How can you dismiss all the space footage?

Question: Why has Newtonian Physics given way to Quantum Physics?
Answer 1: Because there are things inherently false about Newtonian Physics, and everyone knows it (even though they pretend they don't).
Answer 2: Because Quantum Physics is about supplanting religion with hippie secular Marvel Comic Universe-style religion.

Now, I like MCU movies okay (less so the more woke they are), but much of the so-called theories are just kinda like Joan of Arcadia after school programming. If I cut a branch of a tree, and burn that branch, no the rest of the tree is not entangled. That's crap. The tree is whole on the spiritual level, it doesn't feed back to the original tree. Phantom pain is real. Quantum entanglement is not.
The fact that people are trying to push these concepts as though they were science is a pretty strong case that Newton's theory is unsatisfactory.

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.

You're pushing the car with hill on the side away from you, and on the side closer to you there's air.

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

It believed in a round Earth. Everything the secular humanists do is lent from the playbook of Babylon.

Quote

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.

Under Babylon, all of humanity enslaved under one nation, under one purpose, and told to build a tower. Perhaps you've heard of it.

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.

Ah okay. So a mysterious force that you cannot see is not magic. But buoyancy, which can be seen in action whenever something is put in water, and can be seen again when you have a balloon, that's clearly magic. Good to know!

That is not logic.
That is pure magic.

The superstitious invoke the word magic whenever something they cannot explain appears.
The faithful understand that even faith is not magic.

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.

"Force of attraction." So, if I build an automobile weighing roughly 30 tons, and toss it and a paperclip away from other things that might attract it, the paperclip should fall towards the automobile (in the absence of the Earth). Why has this never been seen?

There is no magic involved. It just falls.
What, is there magic involved in making objects float? No, it just floats.
Because buoyancy works.

But since you're invoking turtles all the way down, demanding a force responsible for the buoyancy (which is a force itself), there should also be a force responsible for gravity. And a force for that force. And a force for that force. And a force for that force. And a force for that force. And so on.

If you insist in trying shoehorn gravity into a perfectly functional force, then why stop there? Why don't we meddle with all the forces? Weak attraction? Nah, that's caused by...

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.

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.

Did this get missed?
Please if you could, 1 and 2.

Thanks

1.  of presure gradient pushes down, when it only pushes up and
2.   how fluids knows whats inside a surface, to know the density, when all it knows is touching surface.

Did this get missed?
Please if you could, 1 and 2.

No, it didn't get missed.

Already covered.

1. Pressure pushes in multiple directions, actually.
2. Fluids don't have intelligence. They simply rise and fall in response to each other. Like this.


The plate is not only collapsing the air about it but forcing it away around itself. This is what is happening with displacement, too. The water is pushed around the heavy yet floating object.

Mmm yes


So water touching a bucket knows if the bucket is empty or not and suddenly, but not sentiently, pushes down when full and up when empty.


Got it.

Yeah. Because it's the correct theory.

Yeah... No. Look, for a moment, let's say that hypothetically the reason objects fall down might hypothetically be due to the air pressure. Hypothetically, of course. So with this assumption, think of this for a moment:
Say you have a spherical, half shell. You place it on a table with the open side up and you take a marble. Or a metal ball. Now you place it on the edge of shell and let it roll. Now, for whatever reason, it will fall to the center. But now, my question is, Why does it come back up, instead of just staying down at the center?



Assuming no frictional and air drag losses, bonus points if you can tell me the time period T for going back and forth once assuming a sphere of arbitrary radius R.

Infact, you try this yourself. Get a cereal bowl  which doesn't have any sharp edges on the inside and let your tiny ball roll from the edge.

Question: Why has Newtonian Physics given way to Quantum Physics?

Because Newtonian physics is incomplete.
e.g. it can't describe wave particle duality which is required to explain the properties of electrons in atoms.

But that is not relevant here.

It believed in a round Earth. Everything the secular humanists do is lent from the playbook of Babylon.

The depiction you appealed to does not look like a round Earth.
So far everything I have found indicated they thought Earth was flat.
But again, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Yet again you cannot refute the RE, so you try to vilify it.

Under Babylon, all of humanity enslaved under one nation, under one purpose, and told to build a tower. Perhaps you've heard of it.

As opposed to under Christianity, where they are enslaved to worship your evil POS, with threats of eternal torment if they don't?

Ah okay. So a mysterious force that you cannot see is not magic.

I wouldn't call it mysterious.
But it is no more invisible than your BS buoyancy or plenty of other forces.
The effects of gravity are readily observed.

The superstitious invoke the word magic whenever something they cannot explain appears.
The faithful understand that even faith is not magic.

i.e. those who believe in the magic but want to pretend it isn't magic.
I don't need faith. I need evidence and rational explanations, things you can't provide.

"Force of attraction." So, if I build an automobile weighing roughly 30 tons, and toss it and a paperclip away from other things that might attract it, the paperclip should fall towards the automobile (in the absence of the Earth). Why has this never been seen?

When have you seen an automobile and paperclip, in the absence of Earth?
You have effectively answered your own question.

There is no magic involved. It just falls.

i.e. magic.
You have no reason at all.
It just magically falls for no reason at all, magically knowing to go down, and magically knowing at what rate to go down. All while defying the measurable pressure gradient that should be pushing it up.
That is magic.

a force responsible for the buoyancy (which is a force itself)

Previously your big objection was asking why a force is needed. Now you are saying it is a force?

If you take your magic buoyancy, and treat it as a force, and try to determine the magnitude of this force force, without also ignoring the pressure gradient, it ends up a downwards force proportional to mass, with the pressure gradient explaining why things float. You need to treat it as pure magic and not a force to pretend it works.

And this goes directly back to Archimedes, that realised an object is buoyed UPWARDS by a force equal to the WEIGHT of fluid displaced.
If you bother doing the math, you find the upwards force due to the pressure gradient is equal in magnitude to the weight of the fluid displaced.
So when then measure the force on an object, we find the force due to your "buoyancy" is merely a downwards force equal to the weight of the substance.

Gravity is nothing like your imagined buoyancy.
It is a simple fundamental force, with a simple formula of F=GMm/r^2. Just like electrostatics has F=kQq/r^2; with the big distinction between with gravity like attracts like (matter attracts matter) while in electrostatics opposites attract. Even magnetism, if you treat it as monopoles, works with the same kind of law, but you need to combine the force from multiple such hypothetical monopoles.

All of these simple fundamental forces have a justification for the directionality, you are attracted towards something or repelled from something. There is that something there. You on the other hand have it as just down, with no justification.
Likewise, all of these simple fundamental forces have a justification for the magnitude and why it varies. There is a constant of proportionality and some property of the substance in question which dictates that magnitude, with that property varying resulting in the magnitude varying. This explains why the force varies around Earth. You have nothing. The best you got was appealing to the humidity of the air.

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?

Mmm yes


So water touching a bucket knows if the bucket is empty or not and suddenly, but not sentiently, pushes down when full and up when empty.


Got it.

Yes, and double yes! Also, all objects with mass, have weight because of buoyancy. A car driving along, stays on the road, not because of it's weight due to gravity, but because of it's weight due to buoyancy.

Also, a gravimeter which measures gravity, doesn't actually measure gravity, it measures buoyancy. And like I pointed out, an aircraft flying along which suddenly inverts, results in passengers falling out of their seats and landing on the cabin ceiling, not because of gravity, but somehow because of buoyancy.

This is the magical world of the flat earther.

So we once again ask


By what mechanism does "pushing up" action result in a 'pushing down?"

So we once again ask

By what mechanism does "pushing up" action result in a 'pushing down?"

A scale doesn't work on "gravity" but buoyancy.

Object A if it has more mass than Object B, tilts the scale its way. And vice versa for object B, if it has more mass.

But this is simple mass, not density. Density, as you know, as mass/volume. If we were to get an object that had greater mass than object B but the volume a much greater (Object A is a plank of wood, Object B is a solid gold scale weight), then Object B would possibly push Object A up. So Object B goes down, Object A goes up.

I want you to keep this visualization in mind. So while lighter objects are rising, stuff around it is getting displaced. A balloon displaces heavier air as it pushes up, just as a somewhat heavy floating log displaces water as it pushes down yet still floats.

You are being deliberately obtuse, in hopes of convincing me of something that isn't so.

My dad as a minister had some woke lady (before woke was cool) tell him "I don't understand" after his sermons. He eventually told her something like "Everyone else seems to understand it." 

This is just too amazing.

Too amazing to realize YOU are the woman.
And WE are the everyone else gets it.


"Heavy things fall ebcause theyre heavy" is what you keep stating.
We are not disagreeing with you there.

But your claim the mechanism of down is the same nmechanosm as up is the problem.

State in super clear terms - how by pushing up, something goes down.

Pushing up, leads to down.

If you state because its heavy, then it is a DIFFFERENT mechanism from bouyancy.

"I don't understand."

Of course you don't.

Too amazing to realize YOU are the woman.
And WE are the everyone else gets it.

You're confusing common sense for peer pressure.

Everyone else is told a silly story, and rather than trust their own instincts, they trust the words of charlatans.

Silly women trust woke secularism over the truth that God gives us. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

Newton tells you a fable about apples dropping, and you somehow forget that for literally thousands of years before even Archimedes, people have been able to make boats and such function.

Copernicus and Galileo tell you fables about what they saw Through the Looking Glass, and you don't bother to question it, even taking it on faith.

Your teacher tells you a fable about how the Earth orbits the sun, and you don't question how this clearly looks the opposite of the observed path of the sun, or the lack of motion sickness you experience, or how the stars haven't lost the shape of constellations in hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) of years despite the mad course of the Earth following after the sun around the galaxy, and you buy it completely.

You have secured teachers for yourself because your ears itch.  But my eyes can see the sun rise and set each day. And I could watch it year after year without seeing different stars. Had I a lifespan like God, I could watch the sun rise and set for millions of years and never see different stars.

But your claim the mechanism of down is the same mechanism as up is the problem.

Because it is the same.

If I toss a rubber ball into the air, it reaches a point where upward motion slows, then it drops.
If I drop a rubber ball into the water, it reaches a point where downward motion slows, then it rises.

Identical motion, in opposite directions.

Now, if we contrast the motion of a rubber ball placed inside a small rocket or launched from a specialized gun (this is propulsion, until it isn't), or a rubber ball with a bit of metal inside with a EM device (magnetism), you can see their motion is different.

Different forces create different types of motion.

No

Because if the pressure is increased above a prevoously floaty object, it is pushed down.
The natural pressure gradient pushes up.
The pressure pushes things around.

So pressure gradient exists or not?




The water does not know whats in the bucket.
It could be rocks.
It could be sand.
It could be marshmellows.


All it knows is the surface.
Waht touches s the bucket.

But in your theory, the fluid knows.
How?
How does the fluid know?

"I don't understand."

Of course you don't.

Quote

Too amazing to realize YOU are the woman.
And WE are the everyone else gets it.

You're confusing common sense for peer pressure.

You're confusing truth for peer pressure.

Object A if it has more mass than Object B, tilts the scale its way. And vice versa for object B, if it has more mass.

But why?
Because there is a downwards force acting on it.
Sane people recognise this force as gravity, and buoyancy as an upwards force.
But not you.

I want you to keep this visualization in mind. So while lighter objects are rising, stuff around it is getting displaced. A balloon displaces heavier air as it pushes up

Quite the opposite it.
By merely existing the balloon displaces air.
That air then is pulled down by gravity, which pushes the balloon up.

You are being deliberately obtuse, in hopes of convincing me of something that isn't so.

And there you go with more projections.

Silly women trust woke secularism over the truth that God gives us.

No, willy women trust the BS your pasters preach over the truth.

Stop trying to deflect to your religious BS, it has no place here.

Newton tells you a fable about apples dropping, and you somehow forget that for literally thousands of years before even Archimedes, people have been able to make boats and such function.

You mean the same Archimedes that recognises weight (gravitas in latin) as a downwards force, and buoyancy as an upwards force based upon the weight of fluid displaced?
You mean the very thing you reject?

faith

This is not about faith.
It is about evidence and explanatory power.
YOUR BS DOESN'T WORK!

this clearly looks the opposite of the observed path of the sun

No, it doesn't, no more so than the idea of a car you are in is travelling along a highway rather than the entire Earth moving backwards.

motion sickness

Which should not be experienced.

how the stars haven't lost the shape of constellations in hundreds of thousands

The location of stars have changed.

But my eyes can see the sun rise and set each day.

Clearly destroying your delusional fantasy where the sun magically stays above, yet you still cling to your BS.

Because it is the same.

No, it isn't.
This goes directly back to the pressure gradient.

Again, we know this pressure gradient exists.
We know it pushes things up.
We know this causes the buoyant force.
You can't explain it at all.

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?

No

Because if the pressure is increased above a prevoously floaty object, it is pushed down.
The natural pressure gradient pushes up.
The pressure pushes things around.

So pressure gradient exists or not?




The water does not know whats in the bucket.
It could be rocks.
It could be sand.
It could be marshmellows.


All it knows is the surface.
Waht touches s the bucket.

But in your theory, the fluid knows.
How?
How does the fluid know?

What you're doing is hauling around dogma.

I know plenty about dogma as a member of the church. Every Sunday, we recite the Nicene Creed which has passages about how Jesus is "begotten not made" (which I accept) and how he "will come again in glory to jusdge the living and the dead" (which I reject as part of the apocalyptic teachings, which I believe obscure the fact that Jesus has already come again, yet all of us are fine).

Oh yes, I know when someone is telling me "this should be true, because that is what I was taught." Yes, that is what you were taught, but you're not a wind-up doll.

 You can decide for yourself whether what you learn in science class checks out or not. Critical thinking is not some trendy thing that people pay lip service to. Critical thinking means you get to decide.

I've already told you what tells it. Its mass or density (which is just mass divided out by volume) makes it shift around in response to matter around it. It's not some force, it's not some kind of intelligence. It's just mass, just as rolling a pebble and a boulder on a block of ice will either break or not based in how heavy per square inch.

I've told you what it looks like, I've showed you diagrams. You want some specific type of proof, but you've already got some preconceived answer as to how things should be. Nothing will convince you, just as I'm fairly sure nothing will dissuade me.

No. If you want to rehearse your dogma, that's fine with me. As I mentioned before, you have 100% right to your own beliefs. As do I. But it's when you don't respect that, that we're gonna have a problem here.

No, look, you have 100% right to your own beliefs. But belief and truth are different. You can't believe that airplanes don't fly as much as I can't believe that earth is flat.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71184.0

Its mass!


Hurray
Glad we all agree
Mass brings things down


vs shape/ volume and displacement makes things go up.
(An empty balloon drops.   A crumpled tinfoil boat sinks)


And how fast they go up/down depends on the difference between both.

Amazing.

Glad we agree.

Hurray!!!

No, look, you have 100% right to your own beliefs. But belief and truth are different. You can't believe that airplanes don't fly as much as I can't believe that earth is flat.

Planes do fly, though.

It's spaceships that don't leave atmosphere. But you need propulsion or an object starts to sink. The heavier the object, the less aerodynamic it is, the more it sinks.

Spaceships don't leave atmosphere because they have too much mass. "No problem! We'll just separate these big oxidized fluid gas thruster thingies and we'll have less mass!" Great, so ummm that's like being in a car and instead of filling up the tank somewhere, you toss the engine for ballast. In an area where ignition is difficult because of extremely thin air, you just tossed the one thing that could push you ahead.

The fiction goes that space has no air resistance so objects once in motion stay in motion. Hurray! That might get you to the moon. Where you will crash land because there is not sufficient propulsion to generate repulsion. That is, you can't land. By some miracle, you do land? You're stuck! Objects at rest stay at rest.

Belief and truth are different. Your beliefs are not the truth. They are someone else's fiction, which believe me, I believed myself.



You want a pressure gradient? Here's one. There are solid objects and liquids in this. You could probably add several gas layers above the glass, such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulfuric gas, etc.

Gravity would say these solid objects should all settle to the bottom. But I betcha your left nut they won't. In fact, if I were to shake the glass to try to remix the layers, the same layers would eventually remix. I have a homemade salad dressing that does exactly this. I have to shake it or the salad dressing is pure oil or pure vinegar or pure whatever.  The good news in all this is that it makes for some interesting-looking drinks at the bar.




You can believe what you want, but the truth is not on your side.
Clear as day, you can see that these layers don't settle unless "shaken, not stirred."

So if you can believe what you want, but gravity is really buoyancy, where does that leave you?
Well, simple. Order one of those drinks at the bar. You can take a big gulp of one of those drinks and forget I said anything (and probably alot else). Or you can stare at it, go "Huh!" and decide to stay sober, giving it to a friend or something.

It's spaceships that don't leave atmosphere.

Yeap.  Rockets do enter space and place objects in orbit.

Third party verification, more like the whole world, observed Sputnik and its rocket place a rocket stage in orbit that was visible from the ground changing the night sky.  The satellite itself Sputnik was verified in orbit by its broadcast and the Doppler shift of it’s broadcast.

Rockets literally eject their own mass and atmosphere to create thrust.  Why do you think the laws of motion magically stop in extreme low density atmosphere.  A gun can fire in the same environment because the gunpowder has its own oxidizer, will still fire, and still kick. A spring is still going to launch a ball.  Rocket fuel is basically a chemical spring.

You want a pressure gradient?

Why does the pressure gradient go away when near zero gravity is duplicated by placing objects is a free fall.

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.

The mysterious Down Force pulls the denser fluids and denser liquids and denser everything down.

As shown by you, there is a pressure gradient as per the colours and layers.

And if an object is shaped in such a way to displace the fluid, the fluid pushes back on the object.

Pushes more from the bottom due to said pressure gradient.


So now we know the fluids push up -
How does pushing up, make something go down.






https://youtube.com/shorts/gzu6kK38KZg?si=AGSnRQqKBLNyXDH3

Again.

Buoyancy is a force. Density is not. The density of objects is part of the buoyancy equation.
As far as I'm concerned, the only part. Density is mass/volume. Mass is not a force. Nor is volume.

Buoyancy is a force that uses mass and volume to determine whether things float or not.

So now we know the fluids push up

Tell you what, when you start doing your own experiments and I don't have to, maybe I'll answer your questions. I feel like my art teacher from 6th grade trying to explain art to me as a child, who still draw people like this.

I was a fucking retarded artist, and my art teacher was at a loss for how to explain to me. She knew the technique, as she was a real artist rather "who can't do, teach." But I was terrible, and it took a lot of work on her part to convince me I was terrible and needed to improve. So let me give you that gift. Your grasp of physics and chemistry stinks. Like me back then, you cling to what you think works. Sorry, winged square-bodied people is no way to go through life, and neither is having a concept of physics borrowed from old dead dudes. You ought to make your own opinions about how the Earth works. If that's still RE fine, but it ought to at least be an original thought about it.

I told you about the way molecules sort push around each other based on spacing. "I don't understand," says the persistently obtuse person. Everyone who is FE understands.  But if you can't understand, so go ahead and do some juggling.

You'll have a better grasp of the relationship of matter by doing than me explaining to you yet again.

Again.

Buoyancy is a force.

You claimed a fundamental force.

Yet when you use a vacuum chamber and evacuate all atmosphere until there is no meaningful amount of atmosphere, items weigh more.  Still fall down. And often fall down faster.


When you simulate micro gravity with free fall, the pressure gradient goes away.


Why can I roll around a car in neutral all day long on a flat floor. But can’t roll the same car up hill into an atmosphere with less density and pressure. 

Aah so we can ageee on fundame tal physics formuals?

Force = mass x accelllearion.

Mass = desnity × vokume.




What is the Force in relarion to Pressure?

What you're doing is hauling around dogma.

Projecting yet again.

What we have is rational objections based upon evidence.

You can decide for yourself whether what you learn in science class checks out or not. Critical thinking is not some trendy thing that people pay lip service to. Critical thinking means you get to decide.

Critical thinking means you can evaluate it and see how well the evidence supports the theory.
But that is a choice, a choice you have clearly rejected.

You rejecting it doesn't mean it doesn't check out.

I've told you what it looks like, I've showed you diagrams. You want some specific type of proof, but you've already got some preconceived answer as to how things should be.

We want answers to fairly simple questions you keep on avoiding.

Nothing will convince you, just as I'm fairly sure nothing will dissuade me.

Rational arguments, backed by evidence will convince me.
But nothing will convince you as you have made up your mind and are willing to blatantly lie to support it.

you have 100% right to your own beliefs. As do I. But it's when you don't respect that, that we're gonna have a problem here.

You have a right to your own beliefs. But when you state them publicly, then everyone else has the right to point out those beliefs are pure BS.
If you don't want your BS beliefs criticised, then keep them to yourself.

It's spaceships that don't leave atmosphere.

Yet all the evidence shows they do.

Spaceships don't leave atmosphere because they have too much mass.

Which is countered by the propulsion they have.

The thrust is greater than the weight.

So no problem.
Instead, yet again you are spouting BS.

you just tossed the one thing that could push you ahead.

No, they tossed out a quite heavy thing which could push them, while leaving a much lighter version.

The fiction goes that space has no air resistance so objects once in motion stay in motion.

You mean reality.
There is negligible air resistance in space, allowing objects to continue in motion without needing to continually use their engine.
But there is still an engine and fuel in reserve for various things.

there is not sufficient propulsion

Based upon what?

Belief and truth are different.

That's right, belief and truth are different. Your delusional, repeatedly refuted beliefs are not the truth.
They are pure fiction.

Your wilful rejection of the truth does not make that truth fiction.

You want a pressure gradient? Here's one.

No, that is yet another pathetic deflection.
Yes, there are pressure gradients in there, but that is not dealing the pressure gradient being discussed.
Each layer has a pressure gradient across it.
Pure water has a pressure gradient across it.
This CANNOT be explained through buoyancy.
This pressure gradient EXPLAINS buoyancy.

Gravity would say these solid objects should all settle to the bottom.

Only if you entirely ignore the fluid.
Gravity says the fluids will have a pressure gradient with those pressure gradients will push things up, this includes the solid objects.
It is then a competition between the direct force of gravity on the object, and the force of the pressure gradient on the object.
If the upwards buoyant force from the pressure gradient is greater than the downwards force directly from gravity, it goes up. If the direct force of gravity is greater, then it goes down.

So gravity explains it just fine.
Meanwhile your delusional BS can't explain it at all.
Consider a neutrally buoyant object, well according to your fantasy, buoyancy is not trying to move it up or down. That just leaves the pressure gradient to push it up, so it should go up.
Yet again, your BS fails.

You can believe what you want, but the truth is not on your side.

Projecting yet again.
The truth is on our side. We can easily explain what is happening. You can't.
Instead, to pretend you can, you need to entirely ignore things.

Buoyancy is a force.

An UPWARDS force.

If you want to disagree, provide an equation for this force, for an object with a density of rho_o, and volume of V, in a fluid with a density of rho_f.

Tell you what, when you start doing your own experiments and I don't have to, maybe I'll answer your questions.

It has, that gravity works, and buoyancy is an upwards force caused by the pressure gradient, caused by gravity.

Everyone who is FE understands.  But if you can't understand, so go ahead and do some juggling.

You mean everyone who is looking to reject reality can pretend to understand because they are desperate for an excuse.

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?

Aah so we can ageee on fundame tal physics formuals?

Force = mass x accelllearion.

Mass = desnity × vokume.

What is the Force in relarion to Pressure?

Ahhhhh your spelling is making my eyes bleed.
:eye_bleeding_emoji:

Density = mass/volume

You don't usually calculate for mass that way.

I don't use acceleration. I use velocity. And the formula is for momentum, not "force". Force is a vague term. What force? There's lots of different forces? But you've decided gravity is the force you mean, even though it is by far the weakest of the so-called fundamental forces, so weak in fact, that there is little proof it exists.

Which is my point exactly. Why is buoyancy (or diffusion,  don't care which) not the fourth fundamental force? It's far more observable, birds don't defy buoyancy, and it's not pathetically tiny to the point of having to measure by the ^-11 power.

You want to believe gravity exists? Fine, but there is a far more important (I can even say "fundamental") force which does the job of handling movement of matter far better.

I don't use acceleration. I use velocity.

Then how do you measure that rate at which velocity changes?

  Why is buoyancy

Which requires a pressure gradient that goes away in simulating near zero gravity by placing objects in free fall.

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?

 It's far more observable, birds don't defy buoyancy,

Birds generate lift greater than the downward force of their bodyweight due to gravity.

Again.  Why can I roll a car in natural all day long on a level floor but can’t push it up hill.  Same mechanical advantage from the wheels, so what force keeps me from pushing it up hill. 

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 26, 2024, 02:55:54 PM

Aah so we can ageee on fundame tal physics formuals?

Force = mass x accelllearion.

Mass = desnity × vokume.

What is the Force in relarion to Pressure?

Ahhhhh your spelling is making my eyes bleed.
:eye_bleeding_emoji:

Density = mass/volume

You don't usually calculate for mass that way.

I don't use acceleration. I use velocity. And the formula is for momentum, not "force". Force is a vague term. What force? There's lots of different forces? But you've decided gravity is the force you mean, even though it is by far the weakest of the so-called fundamental forces, so weak in fact, that there is little proof it exists.

Which is my point exactly. Why is buoyancy (or diffusion,  don't care which) not the fourth fundamental force? It's far more observable, birds don't defy buoyancy, and it's not pathetically tiny to the point of having to measure by the ^-11 power.

You want to believe gravity exists? Fine, but there is a far more important (I can even say "fundamental") force which does the job of handling movement of matter far better.

ah, yes, momentum of course. calls Newton a pick, proceeds to use momentum.
But glad we can agree on the existence of momentum. So, what, according to you, is the formula for momentum?

I don't use acceleration. I use velocity. And the formula is for momentum, not "force".

So you do it entirely wrong?

The formula should be for force, not momentum, with that force translating to acceleration.
That is because when you drop something, it accelerates. It doesn't just instantly jump to terminal velocity.

so weak in fact, that there is little proof it exists.

You mean plenty of proof which you just ignore.

Why is buoyancy (or diffusion,  don't care which) not the fourth fundamental force?

Because buoyancy is a result of the pressure gradient due to gravity.
It is not a fundamental force.
Diffusion is just the motion of particles and again is not fundamental.

And more importantly, gravity is a far better explanation, capable of explaining more, and not needing a magic direction with no cause, and magic variation with location with no cause.

If you want it to be a fundamental force, then you need to have it as a magical downwards force proportional to mass.
Alternatively, you need to address the massive issues with your BS which you keep ignoring.

birds don't defy buoyancy

They equally defy gravity and your BS buoyancy.
As a reminder, birds are denser than air.

it's not pathetically tiny to the point of having to measure by the ^-11 power.

So you don't like it?

You want to believe gravity exists? Fine, but there is a far more important (I can even say "fundamental") force which does the job of handling movement of matter far better.

Repeating the same lies wont help you.
Your BS doesn't work, and is far less fundamental.

Again, a nice simple problem, you have an object in a fluid with a pressure gradient, with the object and fluid having the same density.
Your buoyancy BS does nothing.
This just leaves the pressure gradient to push it up.
So if your delusional BS was true, an object of equal density to the fluid should go up.
But it doesn't.

But back in reality, where gravity is a downwards force and the upwards buoyant force is due to this pressure gradient, there is no problem.

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?

See he dodged thw question because he knows F = Pressure / Surface area

And (static) fluids exert a force based on pressure and area.

No mention of mass.

So it is imposiible for a force that pushes an objectup, to cause that same object to go down.

Specifically - water knowing a bucket is full of rocks or full of marshmellows.



He know enough not to answer my question because hes a dishonest pos.

No I dodged the question because I know my science is right or not, based on instinct and observations.

Let's do something here. We're going to check "gravity" against the standard of a fantasy story and see how well it stacks up. Only instead of scientific terms, we use fantasy terms, specifically the four primal elements.

I throw a box toward you but it falls before it reaches you. Why is it falling? Well, it's because of the wee faeries. The air faeries want to launch that box straight into the air, but there are just so many earth faeries that grab onto that box and pull it to the ground. The water faeries in the moon are attracted to the water faeries in the Earth, so naturally the moon rises the tides. The tide ought to be lowest while the sun is out because fire faeries are natural enemies of water faeries, but you know those particular fire faeries are really sexy. Water clings to a spherical object like the Earth, but when I try to make the same thing happen for a large bouldder, the lesser water faeries just don't find those lesser earth spirits sexy enough. As for why birds can fly when the box fell? It's because birds have a Pact with the air faeries, and earth faeries are not allowed to go near while they flap their wings or glide, only when they lose balance or consciousness.

This is how backward and superstitious your so-called scientific theory looks to me. It presupposes a force that doesn't have any consistency, and ignores the fact that gravity can't be tested on a micro scale by arguing greater force. Buoyancy can be tested locally, magnetism can be tested locally. All forces but gravity to the best of my knowledge can be tested locally. But "The Earth's gravity is more massive," so gravity can't be tested locally. But the sun's gravity is more massive than the Earth's! Why is only gas pulled toward the sky?

 Oh I know! Those faeries just aren't sexy enough.

Or maybe, just maybe, the idea of outside forces pulling objects ought to be consigned to the rubbish bin, and we need to start thinking of mass as internal to an object. Buoyancy operates on what's inside.

If I toss a big box, and it is more dense than the air, it falls before it gets to you. Tides are a timing thing, not a pull thing, and tides may be high at any time or low at any time. If it were a pull thing, the sun despite distance, is thousands of times more massive.
How tidal deadzones create tides around themselves
Water doesn't stick to spheres. It's contained inside basins. So the Earth must be flat and shaped like a bowl or frypan. Birds fly for the same reason you are able to swim. Propulsion overcomes "gravity" (negative buoyancy). As for why the sun doesn't pull us towards it, the difference between buoyancy and gravity is that buoyancy determines only sinking and floating, it doesn't exert pull. We humans aren't pulled to the sun, that shouldbe proof enough that it is negative buoyancy that causes things to fall, and positice buoyancy that makes them rise, not gravity.