How can you dismiss all the space footage?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 23, 2024, 04:32:17 PM

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.

Diffusion. And they don't bunch up as you say. They separate into layers of atmosphere.



I ignore the exosphere.

Diffusion.

Which makes no sense.  Why can atmosphere exert 14.7 psia of pressure at sea level and provide enough oxygen to support life. And at 60,000 feet only be 1 psia and not support like. 

Why can atmosphere at sea level exert enough pressure to crush a steel drum with a vacuum in it.

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!

Crass. Very crass.

Why can atmosphere at sea level exert enough pressure to crush a steel drum with a vacuum in it.

Clever. Very clever. The vacuum does all the work.

Which makes no sense.  Why can atmosphere exert 14.7 psia of pressure at sea level and provide enough oxygen to support life. And at 60,000 feet only be 1 psia and not support life. 

Because requires oxygen to function, maybe?

If I were to launch a bunch of rockets filled with oxygen boosters into the upper atmosphere (not because I wanted to "explore space" but because I was an evil globalist hoping to suffocate the Earth), my evil plan wouldn't work. The oxygen would diffuse down to lower levels. Meanwhile, NASA is talking about helium shortages. Hmmmm, wonder why? Could it be because their real satellites (the balloons they use) are dispersing helium up into the upper atmosphere?

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.

they had various "theories" such as Ancient Greek nobility of elements. These were pretty useless as you were not able to produce any results from them. Buoyancy needs force other than itself to even exist . It is a result of 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 change topics quite a lot so it makes sense for people to ignore it.



reason why water flows into valley isnt because some metaphysical attraction towards half a globe, but rather because gravity pulls it down as much as it can. In valley it cant flow down because there is bottom of it holding it down. In "hill" ie second picture water is free to slide down and flow towards point of least potential ie red spot. It will try its hardest to reach it

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 24, 2024, 04:48:03 AM

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!

Crass. Very crass.

Quote

Why can atmosphere at sea level exert enough pressure to crush a steel drum with a vacuum in it.

Clever. Very clever. The vacuum does all the work.

Quote

Which makes no sense.  Why can atmosphere exert 14.7 psia of pressure at sea level and provide enough oxygen to support life. And at 60,000 feet only be 1 psia and not support life. 

Because requires oxygen to function, maybe?

If I were to launch a bunch of rockets filled with oxygen boosters into the upper atmosphere (not because I wanted to "explore space" but because I was an evil globalist hoping to suffocate the Earth), my evil plan wouldn't work. The oxygen would diffuse down to lower levels. Meanwhile, NASA is talking about helium shortages. Hmmmm, wonder why? Could it be because their real satellites (the balloons they use) are dispersing helium up into the upper atmosphere?

how can balloon stay stationary in sky for years? How can it make circle around earth in 90 minutes in case of ISS?

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.

well then it would be a lot harder to jump at mountain since you have less air to push aganst

https://www.google.com/search?q=vacuum+chamber+feather&source=lmns&tbm=vid&bih=1050&biw=2133&prmd=ivsnmbtz&rlz=1C1ASUM_enRS1025RS1025&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOxPXEh42FAxVi8wIHHUdmBB4Q0pQJKAJ6BAgBEAY#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:63d33110,vid:E43-CfukEgs,st:0

you see both ball and feathers bounce in vaccum

1. Atmospheric pressure is what you assume gravity is, and that thinner air ought to mean you can jump six times as high.

Yet again you present a pathetic strawman.
Atmospheric pressure is CAUSED by gravity, not what gravity is.
Thinner air would mean you are slowed down by the air less, but that is negligible.
Thinner air would also mean that there is less of a buoyant force pushing you up.
Less air would mean a balloon with a rigid skin would fall faster.

In other words, air presses down on us

No. Air presses from all directions.
This includes from below.
And due to the pressure gradient, it pushes more from below than above.

Now where would you get this idea?

By listening to dishonest people like you that need to lie about reality to try to discredit reality to try to pretend your fantasy is real.

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

Then why don't you provide a link to a video and include the timestamp of this?
Also, you don't need real space footage to understand weightlessness.
Again, it isn't weightless because it is in space, it is because it is in free fall.

Hold up here. Before something is explored, we already have decided that its thin atmosphere ought to allow high jumping.

No, through an understanding and basic math. Something you seem entirely ignorant of.
And again, the lack of atmosphere has nothing to do with it.

Mount Everest has thin air too.

Which doesn't mean you can jump higher.

but vacuum tests show the opposite.

How?
Or do you just mean they show your strawman is a blatant lie?

Some people at least have brains in their head.

You should try it some time.

But we have plenty of buoyancy tests in areas of higher pressure (water has higher pressure than air).

Buoyancy doesn't rely upon the absolute pressure. It relies upon the pressure gradient.
This pressure gradient is a function of density and gravity.

If you drop a ball in the water, it floats, because the upwards force from the pressure gradient of the water is greater than the downwards force due to gravity.

Unless you are talking about Vomit Comet as an example (which is a factor of momentum not gravity or air pressure)

The Vomit Comet is about free fall, where the craft itself is accelerating down to Earth at a rate equal to that of the people inside due to gravity.
In this, the buoyant force vanishes, because the pressure gradient vanishes.

Buoyancy is active when determining whether something is rising or falling while at rest.

This literally makes no sense.

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

Yes, due to the forces acting on it.
A combination of gravity and buoyancy.

Diffusion. And they don't bunch up as you say. They separate into layers of atmosphere.

Diffusion would mean they separate, not bunch up.
And saying they separate into layers doesn't help you.
The air at sea level is a much greater pressure than at high altitudes.
What magic is maintaining this pressure gradient?
It can't be buoyancy, because the air is the same density as the surroundings.
We can even increase the pressure gradient through other means and see that it doesn't magically get held.

Quote

Why can atmosphere at sea level exert enough pressure to crush a steel drum with a vacuum in it.

Clever. Very clever. The vacuum does all the work.

No, the vacuum does nothing.
The air pressure around it does.
If you place the steel drum in a vacuum chamber, and remove the air, the drum is fine.
It is only if you have a large pressure on the outside and far less on the inside does it get crushed, due to the air outside pushing in.

The oxygen would diffuse down to lower levels.

That isn't how diffusion works.
Diffusion goes in all directions, not magically down.
What I think you mean is that you can't maintain that large pressure there because there isn't enough air above pushing down due to gravity.

Again, we know buoyancy is NOT a fundamental force.
We know it is a result of the pressure gradient, which is the result of a downwards force.

All your lies can't change this.

Another fact which destroys your buoyancy fantasy is that you can measure the downwards force, by varying the density of the object and fluid and find that the net downwards force is:
F=g*V*(rho_obj - rho_flu)
i.e. we see that there appears to be 2 forces, one going down based upon the mass, and one going up.
The maximum upwards force we could ever get is from a hypothetical object with 0 mass being immersed in a dense fluid, which is then g*V*rho_flu.
Yet somehow you want us to believe that even though the maximum upwards force it can exert, it can magically exert a much larger force downwards?
e.g. in air, if you have a cube 1 m wide, the maximum upwards force is roughly 12 N.
But the downwards force can be much larger, e.g. if that cube was made out of steel, it would be 77 kN.
HOW?
What allows the air to push down so much more?
Especially when the pressure gradient in the air is pushing upwards?

But another important fact we see is the dependence on g.
If we go around Earth, that force varies.
This makes no sense in your fantasy, but perfect sense for the RE.

Your idea simply doesn't make any sense at all.

This is amazing

If the model of a globe earth has thinhs falling toawrds the center of the globe, why then would you draw (middle image)  the cut southern half with the water falling to bottom of the screen, vs center of the globe.


Where did the center go?
Do you not know how to find the center of a circle?


If you cut the circle in half up-down.
And it rained on each.
What wiuld you imagine that looking like?
The rain clouds oriented up-down alao as originally drawn?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 23, 2024, 12:21:10 PM

This is amazing

If the model of a globe earth has thinhs falling toawrds the center of the globe, why then would you draw (middle image)  the cut southern half with the water falling to bottom of the screen, vs center of the globe.


Where did the center go?
Do you not know how to find the center of a circle?


If you cut the circle in half up-down.
And it rained on each.
What wiuld you imagine that looking like?
The rain clouds oriented up-down alao as originally drawn?

It's not amazing. It's one of the saddest things I've ever seen in my life. They don't call him bullshitbeliefs144 for nuthin, and boy does he live up to his name!

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.

My bad. I lost count of all your backwards posts and missed replying to this steaming pile of doo doo.

What's the significance of 12 x 12 to you?

Skimming the edge of Antarctica and plotting its shape, is circumnavigating it. As for your sophisticated drawings of how rain fills a bowl but runs down a hill, all I can say is I'm glad you asked your two year old sister to do the artwork for you. The drawing style really suits the babyish concepts you promote.

Ritalin is just a fancy name for speed isn't it? I hope you aren't self medicating on that shit.....

A convex vs concave Earth. I hollowed out the inside of the underside, except where lands are. The lands allow runoff and the water gathers as oceans. Exactly how Earth actually is.



Concave.



Convex.

Amazing. Designers of tech know that water ("gravity" or no) doesn't stick to convex surfaces.

What's your excuse?

And no, it doesn't matter to me where the sphere is question is hollow or solid.

To answer the other question, I'm clean and sober. Don't even drink alcohol or caffeine. Been that way since early college, where I realized the drugs they gave me to "help me concentrate" were making me weird and unsociable. I'd rather be weird on my own merits, thank you.

But the model says things fall to tue center.

You have them fall literally down in relation to the page.

Draw it out.
A vertical cut with clouds on the left and right.

Accordingnto you which way will the rain fall?

you change topics quite a lot so it makes sense for people to ignore it.



reason why water flows into valley isnt because some metaphysical attraction towards half a globe, but rather because gravity pulls it down as much as it can. In valley it cant flow down because there is bottom of it holding it down. In "hill" ie second picture water is free to slide down and flow towards point of least potential ie red spot. It will try its hardest to reach it

problem

Thank you for drawing a better picture.

Gravity claims credit for what other rules of science actually do.

It is not being pulled down. It's rolling down on its own initiative. Water is more massive than air. Angular momentum, buoyancy (the real rule includes sinking as well as floating), and adhesion means that water slides down with other water, which all slides down because there is a gap of air on the surface of the hill. If I didn't hollow out this bottom half, it would gather on top but eventually spill off the edge as volume of water exceeded total space on top.

What overcomes the adhesive and cohesive forces to pull the rain drops off the umbrella in the first place? 


And your little mind can’t comprehend that the spherical earth has gravity, and the earth and the water are both in free fall orbit around the sun.

So.  Why would the water not settle out equal distance around the earth.

What would pull water off a spherical earth in the heliocentric model? 

And you still have no working model for tides.  Where the heliocentric model has accurate forecasts

And you still ignore..

Lunar and solar eclipses.

The ISS

The sun would have to turn constantly and visibly to circuit over a flat earth.

No explanation why a sun in air would stay in orbit above a flat earth.


Why there isn’t glare and layers of soot and dust on your imaginary dome.

Why celestial navigation works.

Why these simple dial star atlases are accurate for the northern and southern hemispheres.  Where the souther hemisphere atlas would have to be a bigger dial than its northern counterpart with no southern celestial pole at the center. 






Years using a northern hemisphere star atlas.  And all this time, the simplest and most direct argument that flat earth is debunked and dead is the simple fact a 15 dollar dial southern star atlas is effective and accurate.  Where in a flat earth it would be totally useless.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Angular momentum,

By what force causes acceleration down in the first place.

I have a gallon of water sitting on my desk.  How do I get it to buoyant fall up. Then what causes the water go up, change direction, and then accelerate down. 


Note.  Forgotten important aspect.  Where down is from less pressure and less atmospheric density.  Down into more atmospheric pressure and increased density.  And more resistance that should increase the buoyant lifting force?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Angular momentum, not being a force (I think they call it a reaction) is dependent on a force, as you say.

That force is buoyancy. Buoyancy determines sinking and floating.

The rainclouds, the rain, and the water running or pooling is all H₂O.



In figure 1, volume of water builds on the surface until it has nowhere to go. It then moves towards the nearest edge. Why does it do so? After all, it seems as though the top in figure 1 is perfectly flat. I'll even humor you and say that it is perfectly flat. But it's got nowhere to go, so it pushes against other water.  Water is less dense than air. Water moves away from water, and towards air.

Figure 2, water is less dense than the slope and more dense than air. Water moves away from the slope, and towards air. Down the hill.

Figure 3, water is less dense than the slope and more dense than air. Water moves away from the slope, and towards air. Down the hill.

The raincloud has water thin enough that it floats due to low density. When it reaches critical mass, it falls as rain.

amazing

is the placement of the #2 in your sketch where the center of gravity would be in relation to the curved surface?

Angular momentum,

Which is not a force.  Takes a force to drive it.

How do you accelerate mass in any direction without a force.

How do you take a gallon of water acceleration it straight up. Then how does the same gallon of water slow faster than what is accounted for by air resistance. Stop mid air with the buoyant force of a fluid atmosphere still trying to lift the water.  Change direction 180 degrees of travel. 

And not just accelerate down.  But accelerate down from less pressure and atmospheric density into greater pressure, atmospheric density, and resistance.

Figure 2, water is less dense than the slope and more dense than air.

What density do you measure slope in?

😂😂😂😂😂😂


Wind never blows rain and hail upward?

At what point does hail gain enough mass to fall down from the wind that was circulating it in the atmosphere to build its layers up to accelerate down from less pressure and atmospheric density into greater pressure, atmospheric density, and resistance.

datqa
you getting a little abstract talking forces and momentum


the guy put the gravitation center of the globe, outside the globe!
out the gate he's wrong.

A convex vs concave Earth.

Both of which are pathetic strawmen.
Here is a more accurate depiction of your crap:

With your tiny crap on the top of a much larger sphere.
Notice how this doesn't represent the RE model?

Stop with your pathetic strawmen.
All they do is show your dishonesty.

It is not being pulled down. It's rolling down on its own initiative.

They can't just magically go down all by itself, it needs a force to make it move.

Angular momentum, buoyancy

Do not help you at all.
Angular momentum has nothing to do with it.
Buoyancy relies upon the downwards force you are yet to explain.

But notice how you are trying to attack the RE model, with your fantasy?

That force is buoyancy. Buoyancy determines sinking and floating.

No, buoyancy is a result of the force you are ignoring.
The combination of buoyancy and that force determines if things sink or float.

Buoyancy is an upwards force. It can't make things go down.

In figure

Is yet another strawman of yours so we can just ignore it as the steaming pile of BS it is.
Your garbage has no connection to reality at all.

A convex vs concave Earth. I hollowed out the inside of the underside, except where lands are. The lands allow runoff and the water gathers as oceans. Exactly how Earth actually is.



Concave.



Convex.

Amazing. Designers of tech know that water ("gravity" or no) doesn't stick to convex surfaces.

What's your excuse?

And no, it doesn't matter to me where the sphere is question is hollow or solid.

To answer the other question, I'm clean and sober. Don't even drink alcohol or caffeine. Been that way since early college, where I realized the drugs they gave me to "help me concentrate" were making me weird and unsociable. I'd rather be weird on my own merits, thank you.

it isnt about sticking to convex/concave surface. it is about flowing to place of least potential. Jack showed that quite nice and i think even a child can understand that

i am struggling to understand your system. it seems you still think using gravity despite claiming it isnt real. There is minimal difference in air (circles) in front and in back of car. I dont think few meters of gradient will push car that much

i am struggling to understand your system. it seems you still think using gravity despite claiming it isnt real. There is minimal difference in air (circles) in front and in back of car. I dont think few meters of gradient will push car that much

Past arguments…

Shrugs..

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on August 27, 2023, 02:18:10 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 27, 2023, 06:43:13 AM

Air is thinner above, and thicker below. Heavy objects fall from thinner air. High altitudes have thinner air.

No.  Air pressure is literal greater at sea level than at 10,000 feet.  When air pressure makes flow to move objects, it flows from high pressure to low pressure.  In a pipe, air pressure would make a steel ball move from high pressure to low pressure if there was flow.

Air maintains equilibrium for the precise reason that while yes, air does tend to filter to lower pressure, the atmosphere and objects are two different things.

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.

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.  You would need to either make the bottom layer of air so thick that the car or whatever "floats" up the hill, or create a "geyser" effect where air pushes up to a layer above itself.

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

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on August 27, 2023, 02:18:10 PM

You tried to dodge the question.

A car on a hill in neutral with no brakes applied and the same mechanical advantage to go up or down from the wheels. Why does the car not roll up into less pressure and resistance.  There is still a buoyant force pushing up on the car from greater atmospheric pressure below into lower atmospheric pressure above.

Water has greater pressure than air, does it not?

Let's ask science.
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/2271

Quote

Actually, water pressure is generally stronger than air pressure. Think of it this way... if you had a plastic bottle filled with water and you poked a hole in the side, would water squirt out or would air squirt in? If air squirted in, then the air pressure would have to be higher.

Wrong. Though you are right about water being more pressurized than air. While pressure does diffuse higher to lower, you are confusing diffusion with states of matter. 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. In other words, mediums are also objects, and they float on denser mediums and sink through mediums they are denser than. Air is floating above water, so water pours out. Not because it is weighing it down but because it is a denser medium.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on August 27, 2023, 02:18:10 PM

Is it false it takes a force to make an object accelerate.  What makes the car on the hill move from standstill to accelerate down when the force of the atmosphere is “buoyancy” that wants to push the car up.

You just conflated energy and force.

i am struggling to understand your system. it seems you still think using gravity despite claiming it isnt real. There is minimal difference in air (circles) in front and in back of car. I dont think few meters of gradient will push car that much

If you actually care to understand, it's rather simple.

"Gravity" is a word that "Sir" Isaac Newton (Sir being a title of knighthood added to him for shilling for the Masonic globalist elites of the day) came up with to replace several already existing rules of science.

That is, Isaac Newton didn't discover gravity. He invented it. It's a catch-all of other rules and theories already discovered by other scientists, it isn't logically consistent, and it's basically a series of memes. Starting with the meme about how he wouldn't have known about gravity without an apple falling near him, and continuing with crap about objects in motion staying in motion or equal and opposite forces.

Do you really think it possible that Newton did not know things fall until an apple possibly whacked him on the head? Dude, little toddlers know that things fall. Newton discovered nothing, he just came up with an idea to justify his biases.

Actual scientists for centuries before Newton came up with actual systems for how a number of things worked, without any help from him. Moreover, while his theory of gravity yield no direct inventions (to me, the test of whether a theory is true or not is not whether a group of scientists peer review it, but whether it actually works) to the best of my knowledge, buoyancy not only was not only able to make boats work well before Newton came along, but also a number of balloons. And despite aerodynamics, at least some buoyancy is also involved in planes.

Newton called gravity "causes hitherto unknown," but this was a steaming load of crap. In other words, Newton was among other things, a massive narcissist who thought that nobody in the past ever figured anything out.
Yeah, we knew before you, guy. It was buoyancy. Buoyancy makes things rise and it makes them fall. There is no separate force. Gravity is an invention. Just as 100 years before Newton, a guy named Joseph-Louis Lagrange comes up with something called the
https://www.sciencenordic.com/denmark-forskerzonen-physics/gravity-it-is-all-in-your-head/1453728
On the other hand, Archimedes ran naked through the streets, having discovered displacement, an offset of the principle of buoyancy. What he discover? That as part of buoyancy, heavy objects press down of fluids as they sink into them. Objects, not forces. Archimedes also invented center of mass (now called "center of gravity"), proved the law of the lever, the Archimedes screw, a crane used for ships in battle (Archimedes claw), a heat ray by reflecting sunlight on incoming ships using a mirror system, and instruments of astronomy (I never say I agree with heliocentrism, but he at least invented things, unlike Hawking who just sat around in a chair and made wise-sounding pronouncements).   

But outside of Marvel Comics, there aren't gravity weapons, and I haven't heard of any least action devices.

I trust the guy whose theory makes hot air balloons and boats possible.

Every modern equation of buoyancy has (G) in it. But if you had any sense, you'd understand that this is a tacked-on addition that was never in the original equation, because it wasn't until about 1666 or so that Isaac Newton came along with is nonsense, whereas Archimedes sat his fat ass down in a tub in about 200 BC. Buoyancy is a law. Modern buoyancy now uses "gravity" because gravity is a so-called "fundamental force." No. It's not. It's something a newcomer by about 1800 years has plopped into an existing force in order to usurp its position as actual fundamental force.

You can't get very far in a world where planes don't fly, ships don't float, and balloons can't rise up. I fact, you would be utterly stuck if you learned about "gravity" before learning that things float.   

The fundamental forces are all usable.

1. Buoyancy allows most transportation. It also is responsible for how most fluids diffuse, and systems like turgor pressure, which is essential for how plants absorb water.
2. Electromagnetism is responsible for much of modern devices, including electricity, compasses, radio, etc.
3. Cohesion is what holds atoms together and what holds similar molecules together (yes, I merged weak attraction and strong attraction together). Cohesion allows nuclear technology, and allows matter to exist. 
4. Adhesion is the property of different surfaces to stick. Not only does this allow things like coatings on frypans or different types of glues, but breaking adhesion is the primary goal of nonstick substances. In fact, all chemistry is due to adhesion reactions of a sort.

The universe works because fluids of difference masses sort themselves out. The universe works because electrical energy and magnetism do their thing. It work because atoms and molecules hold together. And it works because of chemical reactions. This is why I chose these four.

Gravity? No applications that cannot be attributed to something else.

I trust the guy whose theory makes hot air balloons and boats possible.

Because gravity causes pressure gradients in liquids and fluids.

What causes the air molecules to bunch up at earth’s surface to make buoyancy a thing?


Back to my jeep wrangler analogy.

I can push my car around in neutral all day long on flat surfaces.  The moment I try to push the same car in neutral up hill from greater atmospheric pressure and density into less pressure and density I don’t have the muscle.

If there is no gravity, why can’t I push the car up hill.  Where I can push it around all day long on a flat surface. 

Word salad....



Why wont you answer:

Why did you put the center of the circle OUTSIDE the circle in the concave image?

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on March 25, 2024, 01:45:36 PM

i am struggling to understand your system. it seems you still think using gravity despite claiming it isnt real. There is minimal difference in air (circles) in front and in back of car. I dont think few meters of gradient will push car that much

If you actually care to understand, it's rather simple.

"Gravity" is a word that "Sir" Isaac Newton (Sir being a title of knighthood added to him for shilling for the Masonic globalist elites of the day) came up with to replace several already existing rules of science.

That is, Isaac Newton didn't discover gravity. He invented it. It's a catch-all of other rules and theories already discovered by other scientists, it isn't logically consistent, and it's basically a series of memes. Starting with the meme about how he wouldn't have known about gravity without an apple falling near him, and continuing with crap about objects in motion staying in motion or equal and opposite forces.

Do you really think it possible that Newton did not know things fall until an apple possibly whacked him on the head? Dude, little toddlers know that things fall. Newton discovered nothing, he just came up with an idea to justify his biases.

Actual scientists for centuries before Newton came up with actual systems for how a number of things worked, without any help from him. Moreover, while his theory of gravity yield no direct inventions (to me, the test of whether a theory is true or not is not whether a group of scientists peer review it, but whether it actually works) to the best of my knowledge, buoyancy not only was not only able to make boats work well before Newton came along, but also a number of balloons. And despite aerodynamics, at least some buoyancy is also involved in planes.

Newton called gravity "causes hitherto unknown," but this was a steaming load of crap. In other words, Newton was among other things, a massive narcissist who thought that nobody in the past ever figured anything out.
Yeah, we knew before you, guy. It was buoyancy. Buoyancy makes things rise and it makes them fall. There is no separate force. Gravity is an invention. Just as 100 years before Newton, a guy named Joseph-Louis Lagrange comes up with something called the
https://www.sciencenordic.com/denmark-forskerzonen-physics/gravity-it-is-all-in-your-head/1453728
On the other hand, Archimedes ran naked through the streets, having discovered displacement, an offset of the principle of buoyancy. What he discover? That as part of buoyancy, heavy objects press down of fluids as they sink into them. Objects, not forces. Archimedes also invented center of mass (now called "center of gravity"), proved the law of the lever, the Archimedes screw, a crane used for ships in battle (Archimedes claw), a heat ray by reflecting sunlight on incoming ships using a mirror system, and instruments of astronomy (I never say I agree with heliocentrism, but he at least invented things, unlike Hawking who just sat around in a chair and made wise-sounding pronouncements).   

But outside of Marvel Comics, there aren't gravity weapons, and I haven't heard of any least action devices.

I trust the guy whose theory makes hot air balloons and boats possible.

Every modern equation of buoyancy has (G) in it. But if you had any sense, you'd understand that this is a tacked-on addition that was never in the original equation, because it wasn't until about 1666 or so that Isaac Newton came along with is nonsense, whereas Archimedes sat his fat ass down in a tub in about 200 BC. Buoyancy is a law. Modern buoyancy now uses "gravity" because gravity is a so-called "fundamental force." No. It's not. It's something a newcomer by about 1800 years has plopped into an existing force in order to usurp its position as actual fundamental force.

You can't get very far in a world where planes don't fly, ships don't float, and balloons can't rise up. I fact, you would be utterly stuck if you learned about "gravity" before learning that things float.   

The fundamental forces are all usable.

1. Buoyancy allows most transportation. It also is responsible for how most fluids diffuse, and systems like turgor pressure, which is essential for how plants absorb water.
2. Electromagnetism is responsible for much of modern devices, including electricity, compasses, radio, etc.
3. Cohesion is what holds atoms together and what holds similar molecules together (yes, I merged weak attraction and strong attraction together). Cohesion allows nuclear technology, and allows matter to exist. 
4. Adhesion is the property of different surfaces to stick. Not only does this allow things like coatings on frypans or different types of glues, but breaking adhesion is the primary goal of nonstick substances. In fact, all chemistry is due to adhesion reactions of a sort.

The universe works because fluids of difference masses sort themselves out. The universe works because electrical energy and magnetism do their thing. It work because atoms and molecules hold together. And it works because of chemical reactions. This is why I chose these four.

Gravity? No applications that cannot be attributed to something else.

Hah... *sighs*
Ok, do want me to, like, teach you highschool physics concepts one on one? There are so many things fundamentally wrong with how you think. Buoyancy is not a force. Ok, well, maybe it is, but is the consequences of another force, namely the attractive force between any two masses in the universe. Now I could go on and on about how and why you are wrong, but let's not. Cause I have something else to address.

You're telling me Newton discovered *nothing*? Regardless of our disagreement between gravity, he discovered that light is composed of many colours, introduced the three laws of motion, invented calculus (well, Leibniz did too, but still), formulated the law of cooling (which does not hold under huge difference but yeah) and made many other important mathematical discoveries. To call Newton a pretentious prick is to call yourself ignorant of the history of sciences.

Now taking into account the article you've linked to is a good one. The writer clearly knows what he's dealing with. And yet, I believe he's wrong. But I could be wrong too. As I see it, it is indeed true undeniable that "all masses in the universe attract one other". Now what you call this attraction is left entirely upto you. There is just two problems with your statement, and it is that "Gravity is an invention." is completely taken out of context and two, you lack the ability to comprehend articles. Hopefully though, you will be able to comprehend my reply.

EDIT: I did say that writer of the article you've linked to is wrong, but not completely. Namely, the things that I disagree on is the existence of gravity, and the fact that the principal of least action cannot be used alone without the force of gravity in predicting the trajectory of a mechanical system.

 and the fact that the principal of least action cannot be used alone without the force of gravity in predicting the trajectory of a mechanical system.

Yeah, we knew before you, guy. It was buoyancy. Buoyancy makes things rise and it makes them fall. There is no separate force. Gravity is an invention. Just as 100 years before Newton, a guy named Joseph-Louis Lagrange comes up with something called the
https://www.sciencenordic.com/denmark-forskerzonen-physics/gravity-it-is-all-in-your-head/1453728

This is where if bulmabriefs144 had a leg to stand on.  The individual would accurately and reliably model bullet trajectories and heaver than air flight without gravity.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣