How can you dismiss all the space footage?

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

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.

Quote

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).

Bulma, again, you display your lack of a basic understanding of the Globe earth model. As Jack has pointed out to you, Earth's distance from the sun in it's elliptical orbit, is not enough to cause Earth's seasons. It is Earth's tilt on it's axis which is. Ask yourself why the northern and southern hemisphere experience opposite seasons at the same time, while all areas along Earth's equator do not experience the four seasons, but instead only experience two seasons - wet season or dry season. This is a verifiable fact which any flat earth model with a fixed sun over a plate earth, can never explain. Surely it has been pointed out to you time and time again, how earths seasons destroy flat earth?

Tilt, Bulma. Tilt. It's bread and butter to the globe earth model, and you don't seem to grasp what it is. Can you buy or borrow yourself a globe earth model somewhere, and learn how to tilt it against the light from a lamp, or even the sun, and see how the sun's angle of light is what causes the seasons?

I know you don't want to learn anything new, but your inability to understand that which you refute and are dead against, weakens your argument and hurts your credibility.

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.

You shouldn't talk. It makes you sound stupid.

Fair enough. Semantics. That's it.
Newton decided there was a difference, adding "gravity" to weight, then saying people "weigh" different amounts on different "planets." Only there is no conclusive proof of other planets. There is no conclusive proof of gravity. There is only NASA's word against mine. In a court of law, a decent lawyer would object, "Your honor, hearsay."

Higher density objects fall or float by their own initiative. If I were to set two loose chains of molecules in the same space, they would sift themselves out, like this.

O₂==O₂==O₂==O₂
        | |
O₂==O₂

The chain of two will rise, the chain of four oxygen molecules will fall. It's dead simple. That you spend your time imagining forces to do this job is your hangup, not mine. If I have a glass tube with water or air, and one side has none, it will slide back and forth until it reaches balance. Not gravity, diffusion and buoyancy. It does the same thing sideways as gravity is supposedly only gonna do toward the center of Earth.

You do not understand your own theory. If you did, you would not be defending it.

If I were to grab a brick, a rubber ball, a feather, and a balloon, I would rather easily be able to show that what you call gravity really is buoyancy.

• The brick is heavier than air therefore it sinks in the air (falls), and also heavier than water and sinks in water.
• The ball is heavier than air therefore it sinks in the air (falls), but also lighter than water and floats in water.
• The feather is heavier than air but just barely therefore it sinks slowly in the air (floats down), and also lighter than water and floats in water (unless it gets waterlogged).  Strong wind can exert propulsion.
• The balloon is lighter than air therefore it floats in the air, and also lighter than water.

When you understand that a ball rising to the surface is doing the exact same thing as a balloon floating to its highest level, and that a brick falling in air or water isn't really any different, you will understand that you well and truly are full of crap. Now, I'm having issues with my mind (anywhere from headache to stroke to early onset Alzheimer's, writing a novel and having trouble with names), and I'm still getting this better than you.
Seriously bro, what's your excuse? Why isn't this (to use a pun) sinking in?

Are massive ocean liners not heavier than water?


How about hot air ballooons.

Are massive ocean liners not heavier than water?

How about hot air ballooons.

Density.

Density is mass spread throughout square inch. The bigger something is, the better it floats.

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-ships-work.html

You can't walk on water: you're too heavy and you'll sink like a stone. But this aircraft carrier can float, even though it's over 300m (1000ft) long, at least a million times heavier than you are, and carries about 70 airplanes and 4000 sailors.

Positive, negative, and neutral buoyancy

Buoyancy is easiest to understand thinking about a submarine. It has diving planes (fins mounted on the side) and ballast tanks that it can fill with water or air to make it rise or fall as it needs to. If its tanks are completely filled with air, it's said to be positively buoyant: the tanks weigh less than an equal volume of water and make the sub float on the surface. If the tanks are partly filled with air, it's possible to make the submarine float at some middle depth of the water without either rising up or sinking down. That's called neutral buoyancy. The other option is to fill the tanks completely with water. In that case, the submarine is negatively buoyant, which means it sinks to the seabed. Find out more about how submarines rise and fall.

Isn't that interesting! An article about buoyancy recognizes that sinking and floating are aspects of buoyancy. Almost like I know what I am talking about.

And you don't.

Now yes, many of these articles use "center of gravity" when they mean center of mass, or other unfortunate terms. But I pay that no mind, because I understand buoyancy and other forces properly. You guys keep asking how a big battleship can float. Same exact way a big jumbo jet can fly in the air (although in that case, there's also aerodynamics and propulsion).

[li]The brick is heavier than air therefore it sinks in the air (falls), and also heavier than water and sinks in water.[/li][/list]

The brink doesn’t “sink” in atmosphere.  It accelerates down.  How do you accelerate an object with no force? 

Not only that.  If I throw a brick straight up, it’s goes from higher pressure into lower pressure and lower density atmosphere.  The atmosphere should push it up.


We can change to a ping pong ball.  I can blow a ping pong ball around a table top with just my breath. In fact, you can “float” a ping pong ball with a steam of air blowing it up.



 You have 14.7 psia pressure trying to push the ping pong ball up into less dense and less pressure.  At 25,000 feet the pressure is something like 6 psia.  A differential pressure of something like 8 psia.

However.  You throw a ping pong ball straight up on a calm day. It slows down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  It stops.  Changes travel of direction 180 degrees.  Then accelerates down all the while the buoyant force it’s trying to push the ping pong ball up from greater pressure in to the lower pressure and density of the upper atmosphere. 

There is a force not buoyancy making the ping pong ball accelerate down against “ the buoyant force” which is trying to push up the ping pong ball from more pressure and density low in the atmosphere into less pressure and density up high.

You shouldn't talk. It makes you sound stupid.

I would say you should follow your own advice, but at this point I find it hard to believe anyone could possibly be as stupid as you pretend to be. It is clear that it is blatant dishonesty, not stupidity.

Only there is no conclusive proof of other planets. There is no conclusive proof of gravity.

You mean you just reject all the proof.

Higher density objects fall or float by their own initiative.

Why?
What makes them float or fall?
Why should they move in any direction?

The chain of two will rise, the chain of four oxygen molecules will fall.

Why?
Because you say so?

it will slide back and forth until it reaches balance.

Again, WHY?

You do not understand your own theory. If you did, you would not be defending it.

I do understand it, which is why I can explain why your strawmen attempts to show a problem are nothing more than blatant lies.

Either you don't understand it, or you are happy to look a lying moron pretending it is wrong.

If I were to grab a brick, a rubber ball, a feather, and a balloon, I would rather easily be able to show that what you call gravity really is buoyancy.

No, you wouldn't.
Buoyancy is a direct result of gravity.

Again, if you want to show it, measure the complete absence of a pressure gradient. You know that thing you cannot explain at all which directly explains buoyancy?

Now, I'm having issues with my mind

So you are saying you aren't lying, you are just brain damaged?
That is your excuse?

Again, if you want to pretend your delusional BS works, explain the pressure gradient and why this doesn't push everything up.
Until you can do, your idea of buoyancy is DOA.

Nope, I'm not brain damaged. I have a headache. Probably from talking to you guys day after day.

But I wonder about you.

You mean you just reject all the proof.

No, there is no proof.

Isaac Newton, an old dead guy told other people, who told your teacher this.

When asked to prove it, they drop an object.

They then declare, "Look! The proof is self-evident! You saw it fall."

Yes, I did see it fall. I also saw someone, aware or not, offer a deceptive explanation.

Why?
Because you say so?

You remember in third grade or so where they had you learn greater than or less than? That's all the math you need. This is why things fall because a chain of say silicon is more densely packed than whatever is around it.

You say so, that things must fall because of a force. But there is no proof of the necessity of such a force, and no proof of the existence of such a force. If such a force existed, buoyant objects would constantly be in a struggle to stay afloat.

Picture this. A man sits on the shore of a large lake, tossing a ball high in the air.  He watches it slow down shortly before reversing direction and heading towards the ground. He is convinced this must be proof of gravity. Overhead, a helicopter (I apologize for unintended hilarity) is carrying large wood beam when it slips loose. The wooden beam falls into the water, and then because this is a clear lake, he watches as the beam falls down, slows, and starts to bob up to the surface.

If you had never been brainwashed by Newton's goons, observing this happen would make you decide, "The ball rose, slowed, and fell. The pillar fell, slowed, and rose. This is the same behavior in reverse." Whereas someone looking at magnetism compared to buoyancy can pretty easily tell that their motion does not look the same.

Quote

Are massive ocean liners not heavier than water?

How about hot air ballooons.

Density.

Density is mass spread throughout square inch. The bigger something is, the better it floats.

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-ships-work.html

Quote

You can't walk on water: you're too heavy and you'll sink like a stone. But this aircraft carrier can float, even though it's over 300m (1000ft) long, at least a million times heavier than you are, and carries about 70 airplanes and 4000 sailors.

Quote

Positive, negative, and neutral buoyancy

Buoyancy is easiest to understand thinking about a submarine. It has diving planes (fins mounted on the side) and ballast tanks that it can fill with water or air to make it rise or fall as it needs to. If its tanks are completely filled with air, it's said to be positively buoyant: the tanks weigh less than an equal volume of water and make the sub float on the surface. If the tanks are partly filled with air, it's possible to make the submarine float at some middle depth of the water without either rising up or sinking down. That's called neutral buoyancy. The other option is to fill the tanks completely with water. In that case, the submarine is negatively buoyant, which means it sinks to the seabed. Find out more about how submarines rise and fall.

Isn't that interesting! An article about buoyancy recognizes that sinking and floating are aspects of buoyancy. Almost like I know what I am talking about.

And you don't.

Now yes, many of these articles use "center of gravity" when they mean center of mass, or other unfortunate terms. But I pay that no mind, because I understand buoyancy and other forces properly. You guys keep asking how a big battleship can float. Same exact way a big jumbo jet can fly in the air (although in that case, there's also aerodynamics and propulsion).

What you deacribed is bouyancy.
The displacement and overall average density (mass over volume) means the ship that displaces a volume of water, that amount of water will have a bouyant force to counteract the gravity force.

Same with hot air.

So if we go back to your previous statemnt:

"Hesvy things fall."


Heavy being mass
Mass dalls because mass attracts mass.

Buouancy floars because density displaced yadayaydayayada.


Hurray
Physics learned today!

"The ball rose, slowed, and fell.

The ball accelerated down from the upper atmosphere with less pressure and density into the lower atmosphere with greater pressure and density. What was the unbalanced force that made the ball accelerate down into more resistance. 

Nope, I'm not brain damaged.

So you have no excuse and you are just lying to everyone?

No, there is no proof.

Yes, there is.
The simplest (other than things falling) is the Cavendish experiment.

You remember in third grade or so where they had you learn greater than or less than? That's all the math you need.

No, it isn't.
Saying one is greater than the other provides no reason at all for why it should move at all.
It provides no reason for why it should move in a particular direction.
It provides no reason for why it should accelerate at a particular rate.
It provides no reason for why this rate should vary with location.
It provides no reason for why this results in a force on an object (e.g. scales) needing to support the object above, this includes when it is a higher density (e.g. a steel table supporting a piece of aluminium or a fish tank full of water).
It provides no reason for the pressure gradient.
It provides no reason for why this pressure gradient doesn't push everything up.

In short, it explains NOTHING!

You say so, that things must fall because of a force.

Because all the evidence shows that if you want to change the motion of an object, it requires a force.

If such a force existed, buoyant objects would constantly be in a struggle to stay afloat.

Considering that same force is responsible for buoyancy, no they wouldn't.
Without such a force, everything should stay afloat.

Picture this.

Picture this. A kid finds a see saw, and places a small weight on it, and sees that side go down.
They then place a heavier weight on the other side, and see the small weight go up.
The realise that it goes up because the heavier weight has a greater force pulling it down.

They can transfer this to the garbage you describe, where they recognise the wood rises to the surface, because the water goes down because the force trying to moving the water down is greater than the force trying to move the wood down.

All your garbage does is show buoyancy is caused by gravity.

But then they can also look at other things, which behave similar to buoyancy.

If you hang a weight from an accelerating vehicle, we see the weight appear to fall backwards.
But if we do this with a balloon full of helium, we see it appear to fall forwards.
This is quite comparable to gravity and buoyancy.
The fluid creates a pressure gradient which pushes things forwards.
Just like with gravity, a pressure gradient is created with pushes things upwards.


Again, if you want to claim your delusional BS works, you need to address the points above.
See if you can explain the pressure gradient, and why this doesn't push things up.

Nope, I'm not brain damaged.

And how many threads on gravity, yet your posting about buoyancy in a thread about all the space footage from 1946 until present.

Students film breathtaking curvature of Earth using high-altitude weather balloon

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-students-breathtaking-curvature-earth-high-altitude.amp

Cabrini School's weather balloon captures stunning footage of Earth




https://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/2020/12/11/alexandria-school-weather-balloon-captures-stunning-earth-footage/6496653002/

Also.   Why is there a dip of the horizon? 

So in short, I can dismiss the space footage the exact same way you all dismissed my eclipse video. Someone literally added dots to it, claiming it was doctored.

Hurray
Physics learned today!

Good, because you're about to learn more.

Mass does not "attract" mass. Rather, all mass can be said to be surrounded by a matrix (no, not like Trinity and Neo, like a surrounding web of atoms)


If you drop an apple on a trampoline, the tight mesh of fabric and springs will cause it to bounce. If you drop it in a mesh net, its fall will largely be stopped. If you drop it in a big circus net, it will probably fall through.

Buoyancy is about the interaction of atoms with each other in a matrix. There is no traffic cop blowing the whistle to force anything to cross, they are crossing each others' path on their own.

When we say  heavier, we are usually talking about thickness (rather than an imaginary concept of weight) factoring in atomic density as well as regular density. A coin of gold and a wooden nickel (don't take any wooden nickels!) appear to occupy the same physical space but the gold atomic matrix profile has significantly more density than the wood molecules.   But density we mean volume of stuff per inches, cm, or even nanometers.

Going back to Newton's apple. Had he grabbed a hot air balloon and tested out his theory by tossing an apple over a lake on a misty day, he would see the apple encounter "wind resistance"  as air is thicker the closer it gets to sea level, he'd see it hit the water, push through by virtue of its momentum, then scribble something down about "equal and opposite" as it begins to bob toward the surface.

If we were to look at this entire process with atoms somehow lit up, we would a see a mesh closing around the apple, momentum pulling it through, then a sort of trampoline elasticity as atoms adjust back to place.

Mass doesn't just push downward against mass. It realigns itself, it snaps back to where it belongs. The apple matches its actual location in the water after falling through the water for a few seconds, as surely as if it hit a trampoline.

This is why you shouldn't talk as it makes you look dumb. You completely overlooked the fact that buoyancy is an elastic reaction, instead talking about one way mass reactions as though that's a thing. If it were, Newton's apple would drill straight through solid earth until lava finally consumed it.

Do you even bother to read posts all the way though?

You clearly don't, which is every single post I read from you appears to be picked apart point by point.

So why should I read all your post?

Pass. Getting ready for church.

So in short, I can dismiss the space footage the exact same way you all dismissed my eclipse video. Someone literally added dots to it, claiming it was doctored.

For the video you never posted?  For something you only witnessed.  Not reproduced in my own video of the eclipse?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 08, 2024, 02:35:56 PM

Oh, and btw, I looked after the eclipse, and this is still what I saw.

The sun has a dark center. A moving dark center, as I found out.

This is what I filmed with no filter.



Below are little gif clips I screen captured from the video I took of the eclipse with no filter over my video camera.  The video was taken in 4k.  Not sure what YouTube compressed it to. 

Pre eclipse


Going into totality.  The light was still too bright and overexposed totality.


Coming out of totality



bulmabriefs144, your suspect dot can’t be verified and is not replicated in my videos of the eclipse.

But you haven’t.  You just turn a deaf ear and blind eye because you have no argument.  You have no proof. You have no argument than you choose to put your head in the sand.

Below are balloon platform pictures that you can’t debunk.  And you love balloons. Balloons seem to be your answer to most things space related! 

Nope, I'm not brain damaged.

And how many threads on gravity, yet your posting about buoyancy in a thread about all the space footage from 1946 until present.

Students film breathtaking curvature of Earth using high-altitude weather balloon

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-students-breathtaking-curvature-earth-high-altitude.amp

Cabrini School's weather balloon captures stunning footage of Earth




https://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/2020/12/11/alexandria-school-weather-balloon-captures-stunning-earth-footage/6496653002/

Also.   Why is there a dip of the horizon? 

Going back to Newton's apple.

The apple accelerated down from the upper atmosphere with less pressure and density into the lower atmosphere with greater pressure and density. What was the unbalanced force that made the apple accelerate down into more resistance.

So in short, I can dismiss the space footage the exact same way you all dismissed my eclipse video.

Your eclipse footage does not match what other footage of the eclipse looks like.
You also haven't provided more footage of you recording the sun.

Mass does not "attract" mass. Rather, all mass can be said to be surrounded by a matrix

You mean space time?
Because that is what your picture is trying to show.

This is why you shouldn't talk as it makes you look dumb.

Again, follow your own advice.
There is nothing even resembling a rational thought in that post of yours.

You completely overlooked the fact that buoyancy is an elastic reaction, instead talking about one way mass reactions as though that's a thing. If it were, Newton's apple would drill straight through solid earth until lava finally consumed it.

You mean it is based upon the fluid pushing up?
Just like you would expect from the pressure gradient?
That pressure gradient you can't explain?

Also, describing it as elastic and comparing it to a trampoline is quite dishonest.
If it was, then if you take a helium filled balloon and smack it upwards, it should go and then spring back down.

Again, your buoyancy crap doesn't work.
It provides no reason for why it should move in a particular direction.
It provides no reason for why it should accelerate at a particular rate.
It provides no reason for why this rate should vary with location.
It provides no reason for why this results in a force on an object (e.g. scales) needing to support the object above, this includes when it is a higher density (e.g. a steel table supporting a piece of aluminium or a fish tank full of water).
It provides no reason for the pressure gradient.
It provides no reason for why this pressure gradient doesn't push everything up.

In short, it explains NOTHING!

Gravity does work.
It provides a reason for the directionality, objects accelerate towards Earth.
It provides a reason for the rate, and why this rate varies.
The rate is proportional to mass of the object it is accelerating towards and inversely proportional to the distance squared.
This also provides a direct for why it applies a force on a scale, because that is the force from gravity.
This directly provides a reason for the pressure gradient, the air below needs to support the air above. This compresses it and causes a pressure gradient.
And unlike your BS, it doesn't need to magically have that pressure gradient not push things up. That pressure gradient does push things up, creating a competition between the direct force of gravity trying to move it down, and the force of this pressure gradient trying to push it up.
It works.

Do you even bother to read posts all the way though?

You clearly don't, which is every single post I read from you appears to be picked apart point by point.

So why should I read all your post?

Pass. Getting ready for church.

How was your Jehovah's Witness meeting?

Ok, so now buoyancy is like a rubber band? I'm learning newer and newer things about buoyancy everyday.

These two images don't quite agree.

In short, it explains NOTHING!

Correct, gravity explains nothing.

Now let me show you why I find it so easy to dismiss all space footage.

How to produce your very own fake sphere.
1. Find a stock picture of ice and clouds or something. The more generic, the more people will forget that the Earth is supposed to have continents.

2. Get a stock background or picture of space or whatever.
3. Draw a circle with blue to white gradient effect (GIMP has this tool)
4. Move it off toward the edge (space pictures never show the whole Earth being a sphere, while they show that cutoff effect all the time)
5. Cut out a circle from step 1, and paste it on top of the gradient.



Time consuming (couldn't get the gradient to function correctly for a circle) but ultimately yeah, it's basically just some shithead taking a picture, cutting a circle, then doing some lighting effects.

These two images don't quite agree.

Quote

In short, it explains NOTHING!

Correct, gravity explains nothing.

Now let me show you why I find it so easy to dismiss all space footage.

How to produce your very own fake sphere.
1. Find a stock picture of ice and clouds or something. The more generic, the more people will forget that the Earth is supposed to have continents.

2. Get a stock background or picture of space or whatever.
3. Draw a circle with blue to white gradient effect (GIMP has this tool)
4. Move it off toward the edge (space pictures never show the whole Earth being a sphere, while they show that cutoff effect all the time)
5. Cut out a circle from step 1, and paste it on top of the gradient.



Time consuming (couldn't get the gradient to function correctly for a circle) but ultimately yeah, it's basically just some shithead taking a picture, cutting a circle, then doing some lighting effects.

You’re a failure bulmabriefs144.  You example looks nothing like the photos provided. With you not analysing the photos at all.  Just trying to change the subject to your failed attempts.

Whole vedio below.  Looks nothing like your distraction.

Weather Balloon launch - Aether One


bulmabriefs144, can’t even say you derail threads at this point.  You’re a sideshow for the road of life. 

These two images don't quite agree.

The first is from a fish eye lens, so that isn't surprising.

Correct, gravity explains nothing.

No, your delusional BS explains nothing.
Gravity works fine as already demonstrated.

Now let me show you why I find it so easy to dismiss all space footage.

You can make it a lot simpler.
It contradicts your delusional fantasy, the fantasy you cling to because you can't handle reality.
Just like you dismiss gravity, and anything else that contradicts your delusional BS.

If you accepted it, your fantasy would crumble, and you would have to face reality, and you just can't handle that.

You have nothing to actually dismiss it as fake.

Again, you being able to provide a crap fake doesn't show everything is fake.

If you really wanted to go down that path, you should dismiss all footage as fake, yet not too long ago you posted your own footage as evidence.

Now again, care to try to explain the pressure gradient, or be honest for once in your life and admit you can't?

So in short, I can dismiss the space footage the exact same way you all dismissed my eclipse video. Someone literally added dots to it, claiming it was doctored.

Quote

Hurray
Physics learned today!

Good, because you're about to learn more.

Mass does not "attract" mass. Rather, all mass can be said to be surrounded by a matrix (no, not like Trinity and Neo, like a surrounding web of atoms)


If you drop an apple on a trampoline, the tight mesh of fabric and springs will cause it to bounce. If you drop it in a mesh net, its fall will largely be stopped. If you drop it in a big circus net, it will probably fall through.

Buoyancy is about the interaction of atoms with each other in a matrix. There is no traffic cop blowing the whistle to force anything to cross, they are crossing each others' path on their own.

When we say  heavier, we are usually talking about thickness (rather than an imaginary concept of weight) factoring in atomic density as well as regular density. A coin of gold and a wooden nickel (don't take any wooden nickels!) appear to occupy the same physical space but the gold atomic matrix profile has significantly more density than the wood molecules.   But density we mean volume of stuff per inches, cm, or even nanometers.

Going back to Newton's apple. Had he grabbed a hot air balloon and tested out his theory by tossing an apple over a lake on a misty day, he would see the apple encounter "wind resistance"  as air is thicker the closer it gets to sea level, he'd see it hit the water, push through by virtue of its momentum, then scribble something down about "equal and opposite" as it begins to bob toward the surface.

If we were to look at this entire process with atoms somehow lit up, we would a see a mesh closing around the apple, momentum pulling it through, then a sort of trampoline elasticity as atoms adjust back to place.

Mass doesn't just push downward against mass. It realigns itself, it snaps back to where it belongs. The apple matches its actual location in the water after falling through the water for a few seconds, as surely as if it hit a trampoline.

This is why you shouldn't talk as it makes you look dumb. You completely overlooked the fact that buoyancy is an elastic reaction, instead talking about one way mass reactions as though that's a thing. If it were, Newton's apple would drill straight through solid earth until lava finally consumed it.

And when the air is pumped out of a container, a helium balloon thst was once floating sinks.

Showing bouyancy held it up.
And something.

Soomething else dropped ir back down


Amazing!

Quote

Are massive ocean liners not heavier than water?

How about hot air ballooons.

Density.

Density is mass spread throughout square inch. The bigger something is, the better it floats.

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-ships-work.html

Quote

You can't walk on water: you're too heavy and you'll sink like a stone. But this aircraft carrier can float, even though it's over 300m (1000ft) long, at least a million times heavier than you are, and carries about 70 airplanes and 4000 sailors.

Quote

Positive, negative, and neutral buoyancy

Buoyancy is easiest to understand thinking about a submarine. It has diving planes (fins mounted on the side) and ballast tanks that it can fill with water or air to make it rise or fall as it needs to. If its tanks are completely filled with air, it's said to be positively buoyant: the tanks weigh less than an equal volume of water and make the sub float on the surface. If the tanks are partly filled with air, it's possible to make the submarine float at some middle depth of the water without either rising up or sinking down. That's called neutral buoyancy. The other option is to fill the tanks completely with water. In that case, the submarine is negatively buoyant, which means it sinks to the seabed. Find out more about how submarines rise and fall.

Isn't that interesting! An article about buoyancy recognizes that sinking and floating are aspects of buoyancy. Almost like I know what I am talking about.

And you don't.

Now yes, many of these articles use "center of gravity" when they mean center of mass, or other unfortunate terms. But I pay that no mind, because I understand buoyancy and other forces properly. You guys keep asking how a big battleship can float. Same exact way a big jumbo jet can fly in the air (although in that case, there's also aerodynamics and propulsion).

Yes it is unfortunate that these articles talk about center of gravity when discussing buoyancy. As in ship design. I wonder why?
What do you think happens when the unfortunate center of gravity is above the center of pressure/ buoyancy?
Simple, your ship flips over!
Like two people standing in a canoe, ever try that? Not too stable, right?
Yes, because of that unfortunate center of gravity, ie a net force with direction.
Your theoretical foolishness lacks direction, so please don't try building any ships, thanks
You apparently understand absolutely nothing with regards to buoyancy.

Question if I drop a 6 inch dia ball and it 'falls' at 32 ft/sec/sec, what is the pressure difference top to bottom, to make that happen in your model?

I have quoted actual articles explaining buoyancy state that there is positive, neutral, and negative buoyancy. They use a submarine as an example. You can also use a hobby balloon, as it has flaps to release air.

You say that I am hanging on to a fantasy.
Yet as I explain over and over why gravity isn't right, why it can't be right, you conveniently lose track of the posts and threads of what I say.

If you just forget what I say, you can act like it never  happened, right? You can make definitions of gravity that need special pleading (in space, not only must the nature of gravity change from causing falling to causing spinning, otherwise orbits fail and moons and planets all fall to the sun like it is a black hole since it is in fact the most massive object there, but objects somehow move without creating pressure), and I'll be too worn down to argue.
But I've told you how pressure gradients work. And I've told you again. And I've told you again. And I will continue to tell you that you're wrong again and again until I die from the illnesses that all writers with sedentary habits fall subject to. You will still be wrong.

The gravity model is implosive. If a force presses things only down, all atmosphere would cave in. Buoyancy works as positive, neutral, and negative. We don't need a separate force, kabool. And we know it isn't a separate force because of our little observation with the rubber ball and the plank dropped by the helicopter. The same motion happens in opposite directions.
 If this were a force/counterforce thing, we would instead see resistance. That is, if you do tug of war and people actually try (in high school, they just let go and I was dragged into the mud because I had kinda the same person I do today, the kid who nobody liked because they were too earnest), you see a tension effect, where there's doubt as to what will win. If drop a feather to the ground, it ought to appear to press against buoyancy.
 But that doesn't happen, instead it simply falls slowly. Propulsion acts against negative buoyancy and positive buoyancy, and you can see the actual struggle as you swim. There is no such counterforce here. The object slowly falls because it is just slightly more dense than air.

 In the case of an object thrown that is more or less buoyant than where it is thrown, the object meets an area where it is more or less buoyant, it slows down, and reverses direction until it reaches the correct buoyancy. Ball rises due to propulsion, and falls as it loses upward  motion because it is heavier than air. If it happens to hit water, you would see a sort of sine motion, downward arc from up followed by upward arc from down, settling at the surface.Neutral buoyancy is why things stay at their current level. That plank on the water will continue to float, until wood rot sets in or something. In the same way atoms find their level of buoyancy and stay there.

 In a yoyo, propulsion, negative buoyancy, and tension all work in concert to create a bounce back effect. Negative buoyancy means the object falls, propulsion gives it momentum either up or down down, tension pulls it up. If the person sucks with a yoyo, it hits their hand rather than being caught, and negative buoyancy causes it to fall once again (rather than being pushed). I think temperature also sometimes affects buoyancy of air, but we might get into depth about that when you finally move on from outright denial of a proven law and discuss how hurricanes work.

This is not complicated. But if you insist on fantasy, you will reject explanations no matter how many times they are presented because it contradicts what you are taught in school by followers of Newton.

What do you think happens when the unfortunate center of gravity is above the center of pressure/ buoyancy?
Simple, your ship flips over!

Or how flat earth ignores in model rocketry why the center of gravity is place ahead of the center of pressure for stable flight in rocket design….

Why on a rocket is there a center of gravity and a separate center of pressure?

Quote

The center of pressure is the average location of where the pressure force is applied. Think of it like the center of gravity, the location where the average weight of an object is, except this time it is the location of average pressure. The center of pressure is where the forces of lift and drag are exerted. It is important for engineers to know the center of pressure since it allows them to evenly balance the lift on aircraft.

https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/what-center-pressure

If there is no gravity, how can a rocket have a center of gravity that is different than center of pressure?

The open post for a thread totally ignored…

Why do rockets have center of gravity and center of pressure?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=2400775;topic=91666.0

Going back to Newton's apple.

The apple accelerated down from the upper atmosphere with less pressure and density into the lower atmosphere with greater pressure and density. What was the unbalanced force that made the apple accelerate down into more resistance.

I have quoted actual articles explaining buoyancy

So?

You now have two problems to explain with your ignorance?

Why the center of gravity must be ahead of the center of pressure on an aircraft or rocket for stable flight.


What unbalanced force causes a dropped apple to not only accelerate down.  But accelerate down from an atmosphere with less pressure and less density down into an atmosphere with more resistance, more pressure, more density trying to push the apple up. 

Why would I need to explain that?

In debate, the person trying to push an argument is required to offer the burden of proof. 

I've already explained buoyancy and am now minding my business. You're asserting these supposed problems, but you've yet to prove that space travel is even real. "What about the center of gravity in this thing versus the center of pressure?" If you asked a biology question about little green men of Venus, when I am not convinced Venus even has life, wouldn't the requirement be to prove to me that Venus in fact has life? How then, am I obligated to answer a question about space ships, when I neither accept they exist (in space) nor care about them?

(But most objects have a center of mass around their base)

Newtonism is a cult.You need to be deprogrammed.

There is no unbalanced force. The apple is ripe or overipe, and its branch is old and only big enough to hold it in its original size. If I were sitting in an old branch, I too would fall, not because of gravity but because I am heavier than the air and the branch.  The branch creaks, cracks, and then splits when I put all my weight on a single branch.  However people can and do climb trees, and even sleep in them. How is this possible? They scatter their mass along multiple branches. Exactly as you do when floating on water.

Once again, density as it relates to buoyancy. 



There's no trick.

Why would I need to explain that?

I've already explained buoyancy

Because buoyancy doesn’t explain weight, why things weigh more as atmosphere is removed from a chamber, center of gravity, why center of gravity must be ahead of center of pressure for stable flight, why things accelerate down from less resistance onto more resistance.

Like fucking duh. 

Gravity does.  It works in calculations and Engineering in everything from ballistics to design of aircraft. 

There is no unbalanced force.

Back to the ping pong ball.

Then why doesn’t the grater pressure and density of the lower atmosphere push a ping pong ball up into the upper atmosphere with less pressure and density.

Like a person keeping a ping pong ball floating on their breath?




  So bulmabriefs144.  Now three questions.

Why the center of gravity must be ahead of the center of pressure on an aircraft or rocket for stable flight.


What unbalanced force causes a dropped apple to not only accelerate down.  But accelerate down from an atmosphere with less pressure and less density down into an atmosphere with more resistance, more pressure, more density trying to push the apple up.


What’s the downward force thats works against a person blowing with their breath trying to push a ping pong ball up where the exhaled breath and the downward force can reach an equilibrium where the ping pong ball floats. 

 but you've yet to prove that space travel is even real.

Now you want to go to space once your been shown how your buoyancy argument failed.

One.  Our moon and comets.  The moon literally is a natural satellite that orbits earth.

Two.  The first manmade object in orbit around the earth. Sputnik. The launch placed a visible rocket stage in orbit that could be seen from the ground, changes the night sky for the unaided eye.  Sputnik was certified by all kinds of people by its active broadcasting as it orbited earth.