How can you dismiss all the space footage?

1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?

Let's use real things to explain. Specifically, we'll use a feather and an elephant.

1. A feather is only slightly denser than air, and aerodynamic to boot. Objects heavier than air increase rate of fall until they reach terminal velocity. A feather actually reaches terminal velo rather quickly. It just... isn't that impressive. An elephant on the other hand takes awhile to accelerate to terminal velocity, but its terminal velocity is kinda big.

That bounce effect is how they depict terminal velocity. Notice that the feather quickly resolves.
2. The feather and the elephant are in a layer of air pressure. That air has less pressure than the air below. That is, objects sink through less dense air/water/molten lava/soil, and float atop more dense surfaces (fluids is a horrible term).
3. It's the amount of difference between the feather and elephant, and the air around them.
4. If we are to export the elephant and feather from the top of a building in say Chicago by helicopter to the Ganges River (the elephant should be right at home there), and drop them, the different humidity means different air pressure.
5. Scales don't measure gravity. We'll spare that scale from being demolished and not put an elephant on it. The feather on the other hand, is so light it barely registers. It still has mass however, and thus the springs of the scale give a readout. I'm not sure what you mean by "made of a material denser than the object in question" (uhhhhh, an object is as dense as itself) but we'll humor you. Our court alchemist has decided to turn this feather into gold. The mass of the object is increased, changing its density. On the scale, it now shows a higher amount.
6. You can't "create" a pressure gradient. The pressure gradient is something that exists because objects have differences in density. The feather while still covered in gold dust pushes air around it to reach a terminal velocity, when all of a sudden, the flakes of gold dust slide off the feather from all the air current. I would imagine it decelerates rather than keeping its terminal velocity, gradually reverting to the previous terminal velocity. The elephant decided to sit this one out.
7. Pressure gradient is based on density. We've decided to give the feather and elephant a bath, because they are dirty from all these tests. In two rooms for compacting liquid waste. Now, as the room compacts and compacts,

the elephant gets crunched up into a bloody mess. Sorry, were you getting attached to it? Meanwhile, in an another such room, while solid waste is getting crushed so pure water can be pushed into a pipe at the top of the room, the feather floats on the water and thus travels up the pipe with the water.
8. Sorry, elephant is dead. I'm a monster. But the feather will work just fine here. The feather is lighter than water so it floats, but slightly heavier than air, so it gradually sinks. Objects don't rise indefinitely because they will encounter surfaces that are less dense than they are. Were the elephant still there, it would be heavier than water and the air above the water but lighter than the earth beneath it. Elephants, despite their mass, can in fact swim in deeper water. Likewise, a strong wind can pick up the feather from the water and make it fly.

A helicopter with spinning blades falls slower than a helicopter with fixed, none spinning blades.

Because air resistance.

Air helps pushes things up.
Bouyancy is up.
You still yet to give a mechanism whete the air knows how dense a surface is.

So your elepahnt vs feather is stupid.

Bulma, i know you pride yourself in reading comprehension and spelling. Re-read my last post to you. You get to keep your left nut.

Those businesses like aeroplane travel with planes designed from aerospace engineering , you think would operate no differently if your version of buoyancy were correct?

And now you think buoyancy is responsible for terminal velocity?.Buoyancy is the explanation for meteor craters as well, is it?

You have been asked to explain a trillion times why all objects sink and fall to the ground if gravity is non existent, and you
can't. That's why half normal flat earthers came up with universal acceleration. But you don't even do that. You don't even imply air molecules crush everything down to the ground. You just have nothing, Bulma. It just IS to you, isn't it?

All planes fly because gravity doesn't work and all scientific formulas are hogwash. Just luck isn't it, Bulma?

Uhhhh, you cannot bet something that isn't yours to give.
That violates the bet agreement. I bet that Lucky 13 will win the race. Oh, I lost? Well uhhhh... that guy over there will pay! (runs off)

So yeah, your left nut is forfeit, and there's nothing you can do about it. But because you tried to cheat your way out of the bet, I'll also take your right nut. Perhaps you should take up singing?

They would operate no differently. I bet both of my nuts on it. As I am in the trans spectrum, I'd actually be disappointed not to lose my nuts. But yeah, I'd keep them.

They only thing that would change is that space travel is actually impossible. All air and sea travel is unaffected. This is because all air travel operates on aerodynamics (mainly heavier-than-air), propulsion, and buoyancy (mostly lighter-than-air). They don't need to know about gravity. They are taught about it because of so called "heavier than air" principles. That term came from the Wright Brothers flying something that wasn't a blimp. So what. Aerodynamics, propulsion, and buoyancy. All of these are a part of flight. Gravity is not. Gravity is an explanation for what happens if you run out of fuel, and not even a good one. Precisely nothing about air travel changes, because pilots understand that they cannot fly above a certain point. Gravity as a theory makes zero provisions for this.

You have been asked to explain a trillion times why all objects sink and fall to the ground if gravity is non existent, and you
can't

Bullshit. You have pretended not to see it a trillion times.

So I'll say it again. An object sinks because it is denser than the surface around it. It doesn't matter if it is dropped or placed. It doesn't matter if either the object or surface is solid, liquid, or gas. You could place bricks on ice, and no gravity works on it, it reaches a certain number of bricks and the ice caves in. Not gravity. Just dense mass.

If you're not seeing it as an explanation, it's because you're prepared not to recognize it as an explanation. That's your bias. Not my failure to explain.

that is a valid explanation:  objects fall because of their density.

good
so not bouyancy.





what you fail to read is:  what mechanism from bouyancy pushes down when bouyancy only pushes up?

6. You can't "create" a pressure gradient. The pressure gradient is something that exists because objects have differences in density.

It exists because gravity is working on the fluids.

Place objects in free fall, the pressure gradient goes away.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2023, 08:42:17 AM

 I ignore the stuff that's fictional in the telling of how certain things work.
As I said before, if gravity has to be involved then the science is pseudo-science.

Hmm..

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 12, 2023, 03:13:51 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 12, 2023, 02:36:36 AM

As shown by experiments, it takes gravity to do this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 10, 2023, 05:40:22 AM

You're getting weaker by the second.

Then why do these liquids mix?

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'



What’s your expectation why the liquids mix?


Why do a feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate when air resistance is made negligible.

Why can gravity accurately model a dropped ball when den pressure can’t?

Why can gravity accurately model tides and make accurate predictions? 

Density isn’t a force.  What drives liquids to form a pressure gradient and separate out by density.

1. Why does water not cling to any spherical surface

Gravity follows simple rules. If you want gravity to cause water to cling to a surface then you need to have it being in free fall well outside the Roche limit of any more massive body.
This has been explained to you countless times.
Again, your tiny balls have an insignificant force

Why isn't there any evidence at all that water can be contained on a sphere?

There is plenty.
Including all the evidence showing the water on Earth is curved. As well as simple experiments on things like the ISS in free fall around Earth, but the latter is primarily due to surface tension.

And you are hereby banned from using "The greater gravitational force of Earth overrides..." as an excuse.

No, I'm not.
Your wilful rejection of reality does not mean I am required to ignore it.

All science must be testable.

And gravity is, like with the Cavendish experiment.

We also have photos from space clearly showing Earth is roughly a sphere if you are so desperate to ignore all the evidence from on Earth.
And if you really want, you can go pay for a rocket to launch an experiment into space to show water sticking to a sphere.
Just what part is not testable?

It seems you are just looking for excuses to reject reality and demanding people don't use models which work to explain reality.

Why does water have absolutely no trouble being contained in a still hemispheric basin (with a flat base, we don't want it tipping over)?

Your own qualification shows the problem.
Thge hemispheric basin isn't magically containing the water. It is providing a physical barrier preventing it from going down to Earth.

Why is this model able to be demonstrated without excuses, but the other cannot?

Gravity works without excuses. Your blatant misrepresentation of it does not mean we need excuses.
Conversely your delusional BS can't. See above for the questions you still refuse to address.

3. Why is gravity completely unable to counteract motion?

It is not.
Throw a ball up and observe gravity counteract the motion causing the ball to fall down.
You appear to yet again want to pretend gravity is magic super glue. It is not.

The same bowl above, I were to put it on a microwave turntable, would begin to slosh around.

Prove it.
If I put that bowl in a microwave and set it going, it would just stay basically the same. You would not detect it.

That's at the barely moving speed. At 1000 mph

Yet again you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of how motion works (or far more likely you are yet again lying to everyone).
The speed doesn't matter.
You can have a glass of water in a car driving at 100 km/hr down a freeway, without issue; but slam on the breaks, and the water goes flying. Hold a glass while walking and trip and the water goes flying.
Speed is not the issue.
The issue is acceleration, or more specifically a force needing to be applied across the water.
So instead of your continued appeals to the tangential velocity of 1000 archaic units per morons, try dealing with the acceleration?
At Earth's surface, at the equator, the acceleration to maintain position on Earth's surface is roughly 0.034 m/s^2
To get the same acceleration with a radius of 1 m (quite a small circle), it would need to rotate once every 34 seconds. Quite slow.

4. Why is gravity unable to stop people in an amusement park from becoming completely airborne for a few seconds during a certain ride infamous for inducing nausea?

Because it is not magic superglue like you want to continually pretend.
It is a downwards force, which results in an acceleration of objects at a certain rate.
If you pull the support from underneath the object at a greater rate, gravity will not keep up.
e.g. if you have something sitting at the top of a tower, and push it off the edge, it will fall down at a rate of roughly 9.8 m/s^2.
If instead you had it on a grating (to allow the air to pass through), and you pull that grating down at a rate of 20 m/s^2, it will be going faster than free fall, so the object is left behind with the grating reaching the ground first.

This is also just like how your hand works when you throw an object. You accelerate your hand so it is moving at quite a speed, and then release the object and stop your hand. The acceleration of your hand at the end of this process is very fast, much faster than gravity, so the ball, now released from your hand and in free fall doesn't slow down as fast so leaves your hand.

Again, so basic a child can understand, yet here you are playing dumb.

And why can planes produce the same effect by parabolic motion?

Because the plane following the parabolic trajectory has a near uniform horizontal velocity, and a vertical velocity which matches that for the acceleration due to gravity.

If the Earth spins like we are told creates gravity

This is a blatant lie you keep on repeating.
Who is telling you this spinning creates gravity?
Why do you keep repeating this BS.

wouldn't it instead launch us out of Earth's atmosphere?

No, if Earth spun WITHOUT gravity, or something similar, then you would go flying out.

Why is gravity completely worthless at preventing birds from flying, or even massive jets from flying?

Again, gravity is not magic super glue.
Take off the wings and see how well it flies.
Again, gravity is not magic super glue.
You can provide a force to overcome it.
Birds do this by flapping their wings.
Planes do it by their wings directing air downwards to provide an upwards force on the plane.

why do flying creatures or objects simply cease to fly higher above certain altitudes?

These flying creatures push off the air, and they need a certain pressure of air to be able to live.
If they go to high, they die and there isn't enough air to push off.
Other flying objects, like balloons, rely on the pressure gradient of the air pushing them up. If the air is too low a density, that pressure gradient is too weak so it doesn't push them up any more.
Other flying objects like rockets, don't have an altitude limit.

Why is a cloud of evaporated water and air able to hang for hours

You have already had buoyancy explained to you.
As a reminder, water vapour is less dense than the air.
But in addition to that, clouds are often driven by thermals causing the air to rise, which also helps support those water droplets.

8. Why does gravity do one thing inside Earth (make things fall), yet make not planet or star or moon fall towards another but instead orbit?

Again, already explained. Gravity is consistent and does the same principle things. It results in a force which in the absence of other forces causes an acceleration towards the object in question.
The same reason why when you throw an object, gravity doesn't magically stop it and cause it to fall straight down.
If you are going fast enough around a curved object (or point), that acceleration means you are going in an orbit.
If you really want to make it entirely consistent, objects dropped on Earth would orbit, but their orbit intersects with the ground, and they are stopped by the ground.

There is no inconsistency here.
Again, gravity is not magic.

Why is gravity not at all consistent?

Why are you still entirely unable to show a single inconsistency?
Why do you instead rely upon pretending gravity should be entirely inconsistent to pretend there are problems with it?

And no, gravity doesn't address any of these you asked me "just fine."

Yes it does as has already been explained.
Your irrational hatred of gravity doesn't change that fact.

Just like gravity addresses all your BS attacks just fine.

Quote

And you still refuse to explain the pressure gradient.

I would hardly call drawing a picture for you and then explaining it a refusal.

Your picture and "explanation" explained NOTHING about the pressure gradient, and I even demonstrated multiple faults with your list of points.

So yes, you have still refused to explain the pressure gradient.
What is causing this pressure gradient to exist in your fantasy?
Appealing to its existence is NOT explaining its existence.

Why does this pressure gradient not push the air around to remove the pressure gradient?

You cannot explain anything, because answering these questions requires recognising a downwards force proportional to mass with the pressure gradient created from this force causing the upwards buoyant force, destroying your delusional BS.

Your refusal to actually accept what I gave is a refusal.

It isn't refusal, it is refutation.

Are you serious? Lemme ask again. Are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious.
These issues clearly demonstrate a problem with your delusional BS, yet these issues are trivially addressed by gravity.

No, I won't answer your questions, probably because had you actually listened and understood my explanation above of pressure gradients, you would know my answers to all of them, whether or not you agreed.

No, I don't, because you didn't answer them, and your model is incoherent, self-contradictory garbage.

1. Objects heavier than air increase rate of fall until they reach terminal velocity.

Notice how yet again, you start with the observation you need to explain rather than even attempting to provide an answer.
The question was why having a different density should cause an object to accelerate.
If you are just saying it accelerates you are not explaining why.
So that is yet another failure from you.

2. The feather and the elephant are in a layer of air pressure. That air has less pressure than the air below.

That means there is a pressure gradient which pushes upwards. That means the object shuold be going up, not down.
We can even try this by setting up a pressure gradient horizontally.
Get a container with a dividing wall, put an object on either side of that wall, then increase the pressure in one side and decrease it on the other.
Now remove the wall.
We see the objects are pushed from the region of high pressure into the region of low pressure.
They do not magically "sink" into the higher pressure and higher density air.

objects sink through less dense air/water/molten lava/soil, and float atop more dense surfaces (fluids is a horrible term).

Again, WHY?
Yet again, you just provide the observation you are meant to be explaining.

3. It's the amount of difference between the feather and elephant, and the air around them.

It clearly isn't.
Once you get to a dense enough object such that the density of the air is insignificant the objects fall at the same rate.
We can even do this with a vacuum chamber. If your BS was true, the rate of accelerate in a vacuum chamber should be proportional to density. Instead it is constant (for that location).

the different humidity means different air pressure.

Which in no way explains the different rate.
That is because at a given location, changing the humidity has a negligible effect on rate.
You can also use a vacuum chamber at different locations, with the same pressure, yet see a different rate. You can even use a fully enclosed and sealed testing device which doesn't allow air in or out and still see a different rate.

It still has mass however, and thus the springs of the scale give a readout.

Again, you provide the observation you need to explain rather than the explanation.
WHY does this cause a reading?

I'm not sure what you mean by "made of a material denser than the object in question"

It is really quite simple. Say the scale is made of steel. That is much denser than the feather. So why is the feather trying to push into it when your magic buoyancy should be pushing the other way?

6. You can't "create" a pressure gradient. The pressure gradient is something that exists because objects have differences in density.

No, it isn't.
Because we can start with a fluid with a constant density and place that into a container and get a pressure gradient.
This also exists without objects falling through it, so you can skip that BS.

7. Pressure gradient is based on density.

Again, this is the observation you need to explain, and yet again you make no attempt to.

Objects don't rise indefinitely because they will encounter surfaces that are less dense than they are.

Yet there is a still a pressure gradient, a gradient that should be pushing upwards.
Yet again you make no attempt to actually answer the question.
And this does nothing to address objects which are the same density.

So does that explain why I don't "know your answers"? Because you don't have answers.

Aerodynamics, propulsion, and buoyancy. All of these are a part of flight. Gravity is not.

As buoyancy is a direct result of gravity, you can't have it without gravity.
Again, you own source makes it clear that buoyancy is an UPWARDS force based upon the WEIGHT of the fluid displaced.

Precisely nothing about air travel changes, because

Because you do whatever you can to pretend your delusional BS results in the same effects as gravity to the point you want it to.

Gravity as a theory makes zero provisions for this.

Repeating the same lie, after it has already been refuted, just shows your dishonesty.

Gravity DOES make provisions for this, based upon the expected pressure gradient and the compressibility of air. This means as you go up, the air gets thinner.
Conversely, your delusional BS does not, as you still can't explain the pressure gradient.
That means the air pressure should be constant throughout the atmosphere.

So I'll say it again. An object sinks because it is denser than the surface around it.

Stop saying the observation you need to explain and try to explain it.
Why should being denser make it go down?

it reaches a certain number of bricks and the ice caves in.

So not density/buoyancy, instead you apply enough downwards force from the weight to break the ice.

If you're not seeing it as an explanation, it's because you're prepared not to recognize it as an explanation. That's your bias. Not my failure to explain.

It is your failure to explain, because you aren't explaining why being denser should make it go down.
That directly ties to the question you still didn't answer.
You wanting to pretend that is an explanation is your bias, because you aren't willing to admit you have no explanation.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 19, 2024, 05:19:39 AM

Bulma, i know you pride yourself in reading comprehension and spelling. Re-read my last post to you. You get to keep your left nut.

Those businesses like aeroplane travel with planes designed from aerospace engineering , you think would operate no differently if your version of buoyancy were correct?

And now you think buoyancy is responsible for terminal velocity?.Buoyancy is the explanation for meteor craters as well, is it?

You have been asked to explain a trillion times why all objects sink and fall to the ground if gravity is non existent, and you
can't. That's why half normal flat earthers came up with universal acceleration. But you don't even do that. You don't even imply air molecules crush everything down to the ground. You just have nothing, Bulma. It just IS to you, isn't it?

All planes fly because gravity doesn't work and all scientific formulas are hogwash. Just luck isn't it, Bulma?

Uhhhh, you cannot bet something that isn't yours to give.
That violates the bet agreement. I bet that Lucky 13 will win the race. Oh, I lost? Well uhhhh... that guy over there will pay! (runs off)

So yeah, your left nut is forfeit, and there's nothing you can do about it. But because you tried to cheat your way out of the bet, I'll also take your right nut. Perhaps you should take up singing?

They would operate no differently. I bet both of my nuts on it. As I am in the trans spectrum, I'd actually be disappointed not to lose my nuts. But yeah, I'd keep them.

They only thing that would change is that space travel is actually impossible. All air and sea travel is unaffected. This is because all air travel operates on aerodynamics (mainly heavier-than-air), propulsion, and buoyancy (mostly lighter-than-air). They don't need to know about gravity. They are taught about it because of so called "heavier than air" principles. That term came from the Wright Brothers flying something that wasn't a blimp. So what. Aerodynamics, propulsion, and buoyancy. All of these are a part of flight. Gravity is not. Gravity is an explanation for what happens if you run out of fuel, and not even a good one. Precisely nothing about air travel changes, because pilots understand that they cannot fly above a certain point. Gravity as a theory makes zero provisions for this.

Quote

You have been asked to explain a trillion times why all objects sink and fall to the ground if gravity is non existent, and you
can't

Bullshit. You have pretended not to see it a trillion times.

So I'll say it again. An object sinks because it is denser than the surface around it. It doesn't matter if it is dropped or placed. It doesn't matter if either the object or surface is solid, liquid, or gas. You could place bricks on ice, and no gravity works on it, it reaches a certain number of bricks and the ice caves in. Not gravity. Just dense mass.

If you're not seeing it as an explanation, it's because you're prepared not to recognize it as an explanation. That's your bias. Not my failure to explain.

I bet your left nut because you've got plenty of nuts to give - You're completely nuts. I don't even understand why I need to know you are trans or what that exactly means for you? So you're in transition, but from what to what? At least your transition to a flat earther is reversible. Once you've been neuted, I highly doubt it.

But is this your angle? Because you're a trans, you have a green light to question and be contrary in every area of life, including the accepted shape of the planet beneath your feet?

Explain why if I am travelling in a large plane and things go wrong and the plane inverts (goes upside down), if nobody has had a chance to put their seatbelt on, everybody will fall out of their seats onto the ceiling of the cabin. That happens because of gravity, not density, and not buoyancy, Bulma.

Why do all objects, irrespective of their density, fall to the ground?

WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?

That is the big question for you, excuse the pun, in a "nutshell".

WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?

Oh my God.

I explained this already, no less than a post ago.

Here, let's see if we can explain this yet again.

I have two boxes. One is filled with feathers. One is filled with metal spheres. Both are filled so there is no air space. Which will safely be able to be set on top of the other box, and which will cave the box in?

This is buoyancy. There is nothing else.

No tricky invisible force. Seriously, many of you guys don't believe in God who you insist "cannot be seen" even though the evidence of his presence is in the fact that despite this world having huge reasons why it shouldn't exist, nonetheless does, and has enormous variety of life to boot. But you can't let go of the idea that something that similarly can't be seen, and there is a far simpler explanation instead (heavier objects sink through lighter objects or surfaces, and float on heavier objects or surfaces), clinging to this idea as though someone tried to talk you out of your god. Gravity is a poor god, that can't even make one thing that is flying fall. Not a little chirpy bird, not a jumbo jet. God created buoyancy are part of the rules of the universe.

Your gravitational constant does not even add anything significant to the equation. It's an "I'm here too!" constant that we probably got from stealing from some other variable.
 The "force of gravity" is at 0.00000000006673 or 6.673×10^-11. Sorry, but it primary school we learned to round. This rounds to zero by even the most generous rounding. But since multiplication equations  aee using it (multiplication by zero equals 0), you'd be better off wiping it and trying the equation without it.
G = 6.673×10^-11 N m² kg^-2
becomes...
R (rate of descent) = m² kg^-2
F (force of mass pressure due to negative buoyancy) = (R x m₁ x m₂) / r²

I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the formula can cope without something that mathematically insignificant.

Either you try the formula without it, or you accept that the force of gravity is zero and that this entire formula is basically an April Fools prank.

Quote

WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?

Oh my God.

I explained this already, no less than a post ago.

You haven’t explained anything.

It takes an unbalance force to make objects of mass accelerate.

You can use air or gases with compression and energy to move objects from high pressure and energy to lower pressure and energy.   Like blowing a ping pong ball up into the air. 

The earth’s atmosphere has more pressure at the surface than higher up in the atmosphere.

What unbalance force makes an object accelerate down from less pressure, density into more pressure, density, resistance, air molecules with more energy?

Why do ships have to consider center of gravity to stay upright.

For stable flight for heavier than air aircraft, why must the center of gravity be ahead of the center of pressure from the atmosphere.

Why when you use a scale in a vacuum chamber, why do objects increase in weight as atmospheric density decreases, and the influence of buoyancy decreases. The amount of atmosphere in the chamber can be made negligible, yet the object still has weight.


There is clearly another force than atmosphere.  Atmosphere buoyancy is dependent on. 

You can remove the amount of atmosphere from a chamber and make any fluid forces negligible.  Yet objects still fall.  Objects still have weight. 

Quote

WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?

Oh my God.

I explained this already, no less than a post ago.

Here, let's see if we can explain this yet again.

I have two boxes. One is filled with feathers. One is filled with metal spheres. Both are filled so there is no air space. Which will safely be able to be set on top of the other box, and which will cave the box in?

This is buoyancy. There is nothing else.

Ths is most definitely NOT bouyancy.

Bouyancy is the pressure acted surface of an object by the surrounding fluid.

The fluid happens to have a pressure gradient.

The gradient means that for every infinite millimeter nanonmeter of elevation thw pressure below is higher than the pressure above.

The FORCE is generated by difference in PRESSURE / SURFACE.
Which happens to only be in the upward direction (given the fluid is relatively stationary).

So
By using a object-surface interactio  with the surrounding fluid.
You need to explain how the above mentioned mechanism

1.  of presuee gradient pushes down, whennit only pushes up and

2.   how fluids knows whats inside a surface, to know the density, when all it knows is touching surface.

It definitely is buoyancy.

I was gonna make a video about this, but it is still uploading. Ah, there it is.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/4XRgmUpvThgf/

So let's talk about the key points.



The formula for (revised) buoyancy is:
Buoyancy, where Do is density of an object, and Ds is density of the surface:
If Do = Ds, then B= 0 (neutral)
If Do > Ds, then B= -[Mo-Ms] (negative)
If Do < Ds, then B= +[Ms-Mo] (positive)

I don't see why there is a reqirement to invoke a force here. The amount of buoyancy is equal to the difference in two objects. Displacement is caused by the mass exerted over an area, when density is nonetheless equal to the surface.



You expect us to believe that two meteors knocked over the tree, instead of "ummm, it was the wind." Saying that it was just denser than whatever was around it, is a far neater explanation than invoking Earth's core and rotation to what is a localized event.

When I lay two boxes atop another, the heavier one crushing the lighter one is slowly or quickly falling, based of the difference in density. In the same way, a block of wood that is 1 oz heavier than water will sink but do so extraordinarily slowly.

Until a crumpled ball of tinfoil shown to sink but a same wiegt bowl shape floats



Back to the dtawing board for you

I don't see why there is a reqirement to invoke a force here.

Eye roll.

So you get proven buoyancy isn’t fundamental force.  So now you don’t see the requirement?

Density isn’t a force.


You model doesn’t explain…


Why the pressure gradient goes away in free fall.  Why densities becomes meaningless for separating out. 

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'



The time it takes a ball from rest to fall 10 feet.


What force causes the atmosphere to bunch up and build 14.7 psia at sea level.

What unbalanced force causes dropped objects to accelerate from less pressure and density into greater atmospheric pressure, resistance, density, energy below.

The center of gravity of a ship.

The center of gravity for heavier than air aircraft where the CG must be ahead of the center of pressure acting on the aircraft.

Why when you evacuate atmosphere from a vacuum chamber to the point the fluid atmosphere is negligible, objects still fall down, fall down faster, and why they weigh more.

Tides.

There is clearly some other force than buoyancy acting on the atmosphere and objects of mass

 based of the difference in density.

Density isn’t a force.

But one can make things more dense than air float with air.

Floating Balls - Bernoulli's Principle Visualized



So.  When these heavier than air balls float.  What downward force reaches a kind of equilibrium with the upward force of the air less dense than the balls.

I explained this already, no less than a post ago.

No, you didn't.
You started with it falling with no explanation of why.

I have two boxes. One is filled with feathers. One is filled with metal spheres. Both are filled so there is no air space. Which will safely be able to be set on top of the other box, and which will cave the box in?

Most likely either will be able to sit on top of the other.

This is buoyancy. There is nothing else.

No, it isn't.
It is weight and material properties.

many of you guys don't believe in God

Because there is no evidence of such a being.
Nothing like gravity where there are mountains of evidence.
Now stop fleeing to your imaginary POS, and try explaining the massive issues with buoyancy.

there is a far simpler explanation instead (heavier objects sink through lighter objects or surfaces, and float on heavier objects or surfaces)

The "simpler" explanation is that there is a magic downwards force based upon mass.
Your delusional BS is not simpler, nor is it an explanation.

Sorry, but it primary school we learned to round. This rounds to zero by even the most generous rounding.

No, it doesn't. This just shows your stupidity.
With that idea, anything can be rounded to 0.
If you want to round to zero, you need an explanation for why, and not just because you hate it. The next point shows why as well.

multiplication by zero equals 0

But multiplication of a very big number (say 6*10^24) by a very little number can equal a normal size number.

Again, this same dishoneest BS of yours can be done with virtually anything.
How heavy is 1 kg of water? Well water is made of of molecules which are in turn made up of atoms.
The mass of a molecule of water is roughly 1.7*10^-24 g, or 0.0000000000000000000000017 g.

That is tiny. By your BS logic, that is effectively 0.
So water, regardless of how much you have, should have 0 mass, and 0 weight.
You can do the same with air.
So why should water, with a weight of 0, sink through air with a weight of 0? They are both 0.

Or you can try being honest for once in your life and recognise that small number * big number can still be quite significant.

This is also why you cannot easily see the attraction to your tiny balls. Your tiny balls are too tiny. They are nothing compared to the much more massive Earth.

I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the formula can cope without something that mathematically insignificant.

No, it can't, as it can't explain why the rate of acceleration varies with location.

Either you try the formula without it, or you accept that the force of gravity is zero and that this entire formula is basically an April Fools prank.

Or we be honest, unlike you, and accept that that small number, combined with a big number like the mass of Earth, gives a significant force.
Why would any sane person accept your dishonest BS?

It definitely is buoyancy.

No, it isn't.

You want to talk about simpler, what is simpler:
A force of attraction based upon mass towards Earth, which results in a pressure gradient which then pushes objects up.
This varies with location due to different distance to mass.

or your delusional BS of:

Magic causing things to go up or down.
It is magically down because magic
It is magically at this rate (which varies) because magic.
With a pressure gradient just magically existing yet doing nothing.

I don't see why there is a requirement to invoke a force here.

You have an object accelerate. That requires a force.

You only think your delusional BS is simpler because you ignore so much, while also throwing in a bunch of crap unrelated to gravity.

If you would like a comparison to wind, your BS is like saying the wind built a barn, and then knocked it over, instead of people building the barn and wind knocking it over.

Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?

And no, your previous post does not address it, as already explained, so repeating that delusional BS wont help.

Quote

WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?

Oh my God.

I explained this already, no less than a post ago.

Here, let's see if we can explain this yet again.

I have two boxes. One is filled with feathers. One is filled with metal spheres. Both are filled so there is no air space. Which will safely be able to be set on top of the other box, and which will cave the box in?

This is buoyancy. There is nothing else.

No tricky invisible force. Seriously, many of you guys don't believe in God who you insist "cannot be seen" even though the evidence of his presence is in the fact that despite this world having huge reasons why it shouldn't exist, nonetheless does, and has enormous variety of life to boot. But you can't let go of the idea that something that similarly can't be seen, and there is a far simpler explanation instead (heavier objects sink through lighter objects or surfaces, and float on heavier objects or surfaces), clinging to this idea as though someone tried to talk you out of your god. Gravity is a poor god, that can't even make one thing that is flying fall. Not a little chirpy bird, not a jumbo jet. God created buoyancy are part of the rules of the universe.

Your gravitational constant does not even add anything significant to the equation. It's an "I'm here too!" constant that we probably got from stealing from some other variable.
 The "force of gravity" is at 0.00000000006673 or 6.673×10^-11. Sorry, but it primary school we learned to round. This rounds to zero by even the most generous rounding. But since multiplication equations  aee using it (multiplication by zero equals 0), you'd be better off wiping it and trying the equation without it.
G = 6.673×10^-11 N m² kg^-2
becomes...
R (rate of descent) = m² kg^-2
F (force of mass pressure due to negative buoyancy) = (R x m₁ x m₂) / r²

I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the formula can cope without something that mathematically insignificant.

Either you try the formula without it, or you accept that the force of gravity is zero and that this entire formula is basically an April Fools prank.

I'm still getting over you using God's name in vain. Very unchristian.

But moving on. You still haven't explained why all objects fall.

Can I bet on your left testi again?

If one of us can teach you why buoyancy is not the explanation for why all objects fall, and you concede gravity is, will you agree to turn your back on flat earth and revisit globe earth?

I was gonna make a video

Why is it any thread you don’t participate in loads fast and fine? 


The threads you post in take forever to load like even the internet chokes on your BS……

Quote

WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?

Oh my God.

I explained this already, no less than a post ago.

Here, let's see if we can explain this yet again.

I have two boxes. One is filled with feathers. One is filled with metal spheres. Both are filled so there is no air space. Which will safely be able to be set on top of the other box, and which will cave the box in?

This is buoyancy. There is nothing else.

No tricky invisible force. Seriously, many of you guys don't believe in God who you insist "cannot be seen" even though the evidence of his presence is in the fact that despite this world having huge reasons why it shouldn't exist, nonetheless does, and has enormous variety of life to boot. But you can't let go of the idea that something that similarly can't be seen, and there is a far simpler explanation instead (heavier objects sink through lighter objects or surfaces, and float on heavier objects or surfaces), clinging to this idea as though someone tried to talk you out of your god. Gravity is a poor god, that can't even make one thing that is flying fall. Not a little chirpy bird, not a jumbo jet. God created buoyancy are part of the rules of the universe.

Your gravitational constant does not even add anything significant to the equation. It's an "I'm here too!" constant that we probably got from stealing from some other variable.
 The "force of gravity" is at 0.00000000006673 or 6.673×10^-11. Sorry, but it primary school we learned to round. This rounds to zero by even the most generous rounding. But since multiplication equations  aee using it (multiplication by zero equals 0), you'd be better off wiping it and trying the equation without it.
G = 6.673×10^-11 N m² kg^-2
becomes...
R (rate of descent) = m² kg^-2
F (force of mass pressure due to negative buoyancy) = (R x m₁ x m₂) / r²

I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the formula can cope without something that mathematically insignificant.

Either you try the formula without it, or you accept that the force of gravity is zero and that this entire formula is basically an April Fools prank.

Just wanted to say, the universe doesn't care if you are unable to work with very large numbers or very small numbers. Numbers are a human construct. The universe does it wants to do.

This is also why you cannot easily see the attraction to your tiny balls. Your tiny balls are too tiny. They are nothing compared to the much more massive Earth.

Lol, that cracked me up

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 20, 2024, 06:38:02 AM

Quote

WHAT MAKES AN OBJECT FALL?

Oh my God.

I explained this already, no less than a post ago.

Here, let's see if we can explain this yet again.

I have two boxes. One is filled with feathers. One is filled with metal spheres. Both are filled so there is no air space. Which will safely be able to be set on top of the other box, and which will cave the box in?

This is buoyancy. There is nothing else.

No tricky invisible force. Seriously, many of you guys don't believe in God who you insist "cannot be seen" even though the evidence of his presence is in the fact that despite this world having huge reasons why it shouldn't exist, nonetheless does, and has enormous variety of life to boot. But you can't let go of the idea that something that similarly can't be seen, and there is a far simpler explanation instead (heavier objects sink through lighter objects or surfaces, and float on heavier objects or surfaces), clinging to this idea as though someone tried to talk you out of your god. Gravity is a poor god, that can't even make one thing that is flying fall. Not a little chirpy bird, not a jumbo jet. God created buoyancy are part of the rules of the universe.

Your gravitational constant does not even add anything significant to the equation. It's an "I'm here too!" constant that we probably got from stealing from some other variable.
 The "force of gravity" is at 0.00000000006673 or 6.673×10^-11. Sorry, but it primary school we learned to round. This rounds to zero by even the most generous rounding. But since multiplication equations  aee using it (multiplication by zero equals 0), you'd be better off wiping it and trying the equation without it.
G = 6.673×10^-11 N m² kg^-2
becomes...
R (rate of descent) = m² kg^-2
F (force of mass pressure due to negative buoyancy) = (R x m₁ x m₂) / r²

I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the formula can cope without something that mathematically insignificant.

Either you try the formula without it, or you accept that the force of gravity is zero and that this entire formula is basically an April Fools prank.

I'm still getting over you using God's name in vain. Very unchristian.

You don't even understand what the Ten Commandments are for.

So let's explain.

The ancient Jews received the law after years in Egypt caused then to be in bondage. Why were they in bondage? Well, because they had thrived. "When things flourish, they decline." It is explicitly stated that the pharaoh did not know Joseph, and he looked at these foreigners, these hyksos, and he saw them as a threat. So he tried to kill their firstborn, and set them to work building. It is often misunderstood that they were just pushing blocks for pyramids, but that's not what historians understand. It's not even what many of the films portray. You weren't paying attention. They were doing skilled work. 

Anyway, the main thing was that this guy Moses got them back in touch with their roots, and they wanted to take some time off to worship. The plagues started because this request was refused, among other things.

After leaving, they go right back into the sort of behavior that got them enslaved in the first place. In fact, had Pharaoh sent ships to cross the Red Sea, he could rather easily collected them while they were busy worshiping golden calves and having orgies and such.

The Ten Commandments are not a law to oppress. They are law to set men free. "I Am the Lord, who brought you out of the house of slavery, out of the house of bondage."

 These laws are about self-discipline for the pursuit of freedom. Unlike the 613 commandments that were written to "interpret" these ten, their purpose was not to be rules but rather a means of securing freedom. Jeaus rourinely broke the Sabbath, saying that "the Sabbath was made from man, not man for the Sabbath". That is, it's a day-off, a vacation. It's nor to bean imposed rule that prevents work but an  allowance so that some boss won't try to take the one day you have to yourself for hobbies and rest.

If "Oh my God" were really taking God's name in vain, by logic, every valley girl in California ought to be damned to some kind of horrible punishment. Instead, the only punishment on California is that they are plagued by awful government.
The actual meaning of taking God's name in vain is to cause it to become cheap or lost, or to distort its meaning by making it a "bad word". We know that God's name is Jesus. If I were to blank out every mention of Jesus in the Bible for fear of misuse of his name, future generations would lose that name. That is what the Jews did. They were ashamed of Jesus, so after talking bad about him in early versions of their religious history, they simply acted like his name was never there.

It is not a bad word to say the name of Jesus Christ. Or to say "Oh my God". It is simply an oath.

But moving on. You still haven't explained why all objects fall.

Can I bet on your left testi again?

If one of us can teach you why buoyancy is not the explanation for why all objects fall, and you concede gravity is, will you agree to turn your back on flat earth and revisit globe earth?

No, I wouldn't. And ask yourself, why this matters to you. You are like a Jew, convinced these Christians are delusional, when they tell you they have discovered Jesus personally. You are wanting others to slide back into the mud with you, when they have crawled out.

RE is not a new theory.


Ancient Babylon, a culture that predates most religions of the world believed in Round Earth and all the trappings. Religion was a crawling out of the mud and no longer seeing humanity as a bunch of slaves leaning over to balance on a ball, but free men able to stand upright on a circular table with no force pressing down on them. We aren't going back to this.

And you can only bet on your own (right and) left testicle.

I actually have explained several times why things fall. Like a man trying to pretend to be deaf or crazy so he doesn't have to listen, you've tuned it out.

Have you noticed every time that I post, there's an explanation of why things fall in my signature? Along with one for Occam's Razor. Gravity as a theory fails Occam's Razor because it asks us to deny the basic logic that objects raise or fall based on their own merit, in favor of one that blames the Earth or moon or sun for the movement of things. "We fall to the ground because the Earth is more massive than us." Congratulations, you're a geocentrist! Because if the sun gives off force, we should be falling toward it instead, because it is multiple times more massive under heliocentrism.

You don't even understand what the Ten Commandments are for.

Which has nothing to do with this thread. Nor the original topic you tried to derail this thread with.

Where Sputnik placed a rocket stage visible from earth with the naked in orbit around earth changing the night sky.  And Sputnik itself verified by numerous third parties by its active broadcasting as it orbited earth.
 
If you want to purse your butchering of gravity and buoyancy….

Oh my God.

I explained this already, no less than a post ago.

You haven’t explained anything.

It takes an unbalance force to make objects of mass accelerate.

You can use air or gases with compression and energy to move objects from high pressure and energy to lower pressure and energy.   Like blowing a ping pong ball up into the air. 

The earth’s atmosphere has more pressure at the surface than higher up in the atmosphere.

What unbalance force makes an object accelerate down from less pressure, density into more pressure, density, resistance, air molecules with more energy?

Why do ships have to consider center of gravity to stay upright.

For stable flight for heavier than air aircraft, why must the center of gravity be ahead of the center of pressure from the atmosphere.

Why when you use a scale in a vacuum chamber, why do objects increase in weight as atmospheric density decreases, and the influence of buoyancy decreases. The amount of atmosphere in the chamber can be made negligible, yet the object still has weight.


There is clearly another force than atmosphere.  Atmosphere buoyancy is dependent on. 

You can remove the amount of atmosphere from a chamber and make any fluid forces negligible.  Yet objects still fall.  Objects still have weight.



bulmabriefs144, you are fleeing from the topic of this thread.  And now fleeing from the argument you started.  You look weak and in retreat bulmabriefs144 to a subject that has specific forums to post in. That has nothing to do with this thread, and not the purpose of this forum.

Bulma, care to enlighten us on the religion you are a part of, which preaches the Earth is Flat?

It's not important to me whether you remain a flat earther or repent. But are you attempting to convert people to flat earth with your rhetoric? Is that your goal?

I'd like to think if you were genuine, somebody here would have gotten through to you by now that gravity is the reason things fall.

Whether you are legitimate in your refusal to accept, or just trolling to get your kicks, doesn't really matter. You demonstrate the pointlessness of these flat earth debates. What is anybody learning from this exchange?

It takes an unbalance force to make objects of mass accelerate.

Oh okay, because "Sir" Isaac Newton said so, it must be true.

You do understand that titles of knighthood are honorary, right? Like saint or Pope or king, or any other title, there is actually no such thing as a knight.  We are all just human beings. Wearing a funny costume like this

is not going to convince me that someone is a scientist, and more than this

will convince me that they are a knight.

These are all just costumes.

So, you appealing to authority for "Sir" Isaac Newton's talk of unbalanced force is just that, an appeal to authority fallacy.

There is literally no need, and no justification why we need "unbalanced forces."

Very occasionally, Occam's Razor is wrong, and you have a more complicated explanation ("if you hear hoofbeats, expect horses not zebras" unless you happen to live somewhere zebras are more common). But such situations are unlikely.

Bulma, care to enlighten us on the religion you are a part of, which preaches the Earth is Flat?

It's not important to me whether you remain a flat earther or repent. But are you attempting to convert people to flat earth with your rhetoric? Is that your goal?

The Bible itself teaches in multiple places that the Earth is flat. Modern Christians just ignore this because their faith has been corrupted by Newtonists. In fact, most religions originally taught the Earth was flat. Pretty much only some Muslims still believe this today.

I have my own religion. I believe in the teachings of Taoism, Buddhism, and Christianity. And I believe in personal boundaries.

I don't have any goal beyond defending my own beliefs. All people have the right to their own beliefs and their own freedom. What they don't have the right to is my beliefs, my life, or my freedom. If someone comes to my doorstep with a "convert or die" mentality, I have every right to push them outside with a blunt weapon, call the police, and if the police sides with the extremist, kill them both where they stand.
That seems violent, you say? Weren't they wanting to kill me themselves?


You do not have the right to tell me what to believe or feel. Likewise for me, I can't make you believe me.
Our beliefs, our feelings, end at another person.

Also, they tried. They were completely incapable of producing anything remotely convincing. It's not real, RE is a hoax. No, I haven't the slightest desire to convert you, either to Christianity or to FE. But I will explain my position, and from there, it is up to you to decide whether you decide the evidence works or not.

Quote

It takes an unbalance force to make objects of mass accelerate.

Oh okay, because "Sir" Isaac Newton said so, it must be true.

You do understand that titles of knighthood are honorary, right? Like saint or Pope or king, or any other title, there is actually no such thing as a knight.  We are all just human beings. Wearing a funny costume like this

is not going to convince me that someone is a scientist, and more than this

will convince me that they are a knight.

These are all just costumes.

So, you appealing to authority for "Sir" Isaac Newton's talk of unbalanced force is just that, an appeal to authority fallacy.

There is literally no need, and no justification why we need "unbalanced forces."

Very occasionally, Occam's Razor is wrong, and you have a more complicated explanation ("if you hear hoofbeats, expect horses not zebras" unless you happen to live somewhere zebras are more common). But such situations are unlikely.

Quote

Bulma, care to enlighten us on the religion you are a part of, which preaches the Earth is Flat?

It's not important to me whether you remain a flat earther or repent. But are you attempting to convert people to flat earth with your rhetoric? Is that your goal?

The Bible itself teaches in multiple places that the Earth is flat. Modern Christians just ignore this because their faith has been corrupted by Newtonists. In fact, most religions originally taught the Earth was flat. Pretty much only some Muslims still believe this today.

I have my own religion. I believe in the teachings of Taoism, Buddhism, and Christianity. And I believe in personal boundaries.

I don't have any goal beyond defending my own beliefs. All people have the right to their own beliefs and their own freedom. What they don't have the right to is my beliefs, my life, or my freedom. If someone comes to my doorstep with a "convert or die" mentality, I have every right to push them outside with a blunt weapon, call the police, and if the police sides with the extremist, kill them both where they stand.
That seems violent, you say? Weren't they wanting to kill me themselves?


You do not have the right to tell me what to believe or feel. Our beliefs, our feelings, end at another person.

Also, they tried. They were completely incapable of producing anything remotely convincing. It's not real, RE is a hoax. No, I haven't the slightest desire to convert you, either to Christianity or to FE. But I will explain my position, and from there, it is up to you to decide whether you decide the evidence works or not.

It's true not because Isaac said it, but because it is true. It is the statement's inherent property of being true that makes said statement true.

And you're right. Nobody has any right to force you to accept that the earth is round. But that won't change the shape of the earth anymore than when I say that the earth is shaped like a paper crane.

It's like going around telling people that two is not a prime number. They will of course reply "What is you even talking about? Are you retarded?", because two being a prime number is a true statement, and denying it means either they're retarded, or they're retarded.

Also, you don't seem to understand occam's razor. It states that when you have two or more *CORRECT* theories, the simplest one usually is true. If one meteor broke the tree and then hit another to obliterate itself, where did the debris go? If a meteor indeed hit the tree, why is there no scorch marks on the tree? And when you have a heavy object pushing a tree down, then leaves must be crushed. But the leaves which supposedly makes contact the meteor seems fine? And what trajectory should the meteor take to first knock down the tree, and then meet another meteor midflight? How is one able to explain why the meteor follows this trajectory? If even one of these can't be answered, then there's no need to use occam's razor for we already know that they meteor theory is implausible.


This all happens because you guys don't think things through. "Occam's razor? What is that? Oh, simple explanation -> correct explanation? Got it!" This is basically the level of your thought process.

Yeah. Because it's the correct theory.

RE is not a new theory.

That's right. It is quite well established. Known for thousands of years.
What is new is the modern FE BS, made by people who can't handle reality, who need to invent so much BS to pretend their delusional BS works, because they can't accept reality.

Ancient Babylon, a culture that predates most religions of the world believed in Round Earth

Did it? Or did it believe in a flat Earth with more in common with the modern RE model, than the modern FE BS?

Religion was a crawling out of the mud and no longer seeing humanity as a bunch of slaves

No, that is exactly what it was doing.

I actually have explained several times why things fall.

No, you haven't.
When you start your explanation with things falling, that isn't explaining anything.

Have you noticed every time that I post, there's an explanation of why things fall in my signature?

Have you noticed that use just use your signature to contain a bunch of refuted lies?

Gravity as a theory fails Occam's Razor

No, gravity passes.
In order to fail, you need an alternative explanation that works.
You are yet to provide that, and instead rely upon pure magic.
Pure magic is not an explanation.

Gravity provides the directionality, as a force of attraction between masses.
It explains the rate.
It explains the pressure gradient, and doesn't need magic to ignore the pressure gradient.

Your crap doesn't work at all.
You have no explanation for the directionality.
You have no explanation for the rate.
You have no explanation for the pressure gradien.
You have no explanation for why the pressure gradient doesn't push things up.
In short, you have nothing and you rely upon magic to fill in the blanks.

deny the basic logic that objects raise or fall based on their own merit

That is not logic.
That is pure magic.

Why should an object rise or fall based on its own merits?
Why should it move?
Why in any particular direction?
Why at a specific rate?

Because if the sun gives off force, we should be falling toward it instead, because it is multiple times more massive under heliocentrism.

You have already had that BS refuted.
The entire Earth-moon system, including all of us, are falling towards the sun as we orbit it.

Oh okay, because "Sir" Isaac Newton said so, it must be true.

No, because that is what all the evidence shows.
The only alleged exception is your magic, where things magically accelerate for no reason at all, because you hate gravity.

So which is the simpler idea?
For an object to accelerate it needs a force acting on it.
Or
For an object to accelerate it needs a force acting on it; unless that acceleration is downwards at a highly specific which varies with location which does not need a force, even though if you place an object like a set of scales underneath it, these scale will measure a force pressing down on them.

I sure know which one sounds simpler.

If it acts like a force in every conceivable way, it is most likely a force.
So whatever is making it go down is almost certainly a force.

Very occasionally, Occam's Razor is wrong, and you have a more complicated explanation ("if you hear hoofbeats, expect horses not zebras" unless you happen to live somewhere zebras are more common). But such situations are unlikely.

Which is why we can discard your delusional BS.

The Bible itself teaches in multiple places that the Earth is flat. Modern Christians just ignore this

Because they want to pretend their religion is true.
If they were being honest, they would accept their religion is wrong, and discard for the outdated garbage it is.

Also, they tried. They were completely incapable of producing anything remotely convincing.

You mean convincing to someone like you who has already made their mind up and will reject reality at all costs.
You are yet to present a single fault with the RE model, nor have you been able to defend your delusional BS, and you blatantly lie while doing so.

Yeah. Because it's the correct theory.

No, your delusional BS is not correct.

Yet again, notice how you simplify your BS to ignore so much of reality you can't explain, while for gravity, the far more likely to be correct theory, you throw in so much extra to pretend it is complex.

Try it more honestly:
Why did the boulder fall down the hill?
1 - Because a force of attraction between Earth and the boulder pulled it down.
2 - Because it magically sensed that it was denser than the surroundings, which magically means it has to accelerate downwards at a particular magical rate for this location which it just magically knows.

All you are doing with these posts is demonstrating your dishonesty, showing everyone that you are lying scum that will use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend reality is wrong and your delusional fantasy is true.

Again, if you want to pretend your BS works, you need to address these massive issues with your delusional BS:
1 - Why having a different density to air should cause something to accelerate?
2 - Why in particular direction?
3 - Why at a particular rate?
4 - Why does this rate vary with location?
5 - Why does this exert a force on scales, including when they are made of a material denser than the object in question?
6 - Why does this create and maintain a pressure gradient?
7 - Why this particular pressure gradient based upon the density of the fluid, such that a lesser pressure gradient causes the fluid to fall and compress the fluid below while a greater pressure gradient pushes the fluid up?
8 - Why this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up?

And no, your previous post does not address it, as already explained, so repeating that delusional BS wont help.

Oh okay, because "Sir" Isaac Newton said so, it must be true.

Yes.  And the same force of gravity that makes objects accelerate down is the same force that prevents me from push a car up hill for the same car I can push around on a flat floor all day long.


Gravity, the same force that is responsible for center of gravity. 

Center of gravity that is different than buoyancy and determines if a ship will stay upright as designed. 

Quote

It takes an unbalance force to make objects of mass accelerate.

Oh okay, because "Sir" Isaac Newton said so, it must be true.

You do understand that titles of knighthood are honorary, right? Like saint or Pope or king, or any other title, there is actually no such thing as a knight.  We are all just human beings. Wearing a funny costume like this

is not going to convince me that someone is a scientist, and more than this

will convince me that they are a knight.

These are all just costumes.

So, you appealing to authority for "Sir" Isaac Newton's talk of unbalanced force is just that, an appeal to authority fallacy.

There is literally no need, and no justification why we need "unbalanced forces."

Very occasionally, Occam's Razor is wrong, and you have a more complicated explanation ("if you hear hoofbeats, expect horses not zebras" unless you happen to live somewhere zebras are more common). But such situations are unlikely.

Quote

Bulma, care to enlighten us on the religion you are a part of, which preaches the Earth is Flat?

It's not important to me whether you remain a flat earther or repent. But are you attempting to convert people to flat earth with your rhetoric? Is that your goal?

The Bible itself teaches in multiple places that the Earth is flat. Modern Christians just ignore this because their faith has been corrupted by Newtonists. In fact, most religions originally taught the Earth was flat. Pretty much only some Muslims still believe this today.

I have my own religion. I believe in the teachings of Taoism, Buddhism, and Christianity. And I believe in personal boundaries.

I don't have any goal beyond defending my own beliefs. All people have the right to their own beliefs and their own freedom. What they don't have the right to is my beliefs, my life, or my freedom. If someone comes to my doorstep with a "convert or die" mentality, I have every right to push them outside with a blunt weapon, call the police, and if the police sides with the extremist, kill them both where they stand.
That seems violent, you say? Weren't they wanting to kill me themselves?


You do not have the right to tell me what to believe or feel. Likewise for me, I can't make you believe me.
Our beliefs, our feelings, end at another person.

Also, they tried. They were completely incapable of producing anything remotely convincing. It's not real, RE is a hoax. No, I haven't the slightest desire to convert you, either to Christianity or to FE. But I will explain my position, and from there, it is up to you to decide whether you decide the evidence works or not.

Phew! Thank God! I thought you may have been trapped in some backwards religion. So you're Amish then? Does your Seventh Day Adventists and Buddhist temple know you moonlight as Amish?

As for the ten commandments, they are a very loose guideline, but there are exceptions to every one of those commandments. I have a very strong spiritual side and Christian basis, probably stronger than yours.

You can try to change my beliefs, just as I may try to change yours. A Jehovah's Witness can lawfully knock on your front door to speak to you and try to change your beliefs. You cannot lawfully assault them for doing that. You can lawfully tell them you are not interested, and tell them to never return. Even better, you can put a sticker on your letterbox or front door, saying, no hawkers, no salespersons. But you cannot assault them. Why would you even be offended that someone wants to change your belief on something?

Seriously, either everything is significant or nothing is. Even a blade of grass blowing in the wind is significant, do you believe that? So, what difference does it make if Earth is a snow globe, or a sphere moving through space?

If you could kick your addiction to movies and how movies are made, you'd be more receptive to accepting space footage as real. I bet most of the people you pray with, accept space footage as real? 

Just to be clear on something. This flat earth society which provides a platform for debates and discussions, is an irony. The irony is, all the best discussions and debates on this forum, have absolutely nothing to do with flat earth or the shape of the Earth or
physics. On other subject matters, you and I can be on equal footing.