Archimedes might be honored. Newton can go fuck himself.
Considering you are blatantly lying about buoyancy, going directly against what he said, why would be honoured with your dishonest BS?
Again, the Archimedes principle is quite simple.
An object immersed in a fluid is buoyed UPWARDS by a force equal to the WEIGHT of the fluid displaced.
He fully recognises that buoyancy is an upwards force only.
He fully recognises that it is NOT a fundamental force.
He fully recognises that buoyancy is a result of weight, a consequence of weight.
Yet here you are lying by pretending buoyancy is a fundamental force which causes weight.
You're not in a position to teach me anything. When you look up buoyancy, it repeatedly calls it an upward force.
Yet here you go ignoring that, pretending it is a downwards force.
So I guess that means you aren't in a position to teach anyone anything.
I've had enough of narcissists in my life
Then have you considered no longer being one?
have the correct assessment of the man.
No, it is to have an irrational hatred of reality and those that show your fantasy is wrong.
1. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an external force acts upon it. Similarly, if the object is at rest, it will remain at rest unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.
2. When a force acts on an object, it will cause the object to accelerate
3. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Which kills your fantasy so you hate it.
Now, you may not have noticed this, but all three of these (probably self-proclaimed) "laws" of motion have a sort of snappy patter sound to them.
Just like the Archimedes principle.
This has nothing to do with them being right or wrong, and is just you not liking them.
If I were to knock a series of balls tied to a string, it would seem like this "law" that things stay in motion would mean this process never stops.
Only if you do it in a frictionless vacuum, with no other energy losses.
Ignoring forces acting on it just demonstrates your dishonesty.
Motion does indeed wind down, as energy is gradually lost through conversion.
And that conversion requires a force.
Similarly, objects change despite themselves when left in stasis. They gather dust or cobwebs
Seriously?
Your argument is so pathetic you need to resort to dust falling on it or spiders crawling over it laying a web.
That is not an object being left in stasis.
Not all forces are forces of motion. When entropy
entropy is not a force.
Is there always equal reaction? Is it always opposite? And how can he possibly say for every action?
YES.
If you don't have this you have invented a perpetual motion machine, you will have created energy from no where.
This law can be restated as a product of the law of conservation of momentum or conservation of energy.
Consider some object moving along at some speed.
It has some velocity, and it collides with another object.
Now what happens?
Well it provides a force to accelerate that object.
Now, if you don't have an equal and opposite force acting to slow it down, you have just increased the momentum of the system.
Now design a system where instead of doing that, it is spinning around an axis, and the object it collides with does so as well.
Have a bunch of them, like a gear.
Then have the one being hit magically gaining momentum from nothing get hooked up to a generator.
And just to make sure it keeps going, hook the other one up to a motor.
Now this magical increase in momentum will create more power than is put in, and you have infinite energy and a perpetual motion machine.
This doesn't work in reality for the very reason that there is an equal and opposite force.
Any momentum imparted to the hit object is taken away from the object hitting.
This is done by a force pair acting on each.
A force from the hitting object acting on the hit object to accelerate it, simultaneously with a force from the hit object on the hitting object to slow it down.
They weren't laws because of scientific method. They weren't laws because of peer review. They were laws because of practical usage.
They were laws based upon experimental observations and tests.
That sure sounds like the scientific method.
They are laws, which have been peer reviewed and found to work just fine until you get to the quantum world where strange things happen.
And yes, they have practical usage, i.e. usage in practice to do things.
They work, unlike your delusional BS.
You're the one that thinks it needs a gravity center. I couldn't care less about that.
Because you aren't actually trying to show a fault with the RE model, because you know you can't.
Instead you are just spouting whatever dishonest, delusional BS you can think of to pretend there is a problem.
That one word is buoyancy not gravity. Buoyancy holds the heavens and the earth up
No, buoyancy holds things up, BECAUSE OF GRAVITY!
Before gravity, we didn't have this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
Or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Yet the heat death of the universe is NOT due to gravity.
It is due to entropy.
The Big Crunch provides a way out, and wont be happening for billions of years.
Meanwhile, you religious BS has had the end of the world happening "soon" for the past 2 thousand years.
As for the rest, this is exactly the point. Globalism as a worldview cannot see the joy and the beauty in humanity.
No, your pathetic strawman can't.
Now again, care to address the pressure gradient?