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

Water has greater pressure than air, does it not?

No.  Water has more density and weighs more than less dense / less massive air because of gravity.  Water or air in 1/4” tubing with ten pounds or 100 pounds of pressure exerts the same force on the walls of the tuning. 

I seriously don't understand the way you think.

I say water is more pressurized. You say no, and somehow being more dense doesn't mean the molecules are pressed more tightly together.



Hot air is more spaced out, no? Then it has less density and less pressure.



A boat can sit on another solid or a liquid, but not usually a gas. This is because solids and liquids have more pressure. They are more densely packed.

Air ships dont exist now?

I seriously don't understand the way you think.

Simple question.  How does any object accelerate if no force is applied. 

If there is no force of gravity, and I can use moving air to move a steel ball around.

For a car on a hill or slope.  With no difference in mechanical advantage provided by the wheels if the car goes up or down the hill.  And there is a buoyant force wanting to push the car from more dense and pressure of the lower  atmosphere into the less dense and less pressure of the upper atmosphere. 

More simply put.  If there is no gravity, why doesn’t the car roll up into less resistance.  How does the car accelerate down into more atmospheric resistance if there is no force like gravity causing the acceleration. 

I say water is more pressurized.

No.  Your confusing weight with pressure. 

Water has more weight than air because it has more mass per volume. 

Air at a pressure of 100 psi in 1/4” tubing is exerting the same force as water at a 100 psi in 1/4” tubing.   

Water as an open column can “build” pressure more than air because water weighs more so at the bottom of that column there is more head pressure. But if you reduce atmospheric pressure above the column of water you change the pressure it exerts. 

Pumping from vacuum
Fluid Handling

Pumping liquids from a tank with a negative pressure or even with (high) vacuum is not an easy task. The only driving force that still exists to get the liquid into the pump is gravity. In such cases, the so-called NPSHa (“net positive suction head available”) is usually very low. Then it is extremely important that the pump has an even lower NPSHr (net positive suction head required).

https://en.suurmond.com/products/pumping-from-vacuum/#:~:text=Pumping%20liquids%20from%20a%20tank,%E2%80%9D)%20is%20usually%20very%20low.

But I can also pressurize air to a greater pressure than a piping system of water to use the air to push and flow water in that piping system.


Or I can use air like this.  A normal everyday example.

How does a well pressure tank work?

A well pressure tank uses compressed air to push pressurized water out of the tank and into your home. Pressure tanks have a diaphragm, also called a bladder, that separates a chamber of air from the water. As the tank fills with water, it compresses the air chamber. When you turn your water on, the compressed air pressurizes the water and pushes it back out of the tank.

https://www.freshwatersystems.com/blogs/blog/how-to-size-a-well-pressure-tank#:~:text=Pressure%20tanks%20have%20a%20diaphragm,of%20air%20from%20the%20water.

Air being highly compressible and water being nearly incompressible.  100 psi of air has more energy, more dangerous, and takes forever to bleed off pressure.  Water at 100 psi has less energy, not as dangerous, and pressure is almost instantly bled off if the system is opened.

I seriously don't understand the way you think.

If I don’t do this, you will just ignore it.

Pumping from vacuum
Fluid Handling

Pumping liquids from a tank with a negative pressure or even with (high) vacuum is not an easy task. The only driving force that still exists to get the liquid into the pump is gravity. In such cases, the so-called NPSHa (“net positive suction head available”) is usually very low. Then it is extremely important that the pump has an even lower NPSHr (net positive suction head required).

https://en.suurmond.com/products/pumping-from-vacuum/#:~:text=Pumping%20liquids%20from%20a%20tank,%E2%80%9D)%20is%20usually%20very%20low.

See what lies you come up with now…

I seriously don't understand the way you think.

I say water is more pressurized. You say no, and somehow being more dense doesn't mean the molecules are pressed more tightly together.



Hot air is more spaced out, no? Then it has less density and less pressure.



A boat can sit on another solid or a liquid, but not usually a gas. This is because solids and liquids have more pressure. They are more densely packed.

Oh, for Christ sake. Stop being a tight arse and buy yourself a proper physics book. At the moment you don't have a clue in hell what you're talking about.

Yes, you are correct. Air pressure is greater at sea level than 10,000 feet up. It is also greater at sea level than six feet off the ground.

And the question is why?
What magic is maintaining this pressure gradient?

Air and water are called mediums. If an object is heavier than a layer of medium (like air six feet off the ground), then it falls through it to a more dense layer.

And again, the question is WHY?
Especially as we can take compressed air, which is denser than normal air and release it and it expands outwards rather than merely sinking.

We have a pressure gradient in the atmosphere which should be pushing everything up.
Yet instead, things fall.

I am so unbelievably tired of having to explain things to you over and over again.

You mean you feel you are.
The problem is you are yet to explain anything.

Water is flowing out because it is denser than air as a medium, it is also flowing out because water is a liquid and air is a gas.

Wrong.
As clearly demonstrated by having the pressure inside the container lower. Then the water does not flow out.
But why should the pressure be greater?
Because the top is exposed to air pressure, and the water being denser has a more extreme pressure gradient due to gravity.

In other words, mediums are also objects, and they float on denser mediums and sink through mediums they are denser than.

And again, WHY?
Why do denser objects go down?

I say water is more pressurized. You say no, and somehow being more dense doesn't mean the molecules are pressed more tightly together.

Being more dense does not mean it is a higher pressure.
You can take all sorts of fluids and put them at various pressures.

Hot air is more spaced out, no? Then it has less density and less pressure.

No.
If you have a gas which is at least approximately ideal, then it can be described by the ideal gas law:
PV=nRT.

If you heat air, it will initially just get a greater pressure. This pushes the air around it away, which causes it to become less dense.

A boat can sit on another solid or a liquid, but not usually a gas. This is because solids and liquids have more pressure. They are more densely packed.

No, it is because the pressure gradient is extreme enough to keep it up.

You can have a boat float on water which is at a much lower pressure than the air at sea level.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 29, 2023, 08:57:52 PM

I seriously don't understand the way you think.

I say water is more pressurized. You say no, and somehow being more dense doesn't mean the molecules are pressed more tightly together.



Hot air is more spaced out, no? Then it has less density and less pressure.



A boat can sit on another solid or a liquid, but not usually a gas. This is because solids and liquids have more pressure. They are more densely packed.

Oh, for Christ sake. Stop being a tight arse and buy yourself a proper physics book. At the moment you don't have a clue in hell what you're talking about.

You're reply #666. My parents told me not to listen to people like you.

By the way, this is in a proper science text book. I think Chemistry rather than Physics though. But the point was, yes matter is expressed this way. The higher the state of matter, the less solid things are.


For Kids. Too bad you never learned this as a kid. Probably indoctrinated by climate change.

Canoe on a rock? Yeah it doesn't sink into the rock. Canoe on the water, floats in and above it. Canoe enters the air (e.g. waterfall)? It's not going to float on that. But some kayakers have been able to jump by paddling forward during a waterfall.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on August 30, 2023, 06:10:10 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 29, 2023, 08:57:52 PM

I seriously don't understand the way you think.

I say water is more pressurized. You say no, and somehow being more dense doesn't mean the molecules are pressed more tightly together.



Hot air is more spaced out, no? Then it has less density and less pressure.



A boat can sit on another solid or a liquid, but not usually a gas. This is because solids and liquids have more pressure. They are more densely packed.

Oh, for Christ sake. Stop being a tight arse and buy yourself a proper physics book. At the moment you don't have a clue in hell what you're talking about.

You're reply #666. My parents told me not to listen to people like you.

By the way, this is in a proper science text book. I think Chemistry rather than Physics though. But the point was, yes matter is expressed this way. The higher the state of matter, the less solid things are.


For Kids. Too bad you never learned this as a kid. Probably indoctrinated by climate change.

Canoe on a rock? Yeah it doesn't sink into the rock. Canoe on the water, floats in and above it. Canoe enters the air (e.g. waterfall)? It's not going to float on that. But some kayakers have been able to jump by paddling forward during a waterfall.

So oyure saying kites amd birds and airplanes and balloons dont exist in your world?

Floating Balls - Bernoulli's Principle Visualized

So oyure saying kites amd birds and airplanes and balloons dont exist in your world?

Well, lemme put it this way. All of these things are impossible if gravity is a law.

However, if gravity is only a theory, kites, birds, and airplanes "swim" through the air by creating more propulsion. just as I could sink to the bottom if I refused to kick my legs or move my arms.
A balloon likewise "floats" on air until it reaches an altitude where it cannot do that.

You're reply #666. My parents told me not to listen to people like you.

Your parents are horrible if they told you not to listen to people who can explain why you are wrong, or are tied to a number.

By the way, this is in a proper science text book.

The problem isn't the diagram. It is the garbage you say about it.

Canoe on a rock? Yeah it doesn't sink into the rock. Canoe on the water, floats in and above it. Canoe enters the air (e.g. waterfall)? It's not going to float on that.

Paperclip on a rock? Yeah it doesn't sink into the rock.
Paperclip on water? Floats, until you knock it and then it sinks.
Balloon in air? Floats.

Being solid means you need to overcome the forces holding it together to sink into it.
Being liquid means you need to break the surface tension and overcome the pressure gradient to sink into it.
Being gas means you need to overcome the pressure gradient to sink into it.

Notice that for both liquid and gas, you need to overcome the pressure gradient.

The questions for you are what is making these gradients, and what force is acting to overcome it.

Well, lemme put it this way. All of these things are impossible if gravity is a law.

No. It is impossible if your pathetic strawman of gravity is a law.
If instead, you have gravity as a law which means a force is acting on those objects, then other forces (including the buoyant force from the pressure gradient).

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 03, 2023, 06:21:44 AM

So oyure saying kites amd birds and airplanes and balloons dont exist in your world?

Well, lemme put it this way. All of these things are impossible if gravity is a law.

However, if gravity is only a theory, kites, birds, and airplanes "swim" through the air by creating more propulsion. just as I could sink to the bottom if I refused to kick my legs or move my arms.
A balloon likewise "floats" on air until it reaches an altitude where it cannot do that.

No

YOUR claim was that air pressure cant hold things up.

No tlaiing ggravity or antything else.
Just the nonsense claim about air.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 03, 2023, 12:49:20 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 03, 2023, 06:21:44 AM

So oyure saying kites amd birds and airplanes and balloons dont exist in your world?

Well, lemme put it this way. All of these things are impossible if gravity is a law.

However, if gravity is only a theory, kites, birds, and airplanes "swim" through the air by creating more propulsion. just as I could sink to the bottom if I refused to kick my legs or move my arms.
A balloon likewise "floats" on air until it reaches an altitude where it cannot do that.

No

YOUR claim was that air pressure cant hold things up.

No tlaiing ggravity or antything else.
Just the nonsense claim about air.

No. My claim is that there are layers of buoyancy.

And then your did something strange where you said density has nothing to do with pressure, and twisted my words somehow to tell me that I said something that I said the opposite of.

The mesosphere is around where the Karman Line is. If you think (as I do), that outer space is probably just so much garbage, then the higher you get, the thinner the air, and when you are in "space" everything should fall toward Earth if above it.

But no, I didn't mean that birds and such can't fly in air. The higher the elevation, the thinner the air. Birds can fly in the troposphere but not the upper atmosphere.




The lower the atmospheric layer, the higher the pressure, and the more things float ("fly"). The higher up you are, the thinner the air, and the lower its pressure (birds can't fly any higher). There are layers of pressure within the troposphere, which is why your ears pop on high mountains, you have moved to an area of depressurization. Likewise, if you try to scuba dive in the ocean, the pressure rises, until you reach a point where you are either crushed to death or can't swim any deeper (or both).

1st of all

XYZsphere
***sphere
SPHERE

2ndly

Hot air is more spaced out, no? Then it has less density and less pressure.   

[tmk: 'less' being the absolutely incorrect term]







A boat can sit on another solid or a liquid, but not usually a gas.

This is because solids and liquids have more pressure.

They are more densely packed.

[tmk:  well... sitting on a cloud of gas is precisely how birds kites and planes 'swim' in the air.... sooo no, 'densly packed' has no bearing on pressure on its own given the very real and provable PV=NRT for gases


And for liquids

Pressure = density x height x something...   what is that something?


And for solids

Pressure = force x area

What would the 'force' be if it were a box sitting on your chest?
Some universal downward force?
Why and what would be downard?

]

No. My claim is that there are layers of buoyancy.

Your claims was also that these would be impossible if gravity was a law; yet you appear to have fled from that.
And you have no explanation for buoyancy at all.

And then your did something strange where you said density has nothing to do with pressure, and twisted my words somehow to tell me that I said something that I said the opposite of.

No, you claimed you need to push against lower pressure to get an object to move into it.
It makes no sense at all. But that is what you said.

As for your image, if an object is in space, why should it "sink"? What is making it go down?

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 03, 2023, 04:40:53 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 03, 2023, 12:49:20 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 03, 2023, 06:21:44 AM

So oyure saying kites amd birds and airplanes and balloons dont exist in your world?

Well, lemme put it this way. All of these things are impossible if gravity is a law.

However, if gravity is only a theory, kites, birds, and airplanes "swim" through the air by creating more propulsion. just as I could sink to the bottom if I refused to kick my legs or move my arms.
A balloon likewise "floats" on air until it reaches an altitude where it cannot do that.

No

YOUR claim was that air pressure cant hold things up.

No tlaiing ggravity or antything else.
Just the nonsense claim about air.

No. My claim is that there are layers of buoyancy.

And then your did something strange where you said density has nothing to do with pressure, and twisted my words somehow to tell me that I said something that I said the opposite of.

The mesosphere is around where the Karman Line is. If you think (as I do), that outer space is probably just so much garbage, then the higher you get, the thinner the air, and when you are in "space" everything should fall toward Earth if above it.

But no, I didn't mean that birds and such can't fly in air. The higher the elevation, the thinner the air. Birds can fly in the troposphere but not the upper atmosphere.




The lower the atmospheric layer, the higher the pressure, and the more things float ("fly"). The higher up you are, the thinner the air, and the lower its pressure (birds can't fly any higher). There are layers of pressure within the troposphere, which is why your ears pop on high mountains, you have moved to an area of depressurization. Likewise, if you try to scuba dive in the ocean, the pressure rises, until you reach a point where you are either crushed to death or can't swim any deeper (or both).

But why down?  Why that direction?  Why not up towards less pressure?  Why does the pressure increase with decreased altitude?  What force is acting on the air and water to make it stack that way?
What is down?  Pretend you could leave the Earth and hang out beside it, what is down then?  Why is that down?

 and twisted my words somehow

Which has what to do with?

Sorry, but you just disproved your own theory. Gravity, as you explain it, is a constant force that pushes objects to the ground. So where are these newtons of yours not crushing Mr Pumpkin? No, I'm afraid that force you called "gravity" is indeed momentum, which only acted on the hammer because it was already in motion. The hammer that is not crushing said pumpkin, until you actually dropped it.

And if you need a force for the hammer on the chain, it's momentum also.

Is buoyancy momentum in your delusion?

Or you changing your BS? 


If there is no force of gravity.  What force makes things accelerate down. How can a lack of a force make something accelerate from less resistance into more resistance and density and pressure of the lower atmosphere. 

Because all things originated on the surface, not within air, so things mist first be PUT UP into air, from there place of origin, the ground.

That makes YOU, the factor which changes their medium, of the surface, into the air, which has much LESS mass and density than the objects ypu put up into air, from where they always ARE, on the surface.


It is YOU who threw them UP, above the surface, into the air.

So obviously, when they all originate on the surface, and have more mass and density than air, and you PUT them UP into air, they will fall THROUGH the air, to the ground again, which has more mass and density than all objects do, so they stop moving when they hit the surface.

Asking why things always go DOWN, not up, or another direction, wrongly assumes that all things originate in the air, as a starting point of your argument. That's wrong, of course, because all things originate on the surface, NOT in air. That was how God created it as.

Like if you could design a planet, which we could live on. You set all the rules, how to build it all, from start to finish.

Why would you ever create a planet we could live on, as a BALL? No, you'd create a planet which has a FLAT surface, for us to move on. We build houses and buildings with flat surfaces, so why wouldn't your planet have a flat surface, to build our houses upon, right?

Simple, and perfect in design, just as the Earth is.

Because all things originated on the surface

We have been over this countless times. The origin is clearly entirely irrelevant.

Moving something to the right does not make it fall to the left.
Condensing air makes it fall even though it "originated" in the air.
Boiling water makes it rise, even though it "originated" on the surface.
Throwing something down a hole still has it fall down, even though it "originated" on the surface.
Breaking off a rock from the underside of an outcropping has it fall down away from the surface where it originated.

So the origin is clearly entirely irrelevant.

So obviously, when they all originate on the surface, and have more mass and density than air, and you PUT them UP into air, they will fall THROUGH the air, to the ground

No, that isn't obvious at all.
That is just you being desperate because you have no answer.
If it was so obvious, it would be just as obvious that pushing something away from a cliff face should have it fall back to the cliff face rather than down.
So your claims are obvious BS.

The origin doesn't matter.

Likewise, rolling it off the top of a cliff should just have it fall back to the cliff, instead it falls down.

So it clearly has nothing to do with someone putting them up, or them trying to go back to the origin.

As for density, why the switch? Again, make up your mind. Is it delusional BS regarding matter originating from a location and magically trying to go back, or is it delusional BS where dense things go down for some unknown reason (but definitely not gravity)?

which has more mass and density than all objects do, so they stop moving when they hit the surface.

And more delusional BS.
The ground does not have more density than all objects.
Plenty of objects are more dense than the ground.
And we can have low density objects which are supporting much higher density objects.

Things stop moving when they hit the surface because the surface is solid and they don't have enough momentum or force to break through the solid surface.

Asking why things always go DOWN, not up, or another direction, wrongly assumes that all things originate in the air

No, it doesn't.
Especially considering I can pick something up and throw it upwards at an angle.
IT doesn't magically reverse and come back to my hand. Instead it follows a parabola as if there was a downwards force acting on it.

So asking why down is a very important question.

That was how God created it as.

There is no need to bring your imaginary fiend into this.
Especially as your claim requires ignoring all the evidence that you are wrong in the form of things like meteors which have been observed.

Why would you ever create a planet we could live on, as a BALL? No, you'd create a planet which has a FLAT surface, for us to move on. We build houses and buildings with flat surfaces, so why wouldn't your planet have a flat surface, to build our houses upon, right?

So what your saying is your god is an incompetent designer that should be fired?

If you were creating life (and gave a damn about them) and were making all the rules, with complete power to do anything, why would you give people cancer or plenty of other diseases?

Because your argument is effectively the same as arguing that all illnesses do not exist because a loving god wouldn't have made them.
It is delusional rejection of reality to get something you think is nicer.

But considering you want to go down this path, do you know what else I would do?
I would make it so everyone lived in the same timezone, so everyone saw the same things in the sky.
I wouldn't fill so much of it with water which people can't easily live on.
I wouldn't make the sun give you cancer.
I would make it so you didn't need to eat to live.
I would make it so you didn't poop.
There are many things any even mildly competent all powerful creator would do if it gave a damn about humanity.

All you are really arguing is that your god is incompetent or doesn't love us.

Why would you ever create a planet we could live on, as a BALL? No, you'd create a planet which has a FLAT surface, for us to move on. We build houses and buildings with flat surfaces, so why wouldn't your planet have a flat surface, to build our houses upon, right?

Simple, and perfect in design, just as the Earth is.

While I don't fully understand what Turbonium's theory of "gravity" is, I think we agree on this point.



Here's a pizza. I created it myself yesterday. Well, the store created the dough, but then I rolled it in olive oil and added spices to the dough. The pizza had tomato sauce, shredded feta cheese, figs, olives, and kippers (what? I'm a fan of fish on pizza).  Okie, so here's a ball of dough.



Now, I want everyone here to load cheese, pizza sauce, and toppings along the sides and bottom of the pizza.

If you are lucky, the pizza expands outward as it cooks, and covers your sins. If not, all toppings, cheese and sauce simply slide off the pizza. The closest thing to what you suggest involves multiple fused balls, not one single ball with naught but empty space around it.


You need to understand that this is really stupid easy logic, and you guys are being obtuse. Probably deliberately.

Okie, so here's a ball of dough.

Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.

Instead, it is a ball in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of other more massive bodies.

Your strawman has been repeatedly refuted.
Every time you bring it up it just further demonstrates your dishonesty.

You need to understand that this is really stupid easy logic, and you guys are being obtuse. Probably deliberately.

And there you go projecting again.

Why do we know the bottom of your dough of ball is the bottom?
Because it is the side closest to the centre of Earth.
There is nothing intrinsic about the ball of dough that makes it the bottom.
If you flip it upside down, then what used to be the top will now be the bottom.
You need external, like Earth, to give it that "down".

What is there outside Earth to give this directionality?
What point on Earth should be the bottom and why?

Can you even attempt to make a coherent argument, or just continually appeal to this dishonest BS to attempt to ridicule?

Are you actually this obtuse, or are you just lying to prop up your delusional BS?

Repeatedly mocked? Or repeatedly refuted? Because what you did just now didn't refute anything.

Alright, we have a pizza in an oven, and because science, the entire oven keeps flipping over (mimicking but not perfectly duplicating freefall). The dough ball will keep falling and keep rotating. With you maintain sauce on pizza during cook time?

No I daresay you will have a mess. Pizza sauce will have spattered on floor, ceiling, and walls, and the dough will not have kept its round shape. In fact, being tossed so much, it may even flatten out as it falls. But nothing, not solids nor liquids, will remain on the pizza. The same is true no matter the design of this falling oven.

Vomit comiet plane? Rocking parabolic motion separates sauce from dough. After a few seconds of floating, splat! Mess. In outer space? Assuming the space craft isn't just a mockup (I don't), the dough again separates from sauce. There is nothing holding there. Let's last try actual freefall. Again, pizza sauce and dough separate. In order to hold the sauce, the pizza dough would need its own gravity. Not even the most mass objects on Earth have demonstrated any ability to pull other objects .

https://ncse.ngo/gravity-its-only-theory

The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this seems true for Northwest Airlines, it appears that JetBlue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.

Methinks someone took a jab at Northwest Airlines.

You haven't refuted anything.

EVERY EXPERIMENT YOU DO ON EARTH IS


OOOOONNNN



THE



EARTH





so will pizza sauce be attracted to the doughball?
yes
will pizza sauce AND the doughball be attracted to the earth?
yes

so guess where both land?


ON


THE


EARTH!!!





sorry
you have not refuted anything

Repeatedly mocked? Or repeatedly refuted? Because what you did just now didn't refute anything.

Alright, we have a pizza in an oven, and because science, the entire oven keeps flipping over (mimicking but not perfectly duplicating freefall). The dough ball will keep falling and keep rotating. With you maintain sauce on pizza during cook time?

No I daresay you will have a mess. Pizza sauce will have spattered on floor, ceiling, and walls, and the dough will not have kept its round shape. In fact, being tossed so much, it may even flatten out as it falls. But nothing, not solids nor liquids, will remain on the pizza. The same is true no matter the design of this falling oven.

Vomit comiet plane? Rocking parabolic motion separates sauce from dough. After a few seconds of floating, splat! Mess. In outer space? Assuming the space craft isn't just a mockup (I don't), the dough again separates from sauce. There is nothing holding there. Let's last try actual freefall. Again, pizza sauce and dough separate. In order to hold the sauce, the pizza dough would need its own gravity. Not even the most mass objects on Earth have demonstrated any ability to pull other objects .

https://ncse.ngo/gravity-its-only-theory

Quote

The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. While this seems true for Northwest Airlines, it appears that JetBlue and Southwest have a superior theory that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.

Methinks someone took a jab at Northwest Airlines.

You haven't refuted anything.

For a flat earther, you sure do love taking the piss out of flat earth, don't you?

You trying to prove flat earth by making a pizza, has got to go down in history as the greatest flat earth movement achievement, thus far! Pure mockery! Love it! 

But, just when I thought you were cruel enough, you post up a satirical article on gravity only being a theory, pretending to justify why you and your friends on pizza planet are justified dreaming up alternative theories to gravity. Pure genius!

Geez, you kept it quiet, the way you've returned to sanity and turned your back on flat earth garbage. I'm curious what snapped you out of it?

What are you going to do for your encore to shit all over your former flat earth friends? Poor ol Turbonium and Sceptimatic, will be wiping your turd out of their hair, for months, because of this!

You Judas! 

Repeatedly mocked? Or repeatedly refuted?

Repeatedly refuted.

I pointed out how your pathetic model is NOT representative of the RE.

This is especially true with you repeatedly contradicting yourself.
Claiming that in this pathetic strawman of yours, the RE model would mean water stick to the ball; while also claiming that in reality because of how big the sun is, it should pull everything off Earth.

We observe exactly what is expected for a RE with gravity with your strawman.
Instead of clinging to the tiny mass of the dough ball, the much stronger attraction to Earth pulls the majority of it off from the bottom, with only a small amount staying stuck on due to things like surface tension.

Alright, we have a pizza in an oven, and because science, the entire oven keeps flipping over (mimicking but not perfectly duplicating freefall).

Not replicating at all.
In fact, in many ways this would be worse than just sitting it in the oven.
In this case you allow the ball to accelerate before hitting a surface.
You are basically having it repeatedly smacked into 2 parallel surfaces.
How is that in any way like free fall?

The same is true no matter the design of this falling oven.

Try it with an actual falling oven, which is simply falling rather than repeatedly being dropped and rotated.

Vomit comiet plane? Rocking parabolic motion separates sauce from dough.

It isn't the parabolic motion, it is the pull up  to end the period of free fall.
But during that period of free fall, it will stick (not due to gravity but due to surface tension).

Assuming the space craft isn't just a mockup (I don't), the dough again separates from sauce.

Why?
Because you say so?
Even without gravity it will stay there due to surface tension.

Let's last try actual freefall. Again, pizza sauce and dough separate.

So you are just inventing the observations you want, with no concern for reality?

Not even the most mass objects on Earth have demonstrated any ability to pull other objects

Except with things like the Cavendish experiment.

Your irrational hatred of gravity doesn't make it false.

Your link to a BS website wont help you either, and instead just resorts to ridicule.
Gravity doesn't violate common sense in any way.
Do you know what does?
A magical universal down.
The air magically sustaining a pressure gradient, and pushing objects (or somehow causing objects more dense) to magically go down into a higher pressure region.

We have no issue at all explaining why airplanes don't fall.
The wings, wings which produce lift to counter gravity.
Wings aided by engines to produce thrust to get air moving over the wings to produce lift.
Take off the wings and they fall.
Take of the engines and they are restricted to gliding.

There is no "default position".
But if you had to assign a default position, then cut the power and take off their wings, and where do they end up?

You haven't refuted anything.

I have, repatedly.
You not liking that will not change that fact.

Again, Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
That makes your experiment pure BS.
In order to do the experiment properly, you need to do it in free fall, well outside the Roche limit of any larger body.
Otherwise, the more significant effect of gravity of the larger body will pull the sauce towards it.

Pointing out this fact, that your "experiment" does not represent Earth and would not be expected to result in the same outcome as a RE, refutes your "argument".

Your BS is also refuted by the simple question of what point on Earth is the bottom?
In order to have a bottom you need either a magical universal down, and be able to explain what part of Earth is the lowest compared to this magically universal down and why; or some other object, much larger than Earth, that Earth is sitting on.

And notice how you entirely ignored that question?

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 17, 2023, 02:03:33 AM

Why would you ever create a planet we could live on, as a BALL? No, you'd create a planet which has a FLAT surface, for us to move on. We build houses and buildings with flat surfaces, so why wouldn't your planet have a flat surface, to build our houses upon, right?

Simple, and perfect in design, just as the Earth is.

While I don't fully understand what Turbonium's theory of "gravity" is, I think we agree on this point.



Here's a pizza. I created it myself yesterday. Well, the store created the dough, but then I rolled it in olive oil and added spices to the dough. The pizza had tomato sauce, shredded feta cheese, figs, olives, and kippers (what? I'm a fan of fish on pizza).  Okie, so here's a ball of dough.



Now, I want everyone here to load cheese, pizza sauce, and toppings along the sides and bottom of the pizza.

If you are lucky, the pizza expands outward as it cooks, and covers your sins. If not, all toppings, cheese and sauce simply slide off the pizza. The closest thing to what you suggest involves multiple fused balls, not one single ball with naught but empty space around it.


You need to understand that this is really stupid easy logic, and you guys are being obtuse. Probably deliberately.

That's not a pizza.

Calling it such is like calling a diesel truck an EV because it has an alternator and uses electricity.

It's interesting to me that much time has been devoted to developing strange, alternative models that replicate the effects of gravity (and consistently fail to do so) when gravity as a model is already robust and well-explained, with a great deal of evidence supporting it.