How can you dismiss all the space footage?

When the sun moves at a distance where it would be approaching 180 degrees (if not before),

What are you babbling about.  On a flat earth you literally should always have a line of sight to the sun.  You can always look straight at where the sun should be on a flat earth.

Why does the sun’s radiation and light become physically blocked by the earth’s curvature where the sun’s X-rays at night become undetectable.  And a telescope that can bring stars too faint to see with the unaided eye into view can’t bring the big old sun back into view.

And you have no explanation for solar and lunar eclipses


And you have no explanation why the sun doesn’t visibly turns as needed to circle above a flat earth.


And you have no explanation why highly accurate ring laser gyroscopes drift as if the earth rotates about its axis every 24 hours. 

Quote

The sun never goes beyond 180 degrees, your diagram below shows that.

Exactly. Now you're getting it.

I have been getting before. It shows your model is BS.
Your diagram shows the sun not going beyond 180 degrees, so it can't "angle out".
It will stay above the horizon and be visible.

Your own diagram refuted your BS.

vanishing point

The vanishing point is infinitely far away. Objects never reach it.

If you stopped listening to "esteemed professors" and bothered looking at planes, bridges, skylines, etc. yourself, you would be able to tell me that yourself.

That we observe objects appear to shrink as they get further away, showing the sun is not setting due to getting further away?

Instead, you are convinced that what you see is a curve

I am convinced by quite simple observations that there is a curve.

For a flat surface, I can see everything above it. The surface cannot magically block the view.
The angular size of an object is a function of distance.
It doesn't matter if it passes overhead, or is directly front, or the side, as it gets further away its angular size gets smaller.
And it never magically sinks into the surface it is above.

Conversely, for a round surface, like a ball or a large hill, as objects go over the curve, they disappear from the bottom up.
Likewise, for a curved corridor, I see people disappear from the side as they go around the corner.

What we see on Earth matches that of a round surface, not a flat surface.

It's painful to watch.

Perhaps it wouldn't be so painful if you weren't continually spouting pure BS and getting it refuted.

I'm writing this over and over again to emphasize the point

That you are dishonest, continually lying to people and have no interest in the truth?
That you will continue to spout whatever BS you can think of to pretend your fantasy is true with no concern for the truth?

you're nuts. Flat Earth is what you are standing on.

Then why are you unable to show a single fault with the RE and instead need to continually lie about it?
Why are you unable to defend the FE from the multitudes of faults with it.

Neither the most basic physics nor geometry supports the idea of any of this.

The idea of a FE, sure.
No physics nor geometry supports your delusional BS. You need to continually lie to pretend it does.

No. You bother learning basic logic, then maybe we'll talk.

Follow your own advice.

Quote

The sun never goes beyond 180 degrees, your diagram below shows that.

Exactly. Now you're getting it.

When the sun moves at a distance where it would be approaching 180 degrees (if not before), your vision reaches what is known as the vanishing point. The object either shrinks or sinks.

If you stopped listening to "esteemed professors" and bothered looking at planes, bridges, skylines, etc. yourself, you would be able to tell me that yourself. Instead, you are convinced that what you see is a curve, and when people like me tell you over and over again, that no, in fact it is not, you sit there blankly not understanding. It's painful to watch.

Quote

Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work.
Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work.

Yet again, you are just baselesssly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work. Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE can't work. Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend the RE cantwork. Yet again, you are just baselessly asserting pure BS to pretend that REEEE can't work.

I'm writing this over and over again to emphasize the point that like this guy,

you're nuts. Flat Earth is what you are standing on. It is what holds water. Not only can it work, the alternative doesn't work.
Neither the most basic physics nor geometry supports the idea of any of this.
"But what about..." No. You bother learning basic logic, then maybe we'll talk.

Unpacking more bull from your briefs today I see, bulinmabriefs144? Does the 144 denote your waist size in inches? It certainly doesn't denote your IQ!

Globe Earth holds water because of gravity. Flat Earth holds water because of what? Just because. Or did duh bible tell you so?

We have circumnavigated the Earth because it is a globe. You can't circumnavigate a plate where you can't even find an edge to, or the precise size of the plate.

Why can you not see we each live in two worlds? Our own little day to day world (which you can't see beyond) and the much larger entire world?

144 is 12². It's also a gross number.

Globe Earth holds water because of gravity

Seriously, give me all your money.

You have people who claim to have circumnavigated the globe.


Not circumnavigation.



What about this?

Or this?


Skirting the edge is not proof. This is what skimming actually looks like on a flat Earth map.


Your maps are inside out.

Seriously,

What?

Me bulmabriefs144 post pics.  Me bulmabriefs144 r derail thread.


🤣🤣🤣🤣

How is buoyancy a fundamental force.

What drives or fuels buoyancy.

How do you accelerate an object down towards earth without unbalanced forces. 

[flees]

So you have entirely failed to defend your blatant lies, and now you resort to fleeing form them like the pathetic lying coward you are, and instead bringing up other pathetic lies to get refuted?

Shall I take that as an admission that you fully accept that you have been blatantly lying to everyone about the issue of a sidereal day, and the feeling of motion; that you know you wouldn't feel Earth's rotation or orbit, and that the model makes sense and matches reality and you cannot find fault with is; and that you have been lying to everyone when you pretend the FE model works, when something as simple as an observation of night destroys your fantasy?

Amazing!!!


Does bulbma not know where the center of a circle is?

Why do things keep falling OFF the circles he draws (vs faling TOWARDS the center of the circle)?


Eh?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 21, 2024, 08:32:02 PM

Seriously,

What?

Me bulmabriefs144 post pics.  Me bulmabriefs144 r derail thread.



How is buoyancy a fundamental force.

What drives or fuels buoyancy.

How do you accelerate an object down towards earth without unbalanced forces.

You keep fixating on forces.

What force drives or fuels buoyancy? When you look up the word buoyancy, the first seven words are...

Buoyancy, or upthrust, is an upward force

Forces do not need other forces to work. They are the end of the line. The only difference between myself and Wikipedia, is that I would define buoyancy as

Buoyancy is a balancing force between upthrust and downthrust as determined by the difference between an object's density and the liquid, solid, or gas medium that surrounds them. For example, ice is a solid medium that will cave in if something more dense is placed upon it. On the other hand, if an object is less dense than water, it will float above it. (I'd then talk about the use of propulsion to sometimes overcome initial density, as in swimming and flight)

And yes, we as humans are allowed to write definitions. You probably have a definition of love that is quite different from mine. I suspect it includes the words "similar politics."

What force fuels buoyancy indeed. Btw. Buoyancy is a proven force since ancient times. It has been trusted to guide balloons across the sky and ships across the seas. Gravity is theoretical force by a natural philosopher that got his brains jarred loose by an apple falling on them. We managed without it for centuries and centuries, and it basically is only there to hold RE together. If taken on its own merits, it basically paves over existing real forces as a sort of catch-all. Angular momentum? Gravity. Greater density vs buoyancy? Gravity? Things spinning around? Gravity. My teeth fall out? Why, it's clearly not because I didn't brush my teeth. It's gravity. Even entropy is called "gravity" by this hack. He also defines fundamental laws like "Objects in motion stay in motion" (sorry, momentum is not infinite) or that "equal and opposite force" thing. What these are, are not laws. They are memes. Catchy phrases intended to be repeated over and over. Nobody ever really examines whether the force that is opposite actually is always equal, and I can most certainly push a glass jar off a counter without opposite force (really only applies for things like firing a bow).

[flees]

I don't "flee." I have ADD (or ADHD, though I think they added the H to many diagnoses where it wasn't warranted). This means I experience extreme boredom debating the same points over and over again. Unfortunately, you people are dull, and I often wind up talking about the same stupid things again and again.

But I seem to have two ppl after me both actually fleeing a topic I brought up. You know, that one where I cut a globe in half and rained on it? Hmmm, you accuse me of derailing rather than adapt to the current question, and answer it.

I also seemed to have answered the question about circumnavigation. But sure, you can say that I flee if that's what it takes to keep your denial going.

they shrink.
but they don't sink.

Planes in the sky do both. I was in Florida by the beach, and instead of listening to my parents, I was watching plane come in, go past me, and disappear.

From starting position:
---•••√````\•••-

That crude ASCII drawing is basically that the plane when it first appears is practically a dot, then you see the plane as distinct object, then it appears the rise above you in the sky (before that it was eye level due to angle, and because it was flying pretty low), then it falls again to eye level, and you watch it sinking slightly but shrinking alot more. As I watched it, my eyes did something funny, I blinked, and it was gone. I never saw it sink to the ground like the sun does.

But you guys yourself have admitted that buildings and seem to what was it? "Disappearing bottom first"? But oh, that's not sinking there. Nothing ever sinks...

That's rather interesting. So what do you call that?

So what exactly did I run away from?

You want to accuse me of cowardice, but it seems that I'm fielding 3 vs 1 questions. Forgive me, but I might occasionally ignore you.

Lastly, since you accuse me of ignoring the topic, yes I can quite easily dispute space footage. Because you see, like this globe that reacts wrong to rain (answer the question!) the sky has buoyant layers. These layers are verified by both RE and FE models, but they can get away with their space hoax because we believe Hollywood movies about weightlessness in space. But that's not the truth of what happens in a vacuum.

 Less air up there means they cannot get past certain layers of atmosphere. So they instead do a Barnum show, point a spaceship up at an angle, and use about a year's worth of fuel. Thanks NASA for doing your part for worldwide poverty. Oh sorry, no, I didn't mean fighting worldwide poverty, you're causing it.

L

You keep fixating on forces.

How does an object accelerate down if there are no unbalanced forces acting on it.

So what exactly did I run away from?

How do you accelerate an object of mass without unbalanced forces.


You thrown a ball straight up.  It slows down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance. 

It stops in mid air.

What unbalanced force causes the ball to change travel of direction 180 degrees to fall back to earth.

What unbalanced force causes the ball to accelerate down to earth.


Why do objects weigh more, or increase in there downward force as atmosphere is removed from a chamber to a fraction of atmospheric pressure.  (We can make a buoyant force negligible by creating an environment without any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere.)


If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball.  Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop mid air, change travel of direction 180 degrees to accelerate back to earth.  All requiring force we all gravity. 

So what exactly did I run away from?

You haven’t explained anything.  You literally make incoherent crap up.


In reality where a telescope can bring stars into view that are to faint  to see with the unaided eye, how can I not bring the big old sun back into view after sunset.  Because it’s physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.

The sun would literal have to visibly turn north after passing California to makes its circular circuit for the flat earth.  A circuit where the sun would have to continuously turn to make its orbit.

You have no explanation for a lunar and solar eclipses.

Flat earth is D E A D.

What force fuels buoyancy indeed.

The same force that causes air molecules to bunch up at the earth’s surface to overcome the molecules tenancy to spread away from each other.

If the earth truly had no gravity in an airtight dome, then the atmosphere would be near equal density at all altitudes.  But something is overcoming the tendency of gas molecules to equal distance themselves and bunch up at Earth’s surface. 

You keep fixating on forces.

Because you want to appeal to magic instead.

Forces do not need other forces to work.

Fundamental forces, like gravity, don't need other forces to work.
But non-fundamental forces do.
For example, the buoyant force relies upon gravity, with other manifestations present.
The force due to air resistance is from relative motion, inertia and the electrostatic force.
An electromagnetic is due to electricity, and the fundamental force of electromagnetism.

Buoyancy is a proven force since ancient times.

As is weight, i.e. gravity.

Gravity is theoretical force

No, as above, gravity is a proven force since ancient times.
Newton didn't magically invent gravity, he provided a partial explanation for it.

If taken on its own merits, it basically paves over existing real forces as a sort of catch-all

No, if taken as your pathetic strawman where you lie about it and reality.

sorry, momentum is not infinite

You don't need infinite momentum to continue moving forever.

What these are, are not laws.

Your irrational hatred of reality doesn't magically negate it.

I can most certainly push a glass jar off a counter without opposite force (really only applies for things like firing a bow).

No you can't.
The jar pushes back against you.
If you think they aren't a thing, go push your hand through a solid wall. If you find it hard, keep applying more and more force to your hand.

I don't "flee."

Yes you do. You do it repeatedly and continually.
You spout the same dishonest, pathetic, refuted BS, get it refuted yet again, and then flee.
If you don't want to be accused of fleeing, then stick to the point and defend your lies or admit they are lies.

But I seem to have two ppl after me both actually fleeing a topic I brought up.

No, they are pointing out that you are fleeing like the lying coward you are, and wanting you to stick to the topic.

You know, that one where

where you yet again lied about gravity and set up a strawman to attack?

you accuse me of derailing

I accuse you of fleeing, because that is what you are doing.
You have been refuted, you ran out of excuses to spout, so you flee.
Like you always do.

I also seemed to have answered the question about circumnavigation.

Which is smokey just deflecting from the topic.

Planes in the sky do both.

And perspective is not what makes them appear to sink into the ground.

Perspective would make them get closer to 0 degrees, but not sink.

But you guys yourself have admitted that buildings and seem to what was it? "Disappearing bottom first"? But oh, that's not sinking there. Nothing ever sinks...

i.e. perspective doesn't explain it.
The curvature of Earth does.
The curvature of Earth explains why objects appear to sink into Earth.
Perspective cannot.

So what exactly did I run away from?

Your repeated refuted lies about the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day.
Your lies about how that should magically cause problems for the RE, HC model even though you can't explain any.
How things disappear from the bottom up.
The fact, that even your pathetic diagram shows the sun wouldn't set in your flat fantasy and instead clearly above Earth.

Don't complain about having too many questions when you bring up far too much crap fleeing topics.

But that's not the truth of what happens in a vacuum.

Again, this is your pathetic strawman.
It isn't based upon reality at all.
So no, that does nothing to negate footage from space.

Again, it isn't the vacuum that makes them weightless.
It is that they are in free-fall.

Likewise, you lie about how things move.
They don't need buoyancy to get up.
They are not a balloon, they are a rocket.
We can easily see the difference.
For a balloon, you inflate it with helium, and it floats up, no extra fuel needed.
For a hot air balloon, they use some fuel, to heat the air, to make it less dense.
But for a rocket, they expel large volumes of hot gas to push themselves.
Only lying scum would pretend they need buoyancy.

You have also had orbits explained to you.

But like the typical lying coward, you flee from those explanations, just to bring up the same pathetic, refuted BS again and again.
And this includes you bringing up the same lies again and again.
No one other than liars like you are pretending vacuum means weightlessness.
No one other than liars like you are pretending things like planes and rockets work on buoyancy.

Edit: because gravity is soooo important it didn't come until "Sir" Isaac Newton. Nobody else was important enough to discover it. Right.

Or maybe, buoyancy replaces gravity as the fundamental force, as it was used for literally everything.

Quote

Which has zero to do with this..

On the contrary. Globalism (headed by UN) routinely props up dictatorships and undermines legitimate Christian republics.
Why? Because their ideas are backward and contrary. Retrograde.

As long and you think the Earth moving backwards (or spinning backwards) is a legitimate solution to the still unaddressed problem of how an object at summer and winter can have a completely different 6am, then you will continue believe other asinine and retrograde ideas. Like "Hey, let's bulldoze a protected forest so that solar plant merchants can sell what amounts to a factory on protected land! Surely this is not some developers trying to hoodwink their way into ownership by gaining control of land in the name of environmentalism!"   

And I don't care was Earth is doing in comparison to Jupiter. This is about Earth, this is about whether it is doing the right things.

Standing firmly on the ground, keeping a level head and an upright mindset (these are all flat Earth analogies, if you haven't noticed), this is how one functions sanely in society. Spinning around aimlessly in the universe, and even heading backwards on occasion, that's how you get swept up in fads.

Quote

“Anyone who listens to my teaching and follows it is wise, like a person who builds a house on solid rock. 25 Though the rain comes in torrents and the floodwaters rise and the winds beat against that house, it won’t collapse because it is built on bedrock. 26 But anyone who hears my teaching and doesn’t obey it is foolish, like a person who builds a house on sand. 27 When the rains and floods come and the winds beat against that house, it will collapse with a mighty crash.”

best troll ever

144 is 12². It's also a gross number.

Quote

Globe Earth holds water because of gravity

Seriously, give me all your money.

You have people who claim to have circumnavigated the globe.


Not circumnavigation.



What about this?

Or this?


Skirting the edge is not proof. This is what skimming actually looks like on a flat Earth map.


Your maps are inside out.

do you have a fetish for made up scenarios which will break down moment they come to be? That globe will collapse to smaller planet

Edit: because gravity is soooo important it didn't come until "Sir" Isaac Newton. Nobody else was important enough to discover it. Right.

Or maybe, buoyancy replaces gravity as the fundamental force, as it was used for literally everything.

Asked you a series of questions you ran away from…

How do you accelerate an object of mass without unbalanced forces.


You thrown a ball straight up.  It slows down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.

It stops in mid air.

What unbalanced force causes the ball to change travel of direction 180 degrees to fall back to earth.

What unbalanced force causes the ball to accelerate down to earth.


Why do objects weigh more, or increase in their downward force as atmosphere is removed from a chamber to a fraction of atmospheric pressure.  (We can make a buoyant force negligible by creating an environment without any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere.)


If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball.  Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop mid air, change travel of direction 180 degrees to accelerate back to earth.  All requiring force we all gravity.

Yes, yes, I'm running away.



You're the gutless coward that does a 2-on-1 gangup.

And I'm supposed to somehow field all the questions you and JackBlack (and maybe Code-Beta) ask.

Bullies are cowards. Every school child knows that if someone had any guts, they'd fight people alone.
What they call "pick on someone your own size." 

But while we're all the topic of fleeing, I do believe Code-Beta is the only one who even bothered to respond and his answer made no sense. Something about a sphere collapsing into tinier spheres.

Man up, and answer the question. You say gravity holds water in place, but I can plop down a hemisphere where it is sure to rain and a basin right next to it, and only the basin will hold water. You never will admit this, so you instead get your buddies to all talk at once, and then accuse me of fleeing when I honestly don't feel like answering two or three people today. You've been running away from this question since I asked it, but you're gonna tell me I'm fleeing.

I am not obligated to answer any of your questions while you still haven't addressed this.
And I'm pretty sure you haven't, because I haven't noticed it in any of your posts.

But if you're interested, the model is simple.

You see, buoyancy divides the water and the sky into layers. Less air molecules on top, more air molecules below that, some water molecules below that, dense water molecules on bottom. Gravity, on the other hand, is not a stable model. If we were to follow the train of thought to its logical conclusion, the entire atmosphere ought to be falling towards the ground. But that's not what happens!

You say gravity holds water in place, but I can plop down a hemisphere where it is sure to rain and a basin right next to it, and only the basin will hold water.

It runs down the mountain from higher potential energy until it flows to the oceans with relative zero potential energy.

It’s actually really simple to describe.

Are you down changing the subject…

Why do objects weigh more, or increase in their downward force as atmosphere is removed from a chamber to a fraction of atmospheric pressure.  (We can make a buoyant force negligible by creating an environment without any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere.)


If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball.  Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop mid air, change travel of direction 180 degrees to accelerate back to earth.  All requiring force we call gravity.

You see, buoyancy divides the water and the sky into layers.

How do I buoyancy a normal car up a hill with no balloon?

Actually.  Heat cause water to evaporate and rise as vapor.  If enough water is condensed in a certain area, it forms clouds.  If the clouds get cold enough, the water further condenses to the point it rains. 

How do I buoyancy a normal car up a hill with no balloon?

You don't. Any more than you use "gravity" to get a car up a hill.
You use energy to get up the hill, you don't wait around for the Earth to spin in such a way that it gets you up the hill, do you?

Amazing. This was all about trying to pin me intellectually, give me a question to stump me (or something), and you never bothered to think about the fact that it can't work your way either.

In both cases, the car has more mass than its surroundings, so it rolls down the incline. The only difference is under your method, you need a gravitational force to decide this, whereas my method is perfectly capable of saying "Ummmm, cars are more dense than air. The car rolls because the front of it has solid earth and behind it is air."


So no, you don't buoyancy a car with no hot air balloon, any more than you gravity the car up by waiting for it to spin the right way. This is because cars sink rather than float on air. These methods are pipe dreams.

However, you could procure enough balloons to do so. There's even a calculator for this.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/everyday-life/helium-balloons
The average weight of a compact car is about 3000 lb. You'd need 113,860 helium balloons, but it would technically be possible.

Enjoy waiting for gravity from Earth's rotation to help your car up the hill. I am going to bet even if you waited your whole life, you would have a far better chance of finding your soulmate than seeing that car move even one inch uphill without investing some sort of energy from the engine.

And again fleeing form sidereal vs solar day, and how you repeatedly lie about it.
Does that mean you fully admit to lying about it? That you know there is nothing wrong with the RE model regarding it?
That it clearly and easily refutes your BS claims about satellites needing to magically move around?
You admit you are a lying POS that cares more about pretending your fantasy is true than reality?

If not, try addressing it.
Clearly explain what the issue is rather than just spouting vague BS.

because gravity is soooo important it didn't come until "Sir" Isaac Newton. Nobody else was important enough to discover it. Right.

You could say that about anything.
I guess buoyancy was sooooo important, it didn't come until Archimedes. Nobody else was important enough to discover it.

Or maybe, buoyancy replaces gravity as the fundamental force, as it was used for literally everything.

No, it doesn't. Even Archimedes recognised that buoyancy was a result of weight (i.e. gravity).
Remove weight, remove buoyancy.

Buoyancy is quite well explained by a combination of gravity and the behaviour of fluids.
e.g. on Earth we know that everything has weight, including fluids.
We can calculate the pressure gradient expected for a fluid, based upon its weight.
We can then measure that pressure gradient to confirm.
We can then note what the effect of this pressure gradient is, to push everything up.
We can then consider the effect of an object in that fluid, and note that it pushes it up.
We can do the math and see this upwards force is equal in magnitude to the weight of the fluid displaced.

This means bouncy CANNOT be the fundamental force.
Buoyancy is a direct result of weight and pressure in fluids.

The best you can get is that weight being the fundamental force, with things magically going down for no reason at all.
Or you can accept that weight is a manifestation of gravity.

Yes, yes, I'm running away.

Yes, you are running away, like the lying coward you are.
You are so terrified that you need to ignore the posts to pretend you have an excuse and aren't running away.
But that doesn't negate the fact that you are running away.

And I'm supposed to somehow field all the questions you and JackBlack (and maybe Code-Beta) ask.

Again, if you don't want that, you should stick to the topic instead of continually running off to avoid answering simple questions.

Bullies are cowards. Every school child knows that if someone had any guts, they'd fight people alone.

This is not a fight.
This is you, coming in spouting pure BS, and being upset that people are saying you are wrong.

But while we're all the topic of fleeing, I do believe Code-Beta is the only one who even bothered to respond

And how would you know that if you are ignoring people?
Yet again demonstrating that you are just using that as an excuse.
I did respond. It is your pathetic strawman.

Man up, and answer the question. You say gravity holds water in place, but I can plop down a hemisphere where it is sure to rain and a basin right next to it, and only the basin will hold water.

Again, this is your strawman.
Again, RE is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
What we see in that strawman of yours is exactly what is expected in the RE model.
The water, feeling a much stronger gravitational attraction to Earth, moves towards it.

Your tiny balls are not enough to hold water next to the massive ball of Earth.

Go repeat your experiment in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive body.

You know that your experiment is invalid, and no better than holding a plate on its side to refute the FE.
But you will continue to repeat this pathetic lie of yours.

I am not obligated to answer any of your questions while you still haven't addressed this.

Quite the opposite.
Given you brought this up to flee from the topic at hand, it would actually be the other way around.
We wouldn't have to answer your crap while you haven't addressed the points we made before you brought it up to flee.

And I'm pretty sure you haven't, because I haven't noticed it in any of your posts.

Yet again demonstrating you are using ignoring as a shield.

You see, buoyancy divides the water and the sky into layers. Less air molecules on top, more air molecules below that, some water molecules below that, dense water molecules on bottom.

Why?
What is the driving force causing these molecules to bunch up?
Why does the pressure gradient created not push them away?

Gravity, on the other hand, is not a stable model.

Yet you cannot show a fault with it and instead need to repeatedly lie about it.

If we were to follow the train of thought to its logical conclusion, the entire atmosphere ought to be falling towards the ground.

Only if you want to ignore air pressure.
Air pressure is a thing.
The layer of air at the bottom is compressed by all the air above it, which acts to hold up the air above it.
So when you honestly follow it to its logical conclusion, gravity works and buoyancy entirely fails.

It is only by entirely ignoring this pressure gradient that you can pretend your fantasy works.

In both cases, the car has more mass than its surroundings, so it rolls down the incline.

If there is no gravity, why does the car going from a flat run to go up hill have to gear down, increase RPMs, and use more fuel. For a no gravity delusion, why does it take more fuel to go up hill than on a flat run. 

Amazing.

That you keep trying to change the argument?

Why do objects weigh more, or increase in their downward force as atmosphere is removed from a chamber to a fraction of atmospheric pressure.  (We can make a buoyant force negligible by creating an environment without any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere.)


If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball.  Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop mid air, change travel of direction 180 degrees to accelerate back to earth.  All requiring force we call gravity.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 23, 2024, 02:37:29 PM

Amazing.

That you keep trying to change the argument?

Why do objects weigh more, or increase in their downward force as atmosphere is removed from a chamber to a fraction of atmospheric pressure.  (We can make a buoyant force negligible by creating an environment without any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere.)


If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball.  Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop mid air, change travel of direction 180 degrees to accelerate back to earth.  All requiring force we call gravity.

To quote kabool...

more amazingness!

What is truly amazing is that you can't declutter your mind enough to visualize this without your "downward force."

Buoyancy is responsible for the whole shebang. The up and the down.

If we remove a ball to a chamber as you say (let's do a tennis ball and an experimental vacuum room).
Reddit says that contrary to popular belief, a ball won't bounce forever in a perfect vacuum, because it loses kinetic energy as heat for each bounce.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/fki8wc/would_a_ball_bounce_forever_in_perfect_vacuum/
I would go a step further and say that it probably wouldn't bounce at all, because it has no air to push back up against.

Buoyancy dictates that an object lighter than what surrounds it floats, and heavier than what surrounds it sinks. Without any air to propel it, it just hits the ground with a dull thud (but oh wait, it probably doesn't make a sound either, because sound pushes against air to carry to our ears).

If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball.

No. You are throwing this ball up, correct? So what's happening is that momentum (as kinetic energy) steadily decreases, until you just have an object in air (or a vacuum). Because buoyancy is a force of comparison, the ball's mass is heavier than the air (or vacuum), and it begins to stop midair (gathering potential energy), then heads toward the ground (potential energy becomes kinetic energy). Potential energy while in hand, and what at peak in air (it's actually at rest here). Kinetic energy while rising and falling. No gravity. Just mass and motion and momentum.

Buoyancy acts only when the ball rises or falls while at rest (sinking or floating), not when energy is applied (propulsion). Falling is sinking, throwing is propulsion.

If we remove a ball to a chamber as you say (let's do a tennis ball and an experimental vacuum room).
Reddit says that contrary to popular belief, a ball won't bounce forever in a perfect vacuum, because it loses kinetic energy as heat for each bounce.

Which I posted nothing about.

This was what was posted

Why do objects weigh more, or increase in their downward force as atmosphere is removed from a chamber to a fraction of atmospheric pressure.  (We can make a buoyant force negligible by creating an environment without any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere.)


If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball.  Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop mid air, change travel of direction 180 degrees to accelerate back to earth.  All requiring force we call gravity.

No. You are throwing this ball up, correct? So what's happening is that momentum (as kinetic energy) steadily decreases, until you just have an object in air (or a vacuum).

Why does a ball thrown straight up in atmosphere slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  There is more acting on the ball than air resistance. 

Because buoyancy is a force of comparison,

We know from weighing objects while removing fluid atmosphere from around those objects, that objects weigh more.  Buoyancy is a lifting force. Remove the atmosphere from around an object, the lifting force called buoyancy is removed and the object weighs more.  Atmosphere is not a force, what acts on the atmosphere to drive buoyancy. 

Now pressure, density, and air resistance increase the closer objects get to earth’s surface.

So.  Buoyancy is a lifting force.  A force that is caused by something acting on air molecules. And that lifting force increases as atmosphere becomes more dense.  And explains in no way why a ball thrown straight would slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  Buoyancy Doesn’t explain why the ball would stop, and turn 180 degrees, and accelerate down.  Down from less dense atmosphere into more dense atmosphere with increases resistance that would want to provide a more buoyant force of lifting.  And still doesn’t explain why the atmosphere bunch up at earth’s surface when air molecules want to distance themselves from each other unless acted on by a force.

What is truly amazing is that you can't declutter your mind enough to visualize this without your "downward force."

You mean we look at it honestly and recognise such a downwards force is needed to explain what happens in reality.

Buoyancy is responsible for the whole shebang. The up and the down.

Only if by "buoyancy" you mean gravity or some other downwards force and the consequences of it.

Again, we know that there is a pressure gradient in fluids.
We can directly measure this.
And we can understand that this pressure gradient pushes things up.
That means we understand the upwards force is NOT a fundamental force, instead it is a result of the pressure gradient which is a result of the downwards force.

I would go a step further and say that it probably wouldn't bounce at all, because it has no air to push back up against.

And you would be wrong.

Buoyancy dictates that an object lighter than what surrounds it floats, and heavier than what surrounds it sinks.

That is a combination of buoyancy and the downwards force known as gravity.

Without any air to propel it, it just hits the ground with a dull thud

And this just makes no sense at all.
If you need air to propel it, it would just hover, not moving at all, not falling down.
If it does move down, then there is something to propel it.
This then results in it hitting the ground and compressing and slowing it down.
This compression is then released to push it back up.

No. You are throwing this ball up, correct?

No. The ball is in a medium (the gas) that has a pressure gradient that results in an upwards force on everything in the medium.
This is not us throwing up the ball.
This is the pressure gradient of the fluid trying to push it up.
Why does your magic defy this?

No gravity.

Accept the downwards force accelerating the ball.
Otherwise, what is removing the momentum? What then makes it fall back down?

Again, we know that buoyancy is a result of a downwards force that produces a measurable pressure gradient which results in an upwards force.
We know the upwards force is a result of the downwards force.

You ignoring that wont change it.

Buoyancy is responsible for the whole shebang.

Air molecules want to spread out far as possible from each other. What forces causes them to bunch up at earth’s surface to make buoyancy as we know it possible. 

Why do objects weigh more, or increase in their downward force as atmosphere is removed from a chamber to a fraction of atmospheric pressure.  (We can make a buoyant force negligible by creating an environment without any meaningful amount of fluid atmosphere.)

If we know the buoyant force tries to lift the ball.  Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop mid air, change travel of direction 180 degrees to accelerate back to earth.  All requiring force we call gravity.

Which is what I answered. You just didn't like the answer.

1. Atmospheric pressure is what you assume gravity is, and that thinner air ought to mean you can jump six times as high. In other words, air presses down on us, and thinner air means less pressure. Even though this is at odds with real life vacuum tests of falling objects.
 Now where would you get this idea? By watching NASA videos. Guess what? They were making films before the 1969 moon landing (hoax).
https://www.redsharknews.com/a-brief-history-of-gravity-how-filmmakers-have-tried-to-replicate-zero-g
The commenters mention two things.

Don't forget the Czechoslovak movie Ikarie XB 1. It pictures weightlessness even before they could see from real space footage.

George Pal made heroic effects to defeat zero-G in the 1950s too. He also showed high-G sequences in films like Destination Moon (which also made an attempt at 1/6 Lunar gravity).

Hold up here. Before something is explored, we already have decided that its thin atmosphere ought to allow high jumping. They got the idea for their hoax from movies, not the other way around!

So ummm, Mount Everest has thin air too. Not 1/6 thin, but thin enough to require respiration for amateurs. Do we have any record of space jumps there? No, we do not. Reddit thinks you ought to be able to jump 0.3% higher, but vacuum tests show the opposite.

DoomAxe

9 yr. ago
Well there's also the fact that you'll experience less buoyant force based on the lower density of air. I went through and calculated the buoyant force at both sea level and on Mount Everest to be .784 N and .2745 N respectively for an average human of .0664 m3. Using average mass of 62 kg found from a quick google search, we get an average net force of 606.8 N at sea level and 605.5 N at altitude. This was using 9.8 m/s2 at sea level and 9.8 m/s2 * .997 on Everest. Making the difference even smaller at around .2%.

jammerjoint

9 yr. ago
I'd imagine that the lower oxygen content may make it more difficult to jump.

kc1man

9 yr. ago
This is great. How much of an impact would the thinner air and therefore reduced resistance have on your jump?

swagboner

9 yr. ago
What about the buoyancy? Air is much thinner at the top of mount everest, at sea level she would be relatively lighter because she is replacing more air by mass, I think in actuality it would be harder to jump at the top of mount everest. E.g you have to put forth less effort jumping underwater than you do on land

Some people at least have brains in their head.

But we have plenty of buoyancy tests in areas of higher pressure (water has higher pressure than air). I drop a ball in the water, no special chamber needed, and it floats by being higher pressure than the object's density.

2. Again. Unless you are talking about Vomit Comet as an example (which is a factor of momentum not gravity or air pressure), buoyant force is not what is causing these balls to rise. It's motion. Buoyancy is active when determining whether something is rising or falling while at rest. Just as you can toss a ball up in the air, and it slows then reverses direction, you can toss a ball downward in a pool and it slows and reverses direction (this time heading upward).

Yes, yes, I'm running away.



You're the gutless coward that does a 2-on-1 gangup.

And I'm supposed to somehow field all the questions you and JackBlack (and maybe Code-Beta) ask.

Bullies are cowards. Every school child knows that if someone had any guts, they'd fight people alone.
What they call "pick on someone your own size." 

But while we're all the topic of fleeing, I do believe Code-Beta is the only one who even bothered to respond and his answer made no sense. Something about a sphere collapsing into tinier spheres.

Man up, and answer the question. You say gravity holds water in place, but I can plop down a hemisphere where it is sure to rain and a basin right next to it, and only the basin will hold water. You never will admit this, so you instead get your buddies to all talk at once, and then accuse me of fleeing when I honestly don't feel like answering two or three people today. You've been running away from this question since I asked it, but you're gonna tell me I'm fleeing.

I am not obligated to answer any of your questions while you still haven't addressed this.
And I'm pretty sure you haven't, because I haven't noticed it in any of your posts.

But if you're interested, the model is simple.

You see, buoyancy divides the water and the sky into layers. Less air molecules on top, more air molecules below that, some water molecules below that, dense water molecules on bottom. Gravity, on the other hand, is not a stable model. If we were to follow the train of thought to its logical conclusion, the entire atmosphere ought to be falling towards the ground. But that's not what happens!

Hey Jerkovsky, the only time you will ever experience buoyancy is when you open a playboy centerfold.

As for gravity, your low hanging fruit knows all about gravity. Why didn't you just do your globe shattering experiment by unzipping your fly while standing over a bucket, and pouring in ice cold water to prove water will flow off a ball but be collected in a container? You could also prove that heat expands while cold contracts, while you're at it!