall mass of whiteman will be ok.

You are trying to group together all white people and suggesting that because some white person is making billions of dollars, that means it should be fine to treat other white people like crap.

Notice how it is in response to you wanting to treat all white people as a single group, where because enough white people are okay it should be fine to treat some like crap.

Here is another:

Like HR7 associated with DeSantis?
With quotes like this from them:
"No one should be instructed to feel as if they are not equal or shamed because of their race"
...
Just what is so horrible about this?
About banning this racism and sexism?
The only people who should be upset are racists and sexists (etc) that want to discriminate against people on the basis of their race and sex, such as those that want white people to feel guilty, because in the past white people had black slaves; those that want to actively discriminate and penalise people in various things (job applications, scholarships, school/university admissions, etc) for being white or male; those that want to pretend all white people are racist or privileged, and so on.

Again, where I am calling out racists who want to treat all white people as the same.

Again, you are clinging to a strawman because you can't defend your blatant racism.

You are rejecting a logical counterargument, because it so easily demonstrates your racism.
The "stolen job" is only an argument of semantics.

A less qualified black person getting a job making it so a more qualified white person doesn't get the job is racist.
That is not a strawman.

You taking that and pretending I am claiming all black people are less qualified IS a stramwan.
You taking that and pretending I am claiming all white people are suffering from it IS a strawman.

And the jail argument is likewise a rational argument demonstrating the insanity of your position.

Your position is no better than saying that because more black people commit crimes, we should just throw a small portion of them in prison, without concern for if the individual in question actually committed a crime.
And as long as only a small portion of them are thrown in prison by this blatantly racist policy, it should be fine, because it is only a small portion, rather than all black people.

The companys job is zero sum at that one time.

That's right, so giving a less qualified black person a job over a more qualified white person, means that the white person has been disadvantaged.

You share racist taking points (for misguided noble reasons, not nefarious) because because most likely you grew up during an era where those things were said.
Being unable to learn new thigs makes you old and inability to understand context males you a robot.

Again, you dismiss legitimate questions as racist, because it goes against the racism you are supporting.
You are making up all sorts of wild fantasies, to avoid addressing your racism.

Poor white people are poor due to being unqualified.
Not due to practices to shun them out of work due to them being white.

Except policies already in place which do just that and serve to keep poor white people poor.

The same can be said for poor black people.

I have issue wih people putting down other people for no good reaason.

Like you are putting down white people for no good reason?

"forcing people to play together to solve racism"?



yes
because these racists who are in echo chambers were told to hate the other so much, they have no clue that the other are people.
working together, the worker proves their worth.

as per NFL
all they had to do was interivew one guy
and magically the increase in hirings went up.

if they think (like you do that all blakc people are poorly educated and thus predefault as unqualified due to their poorness) then find out these guys are decent fokl with similar life and interest.
people see each other as people, not as other.

hire less qualified people (due to worse education),

That's right, so giving a less qualified black person a job over a more qualified white person, means that the white person has been disadvantaged.

I want to discuss the reality, where being black gives people bonus points, so they are then compared with and competitive with more qualified white people.



You taking that and pretending I am claiming all black people are less qualified IS a stramwan.

you seem to be in conflict with yourself.
why is this generic "real" black man less qualfiied but also not generically all except in your two court examples?

waht if they benefitted from a racist policy that allowed them into harvard?
and they earned their 2rank not because they could play ball, but because they worked hard?


why is asking that is legitmate for some reason and just not accepting his number2 rank?
do you ask every white man if his dad donated money to buy a spot?
why does every minority/ female need to prove their worth but the other is just accepted as 'better'?


you and bulbma (or was it turbo) seem to think they're just grabbing any mopper burger flipper off the street.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 04, 2023, 05:26:31 AM

Poor white people are poor due to being unqualified.
Not due to practices to shun them out of work due to them being white.

Except policies already in place which do just that and serve to keep poor white people poor.

The same can be said for poor black people.

no
because as you said "all vs a few"

there is active policy to keep black people poor.
redlining
for profit jailing
no hiring them
defunding of school

"systemic" is a thing.
to say it doesn't exist is nonsense.
systemic is by design.
if racists exist.
then can racists be in politicis?
then if racists can be in politics then they can make laws.
then if racisits can be in politics and they can make laws then they can create a system that pushes one group down.

do you know anyone who was born in the 1950-60s that implements policy?

don't say ngrngrngr

Yoy have your 2 court cases v my nfl.

Your NFL, which you cannot demonstrate had any effect, and there are plenty of examples of black people being employed outside the rule?
And an entirely racist rule which allows them to just appoint a black person, but not a white person?
[/quote]


demonstrated - all they ahd to do was interview and it had an effect.

policy vs implementation.
not without faults here and there as with all things human - requiring context.







Since the Rooney Rule was established, several NFL franchises have hired African-American head coaches, including the Steelers themselves, who hired Mike Tomlin before their 2007 season.[13] (The Steelers, however, had already interviewed Ron Rivera, who is ethnically Hispanic, to fulfill the requirement before interviewing Tomlin, and Rooney himself contends that Tomlin's hiring did not result from the Rule.)[14] At the start of the 2006 season, the overall percentage of African-American coaches had jumped to 22%, up from 6% prior to the Rooney Rule.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 04, 2023, 05:26:31 AM

1.
Jail
Repeotitive straw

Not in the slightest.
It is pointing out the insanity of your claim that as long as a small enough number of people are affected it doesn't matter.

yes
because it is a strawman.
there is no quota (there is but not for) for white people to be in jail.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 04, 2023, 05:26:31 AM

All vs few
You said the words man...

I know what I said. And it is nothing like your blatant lie.
If you wish to disagree, feel free to provide a quote.

Here is a quote where I used the words "All white people"

you've used it in context more than once.
i'm not going to waste my time searching for them all because it's irrelevant.

the point i'm pointing out that you position as we both understand it is when SOME white people are disparaged against, and then you intermix that with ALL white people are being put down.
if NOT a majority of white people are being put down then it is not a policy wiht intent to harm a group.
since the group majority is not harmed.

but alas.
robot santa has deemed everyone naughty.

as per NFL
all they had to do was interivew one guy
and magically the increase in hirings went up.

Did they?

Or did the rule have no real positive benefits?
Can you demonstrate that it was this rule which caused any positive change?

you seem to be in conflict with yourself.

No, you just need to repeatedly lie about my position to vilify me so you can avoid defending your blatant racism.

why is this generic "real" black man less qualfiied but also not generically all except in your two court examples?

Because the lesser qualified people getting a job based upon their race is racism. This is the issue that I am appealing to. This is the issue that affirmative action causes. This is the issue that plenty of the proponents of affirmative action hope to achieve, especially given their opposition to "colour blind" policies and meritocracies that would result in fewer black people being hired, and fewer black people going to high ranking schools and so on.

But that doesn't mean all black people are less qualified than all white people. Because I recognise there is a broad range, which overlaps for black and white people.

why is asking that is legitmate for some reason and just not accepting his number2 rank?

Did they have their second rank as public knowledge?
Most of the time rankings aren't public knowledge.

And as to why, because of all the racist policies serving to benefit people.

do you ask every white man if his dad donated money to buy a spot?

If it seems likely, sure.

why does every minority/ female need to prove their worth but the other is just accepted as 'better'?

Because of the racist policies you are supporting.
These racist do not end racism.
They entrench it.

You can't fight racism with racism.
It undermines itself.

there is active policy to keep black people poor.

That is your fantasy.
There are active policies to give benefits to black people.
There are no such policies to keep them poor.
That is a fantasy you have constructed to try to pretend your blatant racism is justified.

Perhaps the policies you are thinking of are those to try to keep poor people poor.
"systemic" is a thing.
to say it doesn't exist is nonsense.
systemic is by design.
[/quote]
Yes, like the systemic racism you are promoting.
If your fantasy was true, and the racists were in power secretly plotting to keep black people poor, why would they permit affirmative action?

demonstrated - all they ahd to do was interview and it had an effect.

Not demonstrated. At all.

The rule you are appealing to was created due to a black head coach being fired.
Clearly demonstrating black people were already being hired.

A claimed success, was from when 2 black people were being interviewed. That was even in your quote.

I don't see the impact of the Rooney Rule here.

Black people were already being hired. So black people were already being interviewed. More black people were being interviewed than required by the rule. And there have been times where black people still weren't hired even with lots of positions.

And there are also claims that some people were being interviewed just to fulfil the Rooney Rule, with the interviews being a sham.

So no, not demonstrated at all.

So care to actually demonstrate it?

yes
because it is a strawman.
there is no quota (there is but not for) for white people to be in jail.

No, it is not a strawman.

A straw man would be claiming you are advocating for this.
It is a demonstrating of the insanity of your claim.

Your claim is that as long as only a small portion of a race is disadvantaged by a racist policy, then it is magically not racist.
I am demonstrating the stupidity of that by applying it to something you would recognise as racist.

You recognise it demonstrates how morally bankrupt your position is, so you do whatever you can to dismiss it.

If you think it is fine to disadvantage a certain portion of white people, as long as the percentage remains low, then the same logic applies here.
If a racist policy targets black people and throws them in prison for being black, as long as the number is small enough, is that fine?
Or would you think that is racist?

you've used it in context more than once.
i'm not going to waste my time searching for them all because it's irrelevant.

And I provided more than one example.
But of course you wouldn't search, because that would require you to justify your lie, which you can't.

the point i'm pointing out that you position as we both understand it is when SOME white people are disparaged against, and then you intermix that with ALL white people are being put down.
if NOT a majority of white people are being put down then it is not a policy wiht intent to harm a group.
since the group majority is not harmed.

It is pretty much the exact opposite.

I am stating you do not need to harm the majority of a group for a policy to be racist.
Again, if only 30% of black people were thrown in prison because of their race, with the remaining 70% staying free; would that mean it isn't a policy intended to harm a group?
Or if you just had a policy which meant the burden required to convict a white person was much higher than the burden required to convict a black person; but this didn't result in the majority of black people going to jail. Would such a policy be racist?

Because that is the kind of BS your argument leads to. That as long as the majority aren't harmed, it isn't a policy intended to harm a group.

I have also made it clear that intent doesn't excuse racism.
It doesn't matter if you are being blatantly racist to try to promote a race, or to put down a race, it is still racism, and with so much of the world being a 0 sum game (and you not actually targeting the real issue) it is racist.

Not relevant to previous posts maybe, but in regard to the topic, I found this lovely article.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GangstaStyle

It explains it this way.

"Normally, recoil lifts the barrel against gravity. When firing in this manner recoil pulls the gun sideways instead and tends to turn the shooter around in a circle. Additionally, it makes the sights much less useful. Worse, if the pistol is turned in this manner, its ejection port faces up, and the extractor isn't designed to work directly against gravity (if you're holding it with your right hand, that is. Gangsta Style with the left hand will have the ejection port facing the ground). Sideways recoil and improper extraction combined may make an ejected shell fly out at the wrong angle and hit you in the face, and also increases the chance (especially if you're wearing loose clothing) of getting a shell ejected into your clothes, which is actually not an unheard-of occurrence when firing normally. Bear in mind that, depending on the ammunition and load, the shell can be hot enough to cause small burns on contact with the skin. Spent cartridges are also very likely to not be thrown clear, or even fall back into the port, either of which will jam the gun. All of which may be of some concern to a person who is in the middle of a gunfight.
"

So basically, by turning the exit point, the exit trajectory is actually identical. Up, then right, then back (and then , to exit the chamber and deposit itself safely on the ground. And given people want to wield guns with no surprises, this trajectory remains consistent, even if I got this wrong somehow.



This appears to be confirmed by circumstances where you would use it. Gangsters likely use this precisely to adjust to drive by shootings. The casings fly back into the window if fired.

 I hereby submit to patent the design of a delayed sub-ejection pistol, effectively opening and closing an ejection on the bottom just prior to load and fire when you pull the trigger.

The guy in the front seat during a Gangland Drive-By would hold his weapon on its side so that the ejected casings wouldn't be propelled into the rear window - instead they would be ejected up onto or over the top of the car. Additionally, when using machine pistols or firing rapidly this compensates for muzzle rise and makes their spray pattern horizontal instead of vertical. More practical when you only have a second to aim at a moving target from a moving vehicle and don't give a damn about collateral damage. It is also to avoid having to deal with having the window get in the way of the gun's butt, allowing faster usage and retreat.

And certain handguns have features that require this. But their recoil does downright funny things sometimes.

The famous Mauser C96 'Broomhandle' was only used as a service pistol by one nation: the Republic of China. During the Warlord Era, Yan Xishan's soldiers produced a copy, the Shanxi Type 17, in a much larger cartridge (.45 ACP, shared with the unlicensed Thompson submachine guns they also used at the time) and imported large numbers of the select-fire Mauser M712 and its Spanish copies when they were invaded by Japan. Both weapons could only be effectively used firing sideways (in Gangsta Style), or else the huge recoil would spray the gun straight up (when held sideways the recoil would shift accordingly, which is actually highly effective as it can sweep a room out), or the already-fired cases would fall back into and jam the gun.

You see, propulsion and force are not as simple as Newton seems to think, and follow motion entirely independent

The only thing Newton actually got right is recoil. But recoil defies gravity, being a subset of actual force. Gravity is not real. Again. Buoyancy is real. Massive objects fall, buoyant or aerodynamic objects float or fly (or awhile anyway).

 Gravity is not real.

Not real you post?

Why is there the directionality of down?  Why.  If you wave your hand horizontal back and forth, it should have the same resistance if I move my hand vertical up and down?  Is that a false statement? 


Back to a ball thrown straight up where it is slowed down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.

I can further illustrate this by upping the weight, and changing the model to exaggerate the downward force of gravity.  That things are actually attracted to earth.

I can make a 2000 lbs steel sled with four wheels, and channeling / guides.

For the horizontal version, something like this.



The wheels fit in the channels or guides. The wheels use good bearings.  I can push it with my body.  Probably with a good shove, get the wheeled sled to coast a bit of a distance on its own.  I could even use a winch rated for 500 pounds and get the thing to move. 

Now. There should be no “directionality”.

But if I take the same set up, and make it vertical where I can stand under and push up.  Something like this.

.

I cannot push the sled away from the earth, and there is no way in hell I can give it a shove to coast upward on its own.


There is clearly a force of attraction towards the earth that fights a change in attitude.  The same winch rated for 500 pounds that could move the sled horizontally would damage itself trying to pick up the sled vertically. A larger winch with more power and rated for lifting would be required.  The force that prevents one from pushing the sled up vertically, and requires a more powerful winch for lifting the sled is gravity.

You see, propulsion and force are not as simple as Newton seems to think, and follow motion entirely independent

How?
This recoil matches Newtonian physics quite well.

But recoil defies gravity

How?
Forces can act in addition to other forces.
Applying an additional force does not defy gravity.

Gravity is not real. Again. Buoyancy is real.

All the evidence points to gravity being real.
Including buoyancy which relies upon gravity.

You have provided nothing to challenge gravity, nor can you provide a viable alternative.

Massive objects fall

Due to gravity.
Without gravity there is no reason for them to fall.

You need something to provide a reason for them to accelerate, including a reason for the directionality. You have none.

buoyant or aerodynamic objects float or fly (or awhile anyway).

And again, for buoyant objects, that is due to gravity.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 22, 2023, 06:47:43 PM

 Gravity is not real.

Not real you post?

Why is there the directionality of down?  Why.  If you wave your hand horizontal back and forth, it should have the same resistance if I move my hand vertical up and down?  Is that a false statement? 


Back to a ball thrown straight up where it is slowed down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.

I can further illustrate this by upping the weight, and changing the model to exaggerate the downward force of gravity.  That things are actually attracted to earth.

I can make a 2000 lbs steel sled with four wheels, and channeling / guides.

For the horizontal version, something like this.



The wheels fit in the channels or guides. The wheels use good bearings.  I can push it with my body.  Probably with a good shove, get the wheeled sled to coast a bit of a distance on its own.  I could even use a winch rated for 500 pounds and get the thing to move. 

Now. There should be no “directionality”.

But if I take the same set up, and make it vertical where I can stand under and push up.  Something like this.

.

I cannot push the sled away from the earth, and there is no way in hell I can give it a shove to coast upward on its own.


There is clearly a force of attraction towards the earth that fights a change in attitude.  The same winch rated for 500 pounds that could move the sled horizontally would damage itself trying to pick up the sled vertically. A larger winch with more power and rated for lifting would be required.  The force that prevents one from pushing the sled up vertically, and requires a more powerful winch for lifting the sled is gravity.

If you were on a  amusement park-like track with that same sled, you could actually get it to go sideways for a few seconds with the right amount of speed and the right surfactant. You'd call it centrifugal force or something. But the same thing is happening with this gun, you rotated the trajectory but kept the same high speed.

With this in mind, I submitted to Smith & Wesson three ideas I thought might solve this (well, two and one that was cool). The purpose of gun safety is not to take guns off the street (leaving defenseless targets for thugs to rape or gun down) but to make sure every pistol has no collateral. The first one actually shot the shells out after the bullet by compacting it and plunging it every shot. The second one rolled it into a trap door compartment to deal with later. (The third was a fist gun thing because firing isn't centered)

These bullets nor the sled don't go against gravity. Enough speed and a car can probably travel upside down for a second (having rails like a ride helps tho).

If you were on a  amusement park-like track with that same sled,

Which has nothing to do with why I can push the heavy sled horizontal but not vertically.

What’s the cause of the force that prevents me from pushing the sled up vertically. 

If you were standing upright, you could very definitely push a sled up a brick wall. This would continue so long as you kept a hold on said sled, and the sled had a wall to press against. In order to continue pushing, sideways and upward force must be steady, and exceed the object's own mass differentiation with the air itself (the sled is heavier than air so it falls to the ground but if you push at a a steady angle and force, you can lift it until you get tired).

Suppose I had assistance pushing this sled against a wall. I can only lift it about 45 to 60 degrees above my head before losing hold. But if I am harnessed so a helicopter can lift me while I push this sled against it, this allows scooting it up while the chopper lifts me. Eventually though, the wall ends.  The sled will not continue to rise, but rather slide forward at the top of the wall.
Let's shift this scene sideways. Now, the sled is significantly easier to push as it doesn't require helicopter assistance, but what happens when a brick walkway ends in a chasm? The sled matches the exact movement we just saw (plus a bit of forward momentum).

If your physical endurance were infinite, you could ramp said sled all the way up the Warsaw Radio Mast (I could have chosen the Burj Khalifa, but this radio tower is a straighter object), then have like the awesomest sled ride down (and then you die). But the odds are against you keeping hold of that sled the entire time without fatigue taking over.

If you were standing upright, you could very definitely push a sled up a brick wall. This would continue so long as you kept a hold on said sled, and the sled had a wall to press against.

What are you babbling about.

Why is there the directionality of down?  Why.  If you wave your hand horizontal back and forth, it should have the same resistance if I move my hand vertical up and down?  Is that a false statement? 


Back to a ball thrown straight up where it is slowed down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.

I can further illustrate this by upping the weight, and changing the model to exaggerate the downward force of gravity.  That things are actually attracted to earth.

I can make a 2000 lbs steel sled with four wheels, and channeling / guides.

For the horizontal version, something like this.



The wheels fit in the channels or guides. The wheels use good bearings.  I can push it with my body.  Probably with a good shove, get the wheeled sled to coast a bit of a distance on its own.  I could even use a winch rated for 500 pounds and get the thing to move. 

Now. There should be no “directionality”.

But if I take the same set up, and make it vertical where I can stand under and push up.  Something like this.

.

I cannot push the sled away from the earth, and there is no way in hell I can give it a shove to coast upward on its own.


There is clearly a force of attraction towards the earth that fights a change in attitude.  The same winch rated for 500 pounds that could move the sled horizontally would damage itself trying to pick up the sled vertically. A larger winch with more power and rated for lifting would be required.  The force that prevents one from pushing the sled up vertically, and requires a more powerful winch for lifting the sled is gravity.


What force is present that prevents me from pushing the sled up vertically and gives the directionality of down.  But yet I can push the sled horizontal with the mechanical advantage of wheels.  Why is the mechanical advantage not helpful when the sled is in the vertical position.

If you were standing upright, you could very definitely push a sled up a brick wall.

That depends entirely upon the weight of the sled.
If it is a sled that weighs 500 kg, you wouldn't be able to push it up.

In order to continue pushing, sideways and upward force must be steady, and exceed the object's own mass differentiation with the air itself

They are vastly different units.
Mass is not the same as force. Nor is mass differential the same as force. Nor is density differential
And again, why should it matter for vertical, but not horizontal.

You can push a sled horizontally when you cannot push it up.

the sled is heavier than air so it falls

Why?

What magic causes it to fall?
Why should being denser than air (not heavier) cause it to fall?
Why should it make it move at all?
Why should it make it move down, rather than up or to the north or east?

If you were standing upright, you could very definitely push a sled up a brick wall. This would continue so long as you kept a hold on said sled, and the sled had a wall to press against. In order to continue pushing, sideways and upward force must be steady, and exceed the object's own mass differentiation with the air itself (the sled is heavier than air so it falls to the ground but if you push at a a steady angle and force, you can lift it until you get tired).

Suppose I had assistance pushing this sled against a wall. I can only lift it about 45 to 60 degrees above my head before losing hold. But if I am harnessed so a helicopter can lift me while I push this sled against it, this allows scooting it up while the chopper lifts me. Eventually though, the wall ends.  The sled will not continue to rise, but rather slide forward at the top of the wall.
Let's shift this scene sideways. Now, the sled is significantly easier to push as it doesn't require helicopter assistance, but what happens when a brick walkway ends in a chasm? The sled matches the exact movement we just saw (plus a bit of forward momentum).

If your physical endurance were infinite, you could ramp said sled all the way up the Warsaw Radio Mast (I could have chosen the Burj Khalifa, but this radio tower is a straighter object), then have like the awesomest sled ride down (and then you die). But the odds are against you keeping hold of that sled the entire time without fatigue taking over.

Yes, the sled is heavier than the air. But what do you think gives the air it's weight? Yep, the same thing that determines the sled's weight. That pesky little detail in the flat earther manual, that just won't disappear no matter how hard flat earthers try, called GRAVITY.

Yes, Bulma, air also has weight. That's how we know the sled is heavier than the air.

Now, put a smile on my dial, and please tell me you are the speaker in one of those little flat earth videos you have in your post. The one about flat earth sunrise and the other about clouds. I find it amusing that speaker one's head, either resembles your fabled flat earth dome, or, half the actual planet. He could actually get a tattoo of his favourite half of the Earth on his head - to scale.

Let's ask a serious question about directionality. Flies are able to land on the sides and bottoms of objects. The scientists tell you that they have little spikes on their feet (*cough* bullshit) and when tree frogs also do this, because they don't have anything remotely sharp in their bodies, we are told it's adhesive.

Yet flies are able to switch direction from upside down to the side or upright without missing a beat. I'm pretty sure if I drive a sharp knife into a surface I would not be able to hang on the ceiling. Further, flies are able to cling even to hard surfaces like brick walls.

Sorry but uhhh adhesive doesn't stick to everything, as I've noticed from casual experiments with everything from pictures stuck to the wall to sticky paper reminders. And a hard enough surface should prevent a fly from clinging.



It's defying directionality and gravity by flying onto this wall and then just staying there.

amazing

"flies disprove gravity because they fly and can hang upside down with nonsticky nonspikey feet"

amazing!

Let's ask a serious question about directionality. Flies are able to land on the sides and bottoms of objects. The scientists tell you that they have little spikes on their feet (*cough* bullshit) and when tree frogs also do this, because they don't have anything remotely sharp in their bodies, we are told it's adhesive.

Yet flies are able to switch direction from upside down to the side or upright without missing a beat. I'm pretty sure if I drive a sharp knife into a surface I would not be able to hang on the ceiling. Further, flies are able to cling even to hard surfaces like brick walls.

Notice how you so quickly dismiss things as BS which you don't like?
Right after you assert it with no justification at all?

Have you looked at the foot of a fly under an SEM?
It isn't spiky.
Likewise, have you even attempted to examine a brick at all?
Almost everyone knows that a brick is quite porous. If you get a cloth and rub it against a brick, threads will typically stick to it.

But if you look it up honestly, the flies feet are adhesive as well, not spikey.

Sorry but uhhh adhesive doesn't stick to everything

Adhesives stick to almost any solid surface. The question is how well, which in turn relates to how much it can support.

Some adhesive-surface combinations can adhere quite well, and hold up quite a lot of weight.
Others are much poorer, and will fail under a much lower load, meaning they are not able to hold much weight at all.
Some are so poor that they will hold the adhesive, but basically no weight at all.

And then there are some rare cases, like Teflon, one of the worst substances to try to adhere to, with geckos unable to walk up it.

I've noticed from casual experiments with everything from pictures stuck to the wall to sticky paper reminders.

And what adhesive was used? What area was covered in adhesive, and of that area, what portion made good contact with the surface, and how much weight was that?

a hard enough surface should prevent a fly from clinging.

Why?
Again, you just asserting delusional BS with no justification at all.

It's defying directionality and gravity by flying onto this wall and then just staying there.

If it was magically defying gravity, why would it need a surface at all?
Why can't it just put its wings away and float in mid air?
Having an additional force (like that from an adhesive) is not "defying gravity" nor is it defying directionality.

And if it was so easy, then why can't a person stick to a wall?

How does a dead fly overcome gravity?

How does a dead fly overcome gravity?

I have no idea, but it isn't just flies.

I should see indents where the fly is if it were as simple as driving spikes into objects. What we instead see in this picture of on sleeping on the ceiling is that you can basically flip the entire photo vertically.

  Yesterday, instead of taking a shower, I took a bath.  And then I got freaked out. It's like this. We have a soap tray that turn out to not be well placed, as water sprayed it and basically washed the soap a few times (to the point where I stopped using it) until most of it disintegrated. As anyone who has seen this happen knows, water can actually loop under surfaces as it drips down. And this is precisely what happened. I found what appeared to be rust stains from a razor that I also mistakenly thought was safe in the tray before I noticed what was happening to the soap. And there was alot of white powder, presumably from soapthat had mixed with water then evaporated. All of this was on the underside of the tray.

Directional gravity toward the center of Earth is bullshit.