How can you dismiss all the space footage?

You are correct, I wasn't alive then.

Though my birthday is St Elias's (Elijah) day and thus the birthday of the event. I've made it a point to at least be somewhat interested, and unlike air or sea travel, the science doesn't seem to work.

I'm not "going along" with it though. It well and truly seems to defy the laws of buoyancy and rules about propulsion.

For those interested, other events that happened on July 20th.

    70 – Siege of Jerusalem: Titus, son of emperor Vespasian, storms the Fortress of Antonia north of the Temple Mount. The Roman army is drawn into street fights with the Zealots.
    792 – Kardam of Bulgaria defeats Byzantine Emperor Constantine VI at the Battle of Marcellae.
    911 – Rollo lays siege to Chartres.
    1189 – Richard I of England officially invested as Duke of Normandy.
    1225 – Treaty of San Germano is signed at San Germano between Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II and Pope Gregory IX. A Dominican named Guala is responsible for the negotiations.
    1398 – The Battle of Kellistown was fought on this day between the forces of the English led by Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March against the O'Byrnes and O'Tooles under the command of Art Óg mac Murchadha Caomhánach, the most powerful Chieftain in Leinster.
    1402 – Ottoman-Timurid Wars: Battle of Ankara: Timur, ruler of Timurid Empire, defeats forces of the Ottoman Empire sultan Bayezid I.
    1592 – During the first Japanese invasion of Korea, Japanese forces led by Toyotomi Hideyoshi captured Pyongyang, although they were ultimately unable to hold it.
    1705 – A fire in Oulu, Finland almost completely destroyed the fourth district, which covered the southern part of the city and was by far the largest of the city districts.[1][2]
    1715 – Seventh Ottoman–Venetian War: The Ottoman Empire captures Nauplia, the capital of the Republic of Venice's "Kingdom of the Morea", thereby opening the way to the swift Ottoman reconquest of the Morea.[3]
    1738 – Canadian explorer Pierre Gaultier de Varennes et de La Vérendrye reaches the western shore of Lake Michigan.
    1799 – Tekle Giyorgis I begins his first of six reigns as Emperor of Ethiopia.[4]
    1807 – Nicéphore Niépce is awarded a patent by Napoleon for the Pyréolophore, the world's first internal combustion engine, after it successfully powered a boat upstream on the river Saône in France.
    1810 – Citizens of Bogotá, New Granada declare independence from Spain.
    1831 – Seneca and Shawnee people agree to relinquish their land in western Ohio for 60,000 acres west of the Mississippi River.[5]
    1848 – The first Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York, a two-day event, concludes.
    1864 – American Civil War: Battle of Peachtree Creek: Near Atlanta, Georgia, Confederate forces led by General John Bell Hood unsuccessfully attack Union troops under General William T. Sherman.
    1866 – Austro-Prussian War: Battle of Lissa: The Austrian Navy, led by Admiral Wilhelm von Tegetthoff, defeats the Italian Navy near the island of Vis in the Adriatic Sea.
    1871 – British Columbia joins the confederation of Canada.
    1885 – The Football Association legalizes professionalism in association football under pressure from the British Football Association.
    1903 – The Ford Motor Company ships its first automobile.
    1906 – In Finland, a new electoral law is ratified, guaranteeing the country the first and equal right to vote in the world. Finnish women are the first in Europe to receive the right to vote.[6]
    1917 – World War I: The Corfu Declaration, which leads to the creation of the post-war Kingdom of Yugoslavia, is signed by the Yugoslav Committee and Kingdom of Serbia.
    1920 – The Greek Army takes control of Silivri after Greece is awarded the city by the Paris Peace Conference; by 1923 Greece effectively lost control to the Turks.
    1922 – The League of Nations awards mandates of Togoland to France and Tanganyika to the United Kingdom.
    1932 – In the Preußenschlag, German President Hindenburg places Prussia directly under the rule of the national government.
    1934 – Labor unrest in the U.S.: Police in Minneapolis fire upon striking truck drivers, during the Minneapolis Teamsters Strike of 1934, killing two and wounding sixty-seven.
    1934 – West Coast waterfront strike: In Seattle, police fire tear gas on and club 2,000 striking longshoremen. The governor of Oregon calls out the National Guard to break a strike on the Portland docks.
    1935 – Switzerland: A Royal Dutch Airlines plane en route from Milan to Frankfurt crashes into a Swiss mountain, killing thirteen.
    1936 – The Montreux Convention is signed in Switzerland, authorizing Turkey to fortify the Dardanelles and Bosphorus but guaranteeing free passage to ships of all nations in peacetime.
    1938 – The United States Department of Justice files suit in New York City against the motion picture industry charging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act in regards to the studio system. The case would eventually result in a break-up of the industry in 1948.
    1940 – Denmark leaves the League of Nations.
    1940 – California opens its first freeway, the Arroyo Seco Parkway.
    1941 – Soviet leader Joseph Stalin consolidates the Commissariats of Home Affairs and National Security to form the NKVD and names Lavrentiy Beria its chief.
    1944 – World War II: Adolf Hitler survives an assassination attempt led by German Army Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg.
    1949 – The Israel–Syria Mixed Armistice Commission brokers the last of four ceasefire agreements to end the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
    1950 – Cold War: In Philadelphia, Harry Gold pleads guilty to spying for the Soviet Union by passing secrets from atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs.
    1950 – After a month-long campaign, the majority of North Korea's Air Force was destroyed by anti-communist forces.[7]
    1951 – King Abdullah I of Jordan is assassinated by a Palestinian while attending Friday prayers in Jerusalem.
    1954 – Germany: Otto John, head of West Germany's secret service, defects to East Germany.
    1960 – Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) elects Sirimavo Bandaranaike Prime Minister, the world's first elected female head of government.
    1960 – The Polaris missile is successfully launched from a submarine, the USS George Washington, for the first time.
    1961 – French military forces break the Tunisian siege of Bizerte.
    1964 – Vietnam War: Viet Cong forces attack the capital of Định Tường Province, Cái Bè, killing 11 South Vietnamese military personnel and 40 civilians (30 of whom are children).
    1968 – The first International Special Olympics Summer Games are held at Soldier Field in Chicago, with about 1,000 athletes with intellectual disabilities.
    1969 – Apollo program: Apollo 11's crew successfully makes the first human landing on the Moon in the Sea of Tranquility. Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin become the first humans to walk on the Moon six and a half hours later.
    1969 – A cease fire is announced between Honduras and El Salvador, six days after the beginning of the "Football War".
    1974 – Turkish invasion of Cyprus: Forces from Turkey invade Cyprus after a coup d'état, organised by the dictator of Greece, against president Makarios.
    1976 – The American Viking 1 lander successfully lands on Mars.[8]
    1977 – The Central Intelligence Agency releases documents under the Freedom of Information Act revealing it had engaged in mind-control experiments.
    1977 – The Johnstown flood of 1977 kills 84 people and causes millions of dollars in damages.
    1981 – Somali Airlines Flight 40 crashes in the Balad District of Somalia, killing 40 people.[9]
    1982 – Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings: The Provisional IRA detonates two bombs in Hyde Park and Regent's Park in central London, killing eight soldiers, wounding forty-seven people, and leading to the deaths of seven horses.
    1985 – The government of Aruba passes legislation to secede from the Netherlands Antilles.
    1989 – Burma's ruling junta puts opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest.
    1992 – Václav Havel resigns as president of Czechoslovakia.
    1997 – The fully restored USS Constitution (a.k.a. Old Ironsides) celebrates its 200th birthday by setting sail for the first time in 116 years.
    1999 – The Chinese Communist Party begins a persecution campaign against Falun Gong, arresting thousands nationwide.
    2005 – The Civil Marriage Act legalizes same-sex marriage in Canada.
    2012 – James Holmes opened fire at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 and injuring 70 others.
    2012 – Syrian civil war: The People's Protection Units (YPG) capture the cities of Amuda and Efrîn without resistance.[10]
    2013 – Seventeen government soldiers are killed in an attack by FARC revolutionaries in the Colombian department of Arauca.
    2013 – Syrian civil war: The Battle of Ras al-Ayn ends with the expulsion of Islamist forces from the city by the People's Protection Units (YPG).[11]
    2015 – A huge explosion in the mostly Kurdish border town of Suruç, Turkey, targeting the Socialist Youth Associations Federation, kills at least 31 people and injures over 100.
    2015 – The United States and Cuba resume full diplomatic relations after five decades.
    2017 – O. J. Simpson is granted parole to be released from prison after serving nine years of a 33-year sentence after being convicted of armed robbery in Las Vegas.
    2021 – American businessman Jeff Bezos flies to space aboard New Shepard NS-16 operated by his private spaceflight company Blue Origin.[12]

When presented with something you don't know about, you can either get someone's opinion posing as fact, or you can look it up yourself. I am not convinced you have ever done your own research. Such people may go to universities, but they never learn anything besides what other people want them to know.

My family memories, on the other hand, involved numerous trips to reference books before computers became the prevailing method or research.

I do listen.

You don’t listen Themightykabool.

Your example ignores the base problem is that flat earth’s don’t understand how large the earth is.  Or they don’t understand reference and scale.

Does this ball look flat like the earth looks flat?

“Prove” a Basketball (or any Spherical Object) is Flat



https://flatearth.ws/basketball

the science doesn't seem to work.

You keep saying this, but you are yet to be able to present a single part of science that doesn't work.
Instead, you entirely misrepresent it, replacing it with your fantasy, and claiming it doesn't seem to work.
That is your fantasy not working.

 rules about propulsion.

What are the rules of “rocket propulsion” that is usually a controlled explosion of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen? 

And why for that controlled explosion would the laws of motion magically stop in the extremely thin atmosphere we call the vacuum of space. 

How does the moon landing defy the laws of propulsion, Bulma, when you've seen first hand a party balloon propel across your bedroom with no walls of air in your bedroom? It's exactly the same principle.

Why don't you refocus that ADHD of yours into researching NASA and the Apollo moon landings, instead of con artist run flat earth videos? You could find all the material you need in your local library if the internet is too modern for you.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 07, 2024, 06:32:36 PM

I do listen.

You don’t listen Themightykabool.

Your example ignores the base problem is that flat earth’s don’t understand how large the earth is.  Or they don’t understand reference and scale.

Does this ball look flat like the earth looks flat?

Quote

“Prove” a Basketball (or any Spherical Object) is Flat



https://flatearth.ws/basketball

You are spectacularly stpuid.

By anserring the question gets them closer to understanding.

Thwts how it works.

They bring up a point.
We discuss how they came to that conclusion and determine qhere the short falls are and work to resolve.

Not bringing up nonsequitors and spamming  and continuing to chsnge topics.



I understand the basketball photo.
Why you trying to convince me of it?

By anserring the question gets them closer to understanding.

“hey hey
few months now
you gonna answer - what is the angle between segements of a 300,000sided polygon?
also just curious”

How does the above bring any flat earther to the reason why they “can’t see curvature”?    It’s seems more like a troll move that totally ignores that flat earthers don’t understand the scale and size of earth. 

They bring up a point.
We discuss how they came to that conclusion and determine qhere the short falls are and work to resolve.

Hmm.  Like to quote where you discussed and debated with flat earthers they don’t understand the scale of the earth and how gentle the curvature is?  And provided evidence of that curvature? 

I keep telling you.
Keep not listening.



Have a good day.
Piss off.

I keep telling you.
Keep not listening.



Have a good day.
Piss off.

I’m not listening?

They bring up a point.
We discuss how they came to that conclusion and determine qhere the short falls are and work to resolve.

How many threads have I created that demonstrate some portion or aspect of sight or views relating to spherical earth.  How many times has flat earthers been proven wrong by others while you babble and play with your polygons where flat earthers try to derail the thread.

Trying to stick to the topic of a thread or keep pointing out aspects of flat earth that don’t explain reality.  For flat earthers that figuratively don’t listen, and figuratively stick their heads in the sand by actively trying to derail a thread. 

Who’s not “listening”?  Who is spamming?  Who strives to throw topics off the rails? 

So strange you target me as not listening.


Themightykabool, you impotent person that will never size up, if you like abuse.  Go to your local dominatrix or dom for your kicks you little freak you. 

How does the moon landing defy the laws of propulsion, Bulma, when you've seen first hand a party balloon propel across your bedroom with no walls of air in your bedroom? It's exactly the same principle.

Why don't you refocus that ADHD of yours into researching NASA and the Apollo moon landings, instead of con artist run flat earth videos? You could find all the material you need in your local library if the internet is too modern for you.

The moon and the sun are objects of energy, not mass.

Recall in science class how you learned about states of matter. In general, the greater the vibration of the state of matter, the less mass it has (due to molecules moving around, instead of gathering in density). This means that the sun is actually an object subject to Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle. We see the moon or try to see the sun. But neither of these things are real objects. Today, I looked directly at the sun via Kindle. I saw some weird black wriggling thing.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/a7Fcku8LpztO/
"If you are a woke idiot, please stop watching now."

The sun and moon are not objects with mass. They are something entirely different. They are beings of light. They are Monsters (the word monster has a negative connotation, but the word originally means "divine omen/reminder"). Like rainbows, these monsters remind us that there is something beyond what we understand in the world.

And yes, some people are watching this eclipse and making a big fuss about chemtrails in CT spraying a Masonic pentagram in the sky. Oh noes! End times. But nothing we humans can do is anything more than fiddling around with washable markers. Unless God wants to end the world, nothing we humans can do can bring it about. Period. Not climate change. Not ritual circles. Not anything.

We're just kids playing with toys. These Monsters operate on perpetual energy and perpetual motion, both of which are impossible for humans. They cannot come from anywhere but a loving God.

They also are inside the atmosphere, not outside it. The sun and moon are within the firmament, as I've mentioned before.

The moon and the sun are objects of energy, not mass.

So you want to claim they are pure magic?
So why does the moon behave just like we would expect a physical object to?

Recall in science class how you learned about states of matter.

None of which supports your delusional BS.

an object subject to Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle.

Not really.
While some aspects will be subject to it, the sun as a whole, is such a large object that the uncertainty principle is irrelevant.

Just what aspects do you think are uncertain, and to what extent?
Do you even understand this principle you keep trying to invoke, or are you just trying to use it as your "get out of jail free" card?

We see the moon or try to see the sun. But neither of these things are real objects.

Based on what?

Today, I looked directly at the sun via Kindle.

That literally directly contradicts itself.
If you look directly at the sun, you look direct. If you look via something else, it is NOT direct.
That is like saying you took a direct flight from LA to NY, via Dubai.
It is either direct or it is via something.

But notice how you still refuse to answer how objects in space magically defy the laws of science (the actual ones, not your delusional BS).

The moon and the sun are objects of energy, not mass.

No mass as fuel to produce the energy?  Where I just watched the moon shield the light from the sun?  Where the radiation / energy of the moon doesn’t interfere with the radiation / energy of the sun in your delusion. 

While some aspects will be subject to it, the sun as a whole, is such a large object that the uncertainty principle is irrelevant.

It must be nice to hold an imaginary kangaroo court, where you are able to dismiss any evidence you decide is inadmissible.

Meanwhile, in the real world, laws are supposed to be consistent.

Have you ever actually proven that the sun has any mass at all? If not, your precious "gravity" is irrelevant. What? You don't like other people applying the same standards?

The thing is, it doesn't actually matter which theory we use. I'll explain:
1. If we run under my principle of buoyancy, the thinner the air is, the less mass it can have and stay aloft. Air is thin enough even at ground level that most things fall (besides helium and very non-dense aerodynamic stuff). The sun and moon fall to the Earth as Majora's Mask.
2. If we run under gravity, the Earth and moon are instead pulled toward the sun. The moon should fall toward the sun, and after it extincts all life on Earth, Earth should fall into the sun.

Either the sun and moon have no mass, or neither model work.

"But muh orbit!" Yeah, fuck your orbit. If gravity or buoyancy work, they work.

The only way they can instead orbit is if the motion toward each other is in complete balance. The Earth must have the same mass as the sun and moon under gravity (that's highly unlikely) or insufficient mass to sink under buoyancy, and too much mass to float under buoyancy. Simple as that.

 proven that the sun has any mass at all?

You mean other than gravity as seen on how the sun influences the solar system and things like comets and their orbits. 

It emits charged particles.

It has large coronal mass ejections

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection

A coronal mass ejection (CME) is a significant ejection of magnetic field and accompanying plasma mass from the Sun's corona into the heliosphere.

And through Astronomical spectroscopy

Astronomical spectroscopy is the study of astronomy using the techniques of spectroscopy to measure the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, ultraviolet, X-ray, infrared and radio waves that radiate from stars and other celestial objects. A stellar spectrum can reveal many properties of stars, such as their chemical composition, temperature, density, mass, distance and luminosity. Spectroscopy can show the velocity of motion towards or away from the observer by measuring the Doppler shift. Spectroscopy is also used to study the physical properties of many other types of celestial objects such as planets, nebulae, galaxies, and active galactic nuclei.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy#:~:text=Astronomical%20spectroscopy%20is%20the%20study,stars%20and%20other%20celestial%20objects.

The radiation and charged particles are consist with nuclear reactions of mass. 

1. If we run under my principle of buoyancy, the thinner the air is, the less mass it can have and stay aloft.

Why do rocket planes fly in extreme thin atmosphere. 

The North American X-15 is a hypersonic rocket-powered aircraft operated by the United States Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as part of the X-plane series of experimental aircraft. The X-15 set speed and altitude records in the 1960s, crossing the edge of outer space and returning with valuable data used in aircraft and spacecraft design. The X-15's highest speed, 4,520 miles per hour (7,274 km/h; 2,021 m/s),[1]was achieved on 3 October 1967,[2] when William J. Knight flew at Mach 6.7 at an altitude of 102,100 feet (31,120 m), or 19.34 miles. This set the official world record for the highest speed ever recorded by a crewed, powered aircraft, which remains unbroken.[3][4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15

Air is thin enough even at ground level

The tendency for air molecules in a container is to equal distance.  To thin out as much as possible.

Why do air molecules on earth overcome this tendency where they try to migrate to the surface and do bunch up creating the pressure gradient.  What force overcomes air molecules to equal distance to bunch up at the surface. 

It must be nice to hold an imaginary kangaroo court, where you are able to dismiss any evidence you decide is inadmissible.

I am objecting to your entirely baseless claims.

How about instead of pulling this childish BS, you try actually justifying your claims?

Meanwhile, in the real world, laws are supposed to be consistent.

And they are.

Have you ever actually proven that the sun has any mass at all?

We can tell it has mass because of objects orbiting it.

You don't like other people applying the same standards?

You mean completely different standards?

The thing is, it doesn't actually matter which theory we use. I'll explain:

It does.
If we use your delusional BS (which isn't a theory at all), you reach an entirely incorrect conclusion.
If you use actual science, principles based upon evidence, it works.

If we run under my principle of buoyancy

We can discard that BS, as it is pure BS.
Stick to reality.

2. If we run under gravity, the Earth and moon are instead pulled toward the sun. The moon should fall toward the sun, and after it extincts all life on Earth, Earth should fall into the sun.

You have already had all this delusional BS refuted.
Instead of just baselessly asserting that the moon should magically fall towards the sun, why don't you try explaining why?

"But muh orbit!" Yeah, fuck your orbit.

That does pretty much sum up your tantrum.
You don't like reality, so you just reject it and lie about it.

The only way they can instead orbit is if the motion toward each other is in complete balance.

And more vague crap.
No, it doesn't.

Again, instead of just asserting delusional BS, try explaining why.

The Earth must have the same mass as the sun and moon under gravity

WHY?
Again, instead of just asserting delusional BS, try explaining why.

Quote

While some aspects will be subject to it, the sun as a whole, is such a large object that the uncertainty principle is irrelevant.

It must be nice to hold an imaginary kangaroo court, where you are able to dismiss any evidence you decide is inadmissible.

Meanwhile, in the real world, laws are supposed to be consistent.

Have you ever actually proven that the sun has any mass at all? If not, your precious "gravity" is irrelevant. What? You don't like other people applying the same standards?

The thing is, it doesn't actually matter which theory we use. I'll explain:
1. If we run under my principle of buoyancy, the thinner the air is, the less mass it can have and stay aloft. Air is thin enough even at ground level that most things fall (besides helium and very non-dense aerodynamic stuff). The sun and moon fall to the Earth as Majora's Mask.
2. If we run under gravity, the Earth and moon are instead pulled toward the sun. The moon should fall toward the sun, and after it extincts all life on Earth, Earth should fall into the sun.

Either the sun and moon have no mass, or neither model work.

"But muh orbit!" Yeah, fuck your orbit. If gravity or buoyancy work, they work.

The only way they can instead orbit is if the motion toward each other is in complete balance. The Earth must have the same mass as the sun and moon under gravity (that's highly unlikely) or insufficient mass to sink under buoyancy, and too much mass to float under buoyancy. Simple as that.

Do you ever bother to look at what the globe earth model actually entails? It entails our planet Earth orbiting our sun, due to the sun's gravitational pull. Orbital mechanics explains it very well. If the sun has no mass and no gravitational pull, then please explain why Earth is orbiting it?

Your buoyancy doesn't work, Bulma, because it's YOUR buoyancy, and not the scientifically accepted model of buoyancy. You don't understand buoyancy in a scientific sense. The only "buoyancy" you understand is from your "grinder" account sexcapades.

Your inadequate flat earth model which you follow, has no explanation for what the sun is.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 08, 2024, 07:24:02 PM

Quote

While some aspects will be subject to it, the sun as a whole, is such a large object that the uncertainty principle is irrelevant.

It must be nice to hold an imaginary kangaroo court, where you are able to dismiss any evidence you decide is inadmissible.

Meanwhile, in the real world, laws are supposed to be consistent.

Have you ever actually proven that the sun has any mass at all? If not, your precious "gravity" is irrelevant. What? You don't like other people applying the same standards?

The thing is, it doesn't actually matter which theory we use. I'll explain:
1. If we run under my principle of buoyancy, the thinner the air is, the less mass it can have and stay aloft. Air is thin enough even at ground level that most things fall (besides helium and very non-dense aerodynamic stuff). The sun and moon fall to the Earth as Majora's Mask.
2. If we run under gravity, the Earth and moon are instead pulled toward the sun. The moon should fall toward the sun, and after it extincts all life on Earth, Earth should fall into the sun.

Either the sun and moon have no mass, or neither model work.

"But muh orbit!" Yeah, fuck your orbit. If gravity or buoyancy work, they work.

The only way they can instead orbit is if the motion toward each other is in complete balance. The Earth must have the same mass as the sun and moon under gravity (that's highly unlikely) or insufficient mass to sink under buoyancy, and too much mass to float under buoyancy. Simple as that.

Do you ever bother to look at what the globe earth model actually entails? It entails our planet Earth orbiting our sun, due to the sun's gravitational pull. Orbital mechanics explains it very well. If the sun has no mass and no gravitational pull, then please explain why Earth is orbiting it?

Your buoyancy doesn't work, Bulma, because it's YOUR buoyancy, and not the scientifically accepted model of buoyancy. You don't understand buoyancy in a scientific sense. The only "buoyancy" you understand is from your "grinder" account sexcapades.

Your inadequate flat earth model which you follow, has no explanation for what the sun is.

You were handed your globe model on a plate and you accept it for no other reason than it being official lines.

Normal everyday physics takes a back seat when space is brought into the limelight.
Your reliance offers you no thought, only adherence to a story.

Extremely weak.

You were handed your globe model on a plate and you accept it for no other reason than it being official lines.

Actually that is bullshit especially in the fact flat earth doesn’t work.

Two examples.

When I was is the navy, the celestial South Pole works because the earth is spherical.

Star gazing in the southern hemisphere is aided by this accurate star atlas based on a dial.  Where on a flat earth it would be useless.




Flat earth killed by a simple yet effective 16 dollar dial star atlas. 

You were handed your globe model on a plate and you accept it for no other reason than it being official lines.

We accept it for the very important reason of it actually working to explain and predict reality.
Your delusional BS does not.

The BS you try to replace it with you do so for no reason other than you can't handle reality, so you cling to a fantasy.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 09, 2024, 08:24:52 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 08, 2024, 07:24:02 PM

Quote

While some aspects will be subject to it, the sun as a whole, is such a large object that the uncertainty principle is irrelevant.

It must be nice to hold an imaginary kangaroo court, where you are able to dismiss any evidence you decide is inadmissible.

Meanwhile, in the real world, laws are supposed to be consistent.

Have you ever actually proven that the sun has any mass at all? If not, your precious "gravity" is irrelevant. What? You don't like other people applying the same standards?

The thing is, it doesn't actually matter which theory we use. I'll explain:
1. If we run under my principle of buoyancy, the thinner the air is, the less mass it can have and stay aloft. Air is thin enough even at ground level that most things fall (besides helium and very non-dense aerodynamic stuff). The sun and moon fall to the Earth as Majora's Mask.
2. If we run under gravity, the Earth and moon are instead pulled toward the sun. The moon should fall toward the sun, and after it extincts all life on Earth, Earth should fall into the sun.

Either the sun and moon have no mass, or neither model work.

"But muh orbit!" Yeah, fuck your orbit. If gravity or buoyancy work, they work.

The only way they can instead orbit is if the motion toward each other is in complete balance. The Earth must have the same mass as the sun and moon under gravity (that's highly unlikely) or insufficient mass to sink under buoyancy, and too much mass to float under buoyancy. Simple as that.

Do you ever bother to look at what the globe earth model actually entails? It entails our planet Earth orbiting our sun, due to the sun's gravitational pull. Orbital mechanics explains it very well. If the sun has no mass and no gravitational pull, then please explain why Earth is orbiting it?

Your buoyancy doesn't work, Bulma, because it's YOUR buoyancy, and not the scientifically accepted model of buoyancy. You don't understand buoyancy in a scientific sense. The only "buoyancy" you understand is from your "grinder" account sexcapades.

Your inadequate flat earth model which you follow, has no explanation for what the sun is.

You were handed your globe model on a plate and you accept it for no other reason than it being official lines.

Normal everyday physics takes a back seat when space is brought into the limelight.
Your reliance offers you no thought, only adherence to a story.

Extremely weak.

Yes, the globe earth model was handed to me on a plate. But no, I do not accept it for no other reason than it being official lines. I accept it, because I understand a little of something you do not understand - physics. I also have eyes that work.

Physics is something that doesn't work on any flat earth model compared to real life observations. Plus, there are literally tons of evidence to back the globe earth model as compared to the literally zero evidence to back any flat earth model. When I say you have nothing to back your argument, I literally mean, nothing.

Everyday physics such as how an inflated party balloon can fly around a room when deflating out of it's end, takes front and centre stage when travel in outer space is brought into the limelight.

Your reliance on flat earth con artists offers you no thought, only adherence to a pitiful scam.

That is why, sceptic, my argument is extremely strong and your argument is
extremely weak.

I presume, the reason you can dismiss all the space footage, sceptic, is because you don't believe in vacuums, even though you believe atmosphere is layered and stacked, with air molecules denser at Earth's surface and less dense the higher you ascend?

Most people would call that space between air molecules, well, "space", but not you, ey? I'm sure you'll come up with a word to replace space one day, that is different to "space" but means exactly the same as space does. Just as Bulma has been unable to find any walls of air to push off, without standing standing next to a tornado, you've never been able to find where one layer of atmosphere begins and another ends, have you, sceptic?

Do you ever bother to look at what the globe earth model actually entails?

Yeah. Better than you, in fact, because I'm at the other end of this argument, whereas you can only see your tunnel vision. Far from explaining things "very well", it has to make constant adjustments. Seasons? Oh ummm, tilt. What's that?  It's actually more distant in summer than winter? Distance doesn't matter. So if distance doesn't matter, you shouldn't see the sun shrink (video in my signature)? No, uhhhh distance definitely matters. If the sun rises in 6am in summer, shouldn't it be on the opposite side of the sun and rise at some different time? Ummmmm sidereal days, that's it, sidereal days. And so on. For each problem, you have a lameass Columbo suspect answer.

Columbo: There were witnesses that say they saw you leaving the building, a gun was found outside the scene with your fingerprints, and you have powder burns on your hand.
Suspect: (The victim) sent me to pick up her gun for repairs. She wanted to make sure it wasn't loaded, so she had me fire off a shot. That might be why you found my fingerprints and powder burns.
Columbo: Ohhh okay, that makes sense. (pause) Just one more thing. There's only one bullet out of the revolver and it's in the victim.

Your buoyancy doesn't work, Bulma, because it's YOUR buoyancy, and not the scientifically accepted model of buoyancy. You don't understand buoyancy in a scientific sense.

The buoyancy model was "updated" (altered) to account for gravity. There is no scientific model for buoyancy, as the "real" one has been altered with a lot of dogmatic bullshit. But uhhhh, they knew about buoyancy back when it was more common to believe in flat Earth, and well before Archimedes. He simply put a name to it. They in fact had perfected buoyancy to the point of using it in battle ships (Archimedes built this claw thing to help with battles).

If we're talking models, the one I use belongs to (Unknown  Caveman) who built the first boat. I know how the principle of buoyancy works.

You insert gravity into a formula that only needs a mass vs space definition of density. Then density is compared to the density of the medium. It's a simple formula. Overall density of wood object > water density? It sinks. If it's <= water density? It floats. Birds, frogs, and primitive humans all understand buoyancy better than you.

 And if you carefully look at gravity in the formula, you figure out that it pretty much self-cancels.

In terms of predicting layers of air, it works exactly as it should until you get to the Karman Line, where I would say the firmament is, and you would way outside this is "outer space". It also follows all the same rules of propulsion and buoyancy that we've observed in moving objects from thousands of years up to this very day.  You can make a balloon  fly up to a certain height and no higher. Gravity? No, it is simply more dense than that layer of air. Btw, in order to have a helium balloon float, it must be filled. The more mass in helium (which is less dense than air), the more it can lift.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/everyday-life/helium-balloons
Omnicalculator believes their own rhetoric about RE, but their calculators work. 5693 balloons (standard size) to lift a person, 3795322 balloons to lift a 50 ton forklift. Given that someone actually rode in a balloon chair, yes this model works. You can lift a person simply by increasing the number of balloons.

How well does gravity  work with a stable layers of air model? It kinda doesn't. These layers ought to collapse, making any air in the atmosphere pull down toward the bottom layer. This would mean the bottom layer would be in the water of in caves, and all of us would suffocate. Instead, it neatly sorts itself by chains of molecules. More densely packed air falls, less densely packed rises.

There are areas on Earth where "gravity doesn't exist." For a law that is supposed to have consistent behavior, it kinda doesn't (meanwhile, such places can probably be explained through wind tunnels, magnetic pull, or simply high density air creating buoyant effect).

The buoyancy model was "updated" (altered) to account for gravity.

What makes the atmosphere bunch up at the earth’s surface to overcome air molecules tendency to equal distance in a container to create the pressure gradient.

How does a less dense atmosphere at a lower pressure “trap” an atmosphere with more pressure and density under it? 

because I'm at the other end of this argument

You mean the childish rejection of reality and ignoring everything that shows you are wrong end?

Far from explaining things "very well", it has to make constant adjustments.

Yet you can't show any.

Seasons? Oh ummm, tilt. What's that?

It is a change in angle, which results in a change in the number of daylight hours, and the intensity of illumination per unit surface area.
Not distance.

So if distance doesn't matter, you shouldn't see the sun shrink

Again, what matters is how much the distance varies. For the RE model, that is a tiny variation over a year.
For your delusional BS it is a massive variation (doubling the distance) over a day.

If the sun rises in 6am in summer, shouldn't it be on the opposite side of the sun and rise at some different time

No, as already explained, we based our clocks off the sun, not rotation.

For each problem

We have a clear and typically simple answer, which you cannot show fault with, and which you cannot demonstrate any inconsistency with.

The buoyancy model was "updated" (altered) to account for gravity.

No, it wasn't.
Even back with Aristotle, it used weight.
Weight was updated with the understanding it is caused by gravity.

I know how the principle of buoyancy works.

Considering you still haven't addressed the numerous faults with your delusional BS it is clear you don't.
You cannot explain why things fall at a different rate in different locations.
You cannot explain what maintains the pressure gradient observed in fluids.
You cannot explain why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up.
You cannot explain the directionality.
In short, you can't explain anything with your BS.

In terms of predicting layers of air, it works exactly as it should

i.e. you have no answer, and just need to deflect.

How well does gravity  work with a stable layers of air model?

Great.
It directly explains the observed pressure gradient, which in turn pushes things up.

These layers ought to collapse

Why?
Yet again, you just assert pure BS.

There are areas on Earth where "gravity doesn't exist."

Where?

For a law that is supposed to have consistent behavior

it is entirely consistent with you yet to demonstrate any inconsistency.

Quote

These layers ought to collapse

Why?

Haven't you figured it out on your own?


Buoyancy causes the rise and fall of objects.


Gravity causes only the fall of objects, based on the idea that objects with greater mass exert gravity on objects of lesser mass. The Earth has greater mass than all objects therein, so the shuttle, satellite, aircraft, meteors, and all air in all layers of air are pulled down toward Earth by forces of gravity. Through understanding of what gravity entails, you don't get to pick and choose what falls and what doesn't. All layers of air collapse into the lowest point of the ground.

Different layers of air is consistent with buoyancy theory. Boat travel is consistent with buoyancy theory. Plane travel is consistent with buoyancy theory. Space shuttle travel is not is consistent with buoyancy theory, and thus I excluded it from the buoyancy model. Objects with mass do not float without air or water, even if you are able to use propulsion.

You do not understand your own theory.
If you did, the only reason you would not reject it is if you have a vested interest.
That can't be true, right?

😂😂😂
You can't comprehend anything. You should not be trying to explain things you don't understand. Leave that to Sandy, he's good at explaining stuff he doesn't understand.
Again what gives your magic falling  of higher density direction?
Can you explain the difference between weight and mass? Start there.

Different layers of air is consistent with buoyancy theory.

Ah, no.

It takes an ever increasing amount of force to push air molecules more and more together.

No force, air molecules try to equal distance themselves. 


The atmosphere is in equilibrium with gravity.  We know this because air molecules are bunched up at the earth’s surface to create a greater pressure down low in the atmosphere.  If there was no gravity, the higher pressure at the earth’s surface would equalise and flow up to the lower pressure of the upper atmosphere.  There is a force preventing high pressure from flowing to the low pressure of the upper atmosphere to equalise pressure potential. 

Haven't you figured it out on your own?

I figured out based upon gravity and the property of gasses, that the atmosphere should have a pressure gradient, just like all fluids.
And as a gas, it wont just collapse.

So no, I haven't "figured out" your entirely baseless claim with no basis in reality; unless by "figured out" you mean recognise it is pure BS.

As for your image, the question is why is there a pressure gradient?
And if you want to claim it is based upon density, why isn't the lowest layer a layer of CO2, followed by a layer of oxygen, then a layer of nitrogen?
It seems it doesn't layer based upon density at all, and instead the gasses are quite well mixed.
Instead, it "layers" based upon pressure. With the gas near the surface being at the greatest pressure and the gas higher up being at a lower pressure, with that pressure (and temperature) dictating its density.

If it was just magically density, then I should be able to create an airtight box, pump loads of gas into it so it is a nice high density, and then open the lid and just have it sit there.
But instead, the pressure pushes it up.

Gravity causes only the fall of objects, based on the idea that objects with greater mass exert gravity on objects of lesser mass.

Only if you pretend that that "object" is the only thing in existence (other than what it is falling towards), and everything else doesn't exist.

Again, what you are saying here is like saying, if you get a see saw, and put a light person on one end and they are close to the ground, and then a heavy person on the other, gravity can't explain why the light person goes up.
It is dishonest BS which has already been refuted.

Look at a sky diver, what happens when they try to fall through the air? They need to push the air out of the way, compressing the air in front of them as they do so, which in turn slows them down.

And guess what? The same happens with the air.
In order for air to fall down, it needs to push the air below out of the way or compress it.

Alternatively, now with what you are saying, everything should just be a single point at the core. That you shouldn't be able to walk on Earth, gravity should cause you to fall through the ground and into the centre of Earth.
Of course, this entirely ignores the fact that you can't just fall through a solid object. You would need to push it out of the way.
But again, the same applies for fluids, it is just much easier to push out of the way.

So yet again, the delusional BS you are spouting is so far removed from reality it isn't funny.

Through understanding of what gravity entails, you don't get to pick and choose what falls and what doesn't.

I don't get to choose, simple physics does.
And that includes not being able to force everything into the same point.

Again, going back to that box of compressed air. When you open it, that high pressure air pushes the air above out of the way.
The more you compress a gas, the more it pushes back.

So what happens with gravity? Well that air above is pushing the air below, compressing it.
This compressed air below in turn pushes the air above up, keeping it supported.
This directly provides the pressure gradient.
The pressure gradient should be the density of the fluid times the value of g at that location.
As an approximation for a small height change, (so the density and value of g remains roughly the same) the change in pressure should be roughly rho*g*h.
And this is what is observed.

If the pressure gradient is greater than that, it means something has pressurised the air and so that air pushes back up to expand.
And if the pressure gradient is lower than that, it means something has removed the air, and the air can't hold the air above it, so that air falls down, to compress the air below and get that pressure gradient back.

And this pressure gradient will also act on EVERY object in that fluid, pushing it upwards.
It is then a competition between the upwards force from the pressure gradient and the downwards force from gravity.
If gravity wins, the object goes down. If the pressure gradient wins, the object goes up.

Different layers of air is consistent with buoyancy theory.

No, it isn't, as you cannot explain the pressure gradient.
You cannot explain why this pressure gradient doesn't push things up.
You cannot explain why it is a pressure gradient, rather than actual separation based upon the density of the components of air.

However, all of the points you have claimed are entirely consistent with gravity and the RE.
You lying about it wont change it.

Again, gravity explains it, your BS can't.

You do not understand your own theory.

I do understand it, which is why I recognise your claims are pure BS.

Conversely, you are desperate to reject it at all costs as it destroys your fantasy.

So which one has a vested interest? YOU!