WHY would the government trick us?

  • 1102 Replies
  • 35893 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1020 on: January 09, 2025, 10:16:44 PM »
The "anime is cartoons for kiddos" myth.
No, the "It's fiction with magic so anything can happen, even the impossible" fact.
Appealing to anime to pretend that something happening there must much reality doesn't help your case at all.

Now care to tell us why you are using an equirectangular projection and claiming a clearly not straight line is the shortest path?

Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1021 on: January 09, 2025, 11:33:25 PM »
well it's a good question that h'es been avoiding and continues to avoid


the ball earth uses circles and triangles to explain how climbing the birds nest allows a sailor pirate to see further.
if circles and triangles are wrong, how does the parabola do it?




*

Jura-Glenlivet II

  • Flat Earth Inquisitor
  • 6538
  • Will I still be perfect tomorrow?
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1022 on: January 10, 2025, 01:45:25 AM »
The "anime is cartoons for kiddos" myth.
Then.
Marrow of Alchemy, based off the Kabbalah's Tree of Life and Kundalini's chakra system, which is probably derived from Samuel Norton's Catholicon Physicorum.

So, a bunch of perma-teens raiding esoteric fables because it’s a short cut to world building, is your door to higher thinking, do you then investigate Kundalini? I doubt it, FYI, he wants his hand back.

This is the new canon, titbits from old systems bolted together ad hoc to give a game semblance of authenticity and all the attention deficit kiddies inhale the woo, maybe get the tattoo and imagine they are plugged in, brilliant.
Life is meaningless and everything dies.

Every man makes a god of his own desire

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3533
  • God winds the universe
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1023 on: January 10, 2025, 04:50:13 AM »
The "anime is cartoons for kiddos" myth.
No, the "It's fiction with magic so anything can happen, even the impossible" fact.
Appealing to anime to pretend that something happening there must much reality doesn't help your case at all.

FMA is actually not about magic. Alchemy is explicitly called a "science" in canon. It turns out their "science" is supplied by a supernatural entity who makes screwy deals to teach humans humility. Which ought to tell you something about your own crackpot scientific beliefs. But of course, it doesn't.

Now care to tell us why you are using an equirectangular projection and claiming a clearly not straight line is the shortest path?

Oh that?

For the same reason you think this adjustment by pilots is the shortest path.


With no education would you look at this and tell me if it looks like the shortest path?

No, you'd say like John Lawrence, "Why is this plane doing this bendy thing?"

Yes, both a globe Earth and a flat Earth have the latitude curving as outward.

But on the flat Earth map, you are going due north then cutting across latitude and longitude. I maintain though that if you do the path wrong, you actually waste time instead.

Showing John this map, and why it is a straight line would be better.

If it's still not a straight line, then yeah, fuck you and your RE posturing. Barcelona to LA via Canada is a straight line on a FE map btw.

So let's look at that great circle above. But this time, we compare to the Flat Earth Map. We have an area near the Great Lakes going to Greenland then Saudi Arabia. On the side map, this makes no sense. But here, it makes alot more sense.

Yet in the southern hemisphere they don't use northern routes. Part of it has to do with heading all the way up then all the way down. But also, because they have their own cutting across latitude path.

Notice how much this path skims on the southern portion.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2025, 06:26:55 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1024 on: January 10, 2025, 01:32:55 PM »
FMA is actually not about magic. Alchemy is explicitly called a "science" in canon.
And them calling it science doesn't make it science.

Which ought to tell you something about your own crackpot scientific beliefs.
It tells me how desperate you are to reject reality.
So much so that to try to dismiss it you appeal to pure fantasy as if it says anything about reality.

For the same reason you think this adjustment by pilots is the shortest path.
Lying wont save you.

The great circle is the shortest path and is a line that follows the surface without turning left or right.

With no education would you look at this and tell me if it looks like the shortest path?
With no education I wouldn't know what the "shortest" path is.
With no education, I wouldn't recognise the map.

What you really mean is an incredible selective education which results in me thinking that particular map/projection is an accurate representation without distortion.

But we both better.
So why continue with this dishonest BS?

But on the flat Earth map, you are going due north then cutting across latitude and longitude. I maintain though that if you do the path wrong, you actually waste time instead.
If you do the path wrong, to such an insane degree, you will waste time.
And that happens regardless of which path you try to follow.
So that isn't a reason.

Showing John this map, and why it is a straight line would be better.
Or using a globe, and showing the great circle.
Either way the line of constant latitude is NOT the shortest path.
But you keep rejecting it. And your best reason is "but if you don't follow the path its longer".

If it's still not a straight line, then yeah, fuck you and your RE posturing.
So if reality still doesn't match your fantasy, just fuck me and reality?

So let's look at that great circle above. But this time, we compare to the Flat Earth Map.
Why only your FE map? Why not also a RE? i.e. a globe, to look at the great circle routes?

On the side map, this makes no sense.
And you are the only one pretending it should.
If you want to see if it makes sense on a round Earth, look at a round Earth, not a flat representation which distorts it.

Yet in the southern hemisphere they don't use northern routes. Part of it has to do with heading all the way up then all the way down. But also, because they have their own cutting across latitude path.
Yes, because Earth is round.
If Earth was flat, the shortest route between 2 points of similar latitude would be going further north.
But as Earth is round, that only applies to the northern hemisphere. For the south, they go south.

Notice how much this path skims on the southern portion.
You mean how there are far fewer routes? Which isn't surprising given the population.
Instead of focusing on routes that don't exist, try focusing on the routes which do. The routes which make no sense at all on the flat earth.

Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1025 on: January 10, 2025, 03:29:42 PM »
The "anime is cartoons for kiddos" myth.
No, the "It's fiction with magic so anything can happen, even the impossible" fact.
Appealing to anime to pretend that something happening there must much reality doesn't help your case at all.

FMA is actually not about magic. Alchemy is explicitly called a "science" in canon. It turns out their "science" is supplied by a supernatural entity who makes screwy deals to teach humans humility. Which ought to tell you something about your own crackpot scientific beliefs. But of course, it doesn't.

Now care to tell us why you are using an equirectangular projection and claiming a clearly not straight line is the shortest path?

Oh that?

For the same reason you think this adjustment by pilots is the shortest path.


With no education would you look at this and tell me if it looks like the shortest path?

No, you'd say like John Lawrence, "Why is this plane doing this bendy thing?"

Yes, both a globe Earth and a flat Earth have the latitude curving as outward.

But on the flat Earth map, you are going due north then cutting across latitude and longitude. I maintain though that if you do the path wrong, you actually waste time instead.

Showing John this map, and why it is a straight line would be better.

If it's still not a straight line, then yeah, fuck you and your RE posturing. Barcelona to LA via Canada is a straight line on a FE map btw.

So let's look at that great circle above. But this time, we compare to the Flat Earth Map. We have an area near the Great Lakes going to Greenland then Saudi Arabia. On the side map, this makes no sense. But here, it makes alot more sense.

Yet in the southern hemisphere they don't use northern routes. Part of it has to do with heading all the way up then all the way down. But also, because they have their own cutting across latitude path.

Notice how much this path skims on the southern portion.


By Christ, what the fuck are you doing? This is Wise's forte. He is the expert on flight paths, not you. If I want to hear about flight paths supposedly proving the earth is not a globe, I'll listen to Wise, not you. Swim in your own lane, Bulma.

So, how the hell do you think you can cough up images of a three dimensional globe on a flat screen to illustrate your erroneous interpretation of flight paths? You need to be demonstrating using three dimensional models, not flat images.

You goddamn flat earthers.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3533
  • God winds the universe
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1026 on: January 11, 2025, 05:11:08 AM »
Okay then, listen to Wise.

In fact, go to all of his posts and stop bothering me.
Esp you, Jack Black.

...Oh right, but you can't do that, can you.

Unlike me, who you can trace the time of most of my posts between 4am and 10am EST, you probably do this as a full-time job.

You people are the greatest evidence of a flat Earth.


*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1027 on: January 12, 2025, 12:28:08 AM »
In fact, go to all of his posts and stop bothering me.
Esp you, Jack Black.
If you don't want to be bothered, stop spouting BS.

Unlike me, who you can trace the time of most of my posts between 4am and 10am EST, you probably do this as a full-time job.
Telling fools or liars why they are wrong wouldn't be a fulfilling job at all.

I have a much better job than this.

Now again, care to tell us why you are suggesting we fly a clearly longer route?

Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1028 on: January 12, 2025, 02:01:49 PM »
Okay then, listen to Wise.

In fact, go to all of his posts and stop bothering me.
Esp you, Jack Black.

...Oh right, but you can't do that, can you.

Unlike me, who you can trace the time of most of my posts between 4am and 10am EST, you probably do this as a full-time job.

You people are the greatest evidence of a flat Earth.



Aren't you used to my sense of humor yet?

Wise spammed this forum for years with his worthless plane flights proof for a flat earth. Nobody wants to sit through that level of lunacy again.

Please don't cough up demolished flat earth proofs to justify your flat earth fetish.

Instead of breakfast, I like to start my day by addressing whatever flat earth shit you and your patsies have posted, while I was sleeping. That's right - while I was sleeping upside down on the opposite side of the globe to you, and held fast by GRAVITY.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3533
  • God winds the universe
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1029 on: January 12, 2025, 11:57:49 PM »
What sense of humor?

 "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.The Way that can be walked is not the eternal Way. The name that can be named is not the eternal name."

 Or as they say in writing and acting, show don't tell. If you have to explain your sense of humor, it's not real. Similarly, if you have to make a big show of things like breath, there's fakery going on.

You don't have a sense of humor.

Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1030 on: January 13, 2025, 09:55:19 PM »
What sense of humor?

 "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.The Way that can be walked is not the eternal Way. The name that can be named is not the eternal name."

 Or as they say in writing and acting, show don't tell. If you have to explain your sense of humor, it's not real. Similarly, if you have to make a big show of things like breath, there's fakery going on.

You don't have a sense of humor.

Everybody, (with the exception of Jack Black), has a little conspiracy theorist living inside them, eager to question things. It's just a matter of which rabbit hole you fall into, and how deep you fall.

You could just as easily wound up being a sovereign citizen, or hollow earth believer, or out in the woods chasing sasquatch, and instead you wound up a flat earther.

All conspiracy theories have one thing in common - they amount to nothing.

*

Jura-Glenlivet II

  • Flat Earth Inquisitor
  • 6538
  • Will I still be perfect tomorrow?
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1031 on: January 14, 2025, 01:57:50 AM »

Smokey's hilarious!
Not sure he always tries to be, but all the same.
Life is meaningless and everything dies.

Every man makes a god of his own desire

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3533
  • God winds the universe
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1032 on: January 14, 2025, 05:59:10 AM »
Jack Black believes in absolutely stupid things. That and his insistence on me answering questions that I've gone over before (maybe once every three months, I tackle his questions, and he picks them apart with stupid diagrams too). In fact, having pressed him on points (does light really travel forever?) he says yes on some things (why the  sun 's distance doesn't matter for seasons; why obstruction and curvature are behind sunset not radius of the sun's light) but then turns around and says no (why do distant stars that are large enough to be seen from trillions of miles away not appear huge and burn a hole in our skulls?) so I've come to realize he is a dishonest idiot. He is not someone that you ought to look up to.

As for me amounting to nothing, a very large part of my flat Earth experience comes from my religious upbringing. No, I wasn't some kid that a pastor enrolled in Bible school out in some back woods area, and got to memorize verses.     I grew up in a small town yes, but I went to regular schools and colleges. Then I discovered flat Earth, and realized it made more sense. The thing is, as a Protestant, we learned that calling people, trash, deplorable, or irredeemable is un-Christian. Human beings decide who is nonessential, whose life will never amount to anything.

But God's message is this:

Now the lyrics are hardly high art, but they tell of the importance of not writing people off as never amounting to anything. God loves who we are.


 Or do you not know that many of the famous and esteemed scientists believed in some very strange theories?
  • Isaac Newton believed in alchemy
  • Pasteur suppressed his own findings when they appeared to support life growing in a compost heap because only God can create life
  • William Shockley invented the transistor, then spent most of his life promoting eugenics
  • Erwin Schrodinger was a pedophile. But we know him instead for his cats.
  • Harry Harlow is more famous in fact for his unethical experiments than he is for his original study of child raising using monkeys.
  • and who can forget Wilheim Reich?


I guess those people never amounted to anything.




*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1033 on: January 14, 2025, 12:03:49 PM »
Jack Black believes in absolutely stupid things.
No, I believe in quite sensible things.
You are the one that appears to believe in stupid things, and tries to justify them with more stupidity.

Look at how you tried to justify "solar bad, oil good", by showing an image of a silica mine used for fracking and saying it is bad. Only to entirely abandon that when it is pointed out that was a mine for silica.

Even now you cling to religious BS.

That and his insistence on me answering questions that I've gone over before
You haven't.
That's the point.
You continually flee from them at all costs.
They destroy your fantasy so trivially that you can never answer them.
Instead you just repeat this lie, claiming to have answered them.

In fact, having pressed him on points (does light really travel forever?) he says yes on some things (why the  sun 's distance doesn't matter for seasons; why obstruction and curvature are behind sunset not radius of the sun's light) but then turns around and says no (why do distant stars that are large enough to be seen from trillions of miles away not appear huge and burn a hole in our skulls?) so I've come to realize he is a dishonest idiot.
No, I don't.
Instead, I remain consistent, with you unable to show a fault with what I have actually said, and instead lying by manipulating what I have said into pure BS.
For example, with that BS example of yours, I say that light continues until it interacts with something to stop it. But if you are coming from an omnidirectional light source like a star, it will spread out over a larger area. That means it will get fainter.
For the seasons the distance is not that important, as it is not changing much compared to other factors which are far more significant.
This still allows distant stars to become quite faint and it has nothing at all to do with the angular size, which is simply the angle that they take up in our vision.

As for me amounting to nothing, a very large part of my flat Earth experience comes from my religious upbringing.
i.e. You accept religious BS rather than thinking. You can't handle reality, so you cling to a fantasy.

And your image really demonstrates this.
You can't handle being a tiny insignificant speck in a massive universe.
You are desperate to be a toy of an all powerful being.

And you happily lie to try to skew the facts.
God doesn't explain life, it just pushes the problem back.
But the RE says nothing about evolution and abiogenesis.
It is really just a part of the Bible being wrong.
But you then dump all of it together.
Importantly, it says nothing about the worth of anyone.

Conversely, the Bible says the Jews are God's chosen people, and happily justified genocide on that basis.
It teaches that some people are more important and worthy than others.

But God's message is this:
"Obey me and do whatever I say and beg for forgiveness for being the fallible human being you were created as or I will burn you in hell for eternity"

Nothing loving about that.
But that doesn't stop people conned by it into thinking it is love.
You are in an abusive relationship with your imagination.

Do you know the easy way to tell that either God doesn't exist, it is not all powerful, or it is not all loving?
All the people, especially believers, that are suffering from so many diseases and disabilities.
A loving god who could prevent that would not allow that.
So either god is not loving and is fine with people suffering; or it is not able to stop it so is hardly a god; or doesn't exist.

Believing in a loving god like you do is just more stupidity.

Or do you not know that many of the famous and esteemed scientists believed in some very strange theories?
I know they did.
However, the important distinction between religion and science is that science is based upon the evidence, not the people.
It doesn't matter what crap Newton believed, that doesn't make the science that has come from him valid.
Especially when you can replicate the results.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2025, 12:16:54 PM by JackBlack »

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3533
  • God winds the universe
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1034 on: January 16, 2025, 06:15:10 PM »
Quote
It doesn't matter what crap Newton believed, that doesn't make the science that has come from him valid.
Especially when you can replicate the results.

Too bad you cannot replicate the results.

"Oh look! I can drop an apple! It fell! This must be [name]gravity[/name]!"

You could also say, "Oh look! I can drop an apple! It fell! This must be [name]faeries[/name]!"
Or even, "Oh look! I can drop an apple! It fell! This must be [name]buoyancy[/name]!"

It's not just the semantics of the name though. It's the baggage that comes with it.

  • Gravity includes atomic or subatomic attraction pulling things down.
  • Faeries involve magical theory.
  • And buoyancy involves the necessary conclusion that adding more mass in the form of multiple strung together helium balloons falls upward. Same behavior in air as water.


One of these theories works. One involves we believe in magic. And one requires we limit another theory to behavior in water when it is clearly not limited.

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1035 on: January 16, 2025, 07:54:24 PM »
Too bad you cannot replicate the results.
We can. Just what do you think we can't replicate?

Don't bother with a BS strawman or claiming something is explaining it.
The key is the results.

One of these theories works.
Yes, gravity. Which buoyancy cannot work without.
Again, if you want to pretend it is just buoyancy, you need to explain so many things:
Why this makes it move at all,
Why at a particular rate,
Why this rate varies over Earth,
Why/How this creates a pressure gradient,
Why/How this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up.

If you use gravity, you get buoyancy as a direct result of it, and a result which applies in all fluids.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3533
  • God winds the universe
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1036 on: January 17, 2025, 04:00:48 AM »
Yes, yes. This is how gravity survives as a theory. By shoehorning itself as an opposing force to buoyancy.

No thanks.

  • There is positive buoyancy wherein things rise at a rate they are are lighter than their surroundings.
  • There is neutral buoyancy, where things float on their being equal to a layer of liquid or gas.
  • There is negative buoyancy, where objects sink. Strictly speaking, nothing "falls" to gravity. It sinks at a rate of being more dense than its surroundings.

    And this all has to do with density not "weight". There is no need in this theory for any force other than buoyancy.

    But indeed there is a force other than buoyancy. Well, an "impulse" they call it. Momentum tends to temporarily override buoyancy. If I drop a heavy log, its mass and velocity (you notice I didn't mention "weight") causes it to sink for a few moments, then rise back up to the surface. If we saw this log do this in the air, it would look very very strange.  But that's because you instinctively know that a log shouldn't be lighter than air. What you see in air instead is the log displacing air as it flies up (yup, we're doing the log toss experiment, since you wouldn't consent to it, you're now tied up in this scenario), and since it is much more dense than air, even with upward momentum, it sorta bounces back (against the air) then falls rather quickly, threatening to splir your head wide open like in a crappy horror film. You are saved though by the natural ounded shape of this log and its knobs where the branches were. It rolls forward, instead landing across your arm, right knee, and groin. You are in a lot of pain, and your arm and leg will need to be amputated. That's my amateur medical opinion.
    If you tried to toss inflated balloons toward the ground, they might bounce down (against air!) for a second or so, then rise up. Basically the exact same thing in reverse. Because both objects are much less or much more dense, momentum doesn't really have much of a long bounce, like it does with the same log against water.
    They'll stop rising when they get to a point where the air is thinner than the density of the balloon. If they aren't poorly made and tear or pop instead.

    If Newton sat near an apple orchard by the river and it fell into the water, we would be having a very different conversation today, and we'd probably both agree on this point (I can't imagine the two of us being friends though). Newton would observe the apple falling, hitting the water, and maybe breaking the surface. You see this displacement ripple, and then there is an elastic effect in water where it starts to rise up.

     "Gonna rise up, rise up, rise up (going higher)."

    So, if I were to toss a log up into air towards a lake, I should see two parabolic motions.

         /\
        /  \
    @/    \
    +       \
    ^____============+++===========
             |  \                      /
             |   \                    /
             |    \                  /
             |     \                /
             |      \              /
             |       \            /
             |        \          /
             |         \        /
             |          \      /
             |           \    /
             |            \  /
             |             \/
             |
             |
             |________________________________

    Now maybe it rises more or doesn't sink as much, but if you're being perfectly honest with yourself, you know damned well that's what you should see. Upward momentum, downward momentum, then positive buoyancy vs water, negative buoyancy vs air, and the log settles somewhere near the surface of the water.       
« Last Edit: January 17, 2025, 04:09:14 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

Jura-Glenlivet II

  • Flat Earth Inquisitor
  • 6538
  • Will I still be perfect tomorrow?
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1037 on: January 17, 2025, 06:47:51 AM »

Talking of density and logs!
Life is meaningless and everything dies.

Every man makes a god of his own desire

Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1038 on: January 17, 2025, 11:19:39 AM »
Mmmm negative bouyancy....
Just a relative direction for convention.

But
Mechanically, bouyancy works by pushes up.
How does it push down?

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1039 on: January 17, 2025, 12:08:30 PM »
Yes, yes. This is how gravity survives as a theory.
By actually being able to explain things, matching reality, without having to ignore so much it isn't funny.


Meanwhile, your BS survives as BS by you ignoring the multitudes of issues with it and just spouting the same refuted crap.

Buoyancy is not an opposing theory. When understood properly it is a direct consequence of gravity.
Gravity explains buoyancy, and without it buoyancy fails.


Notice how you keep repeating the same pathetic BS without even attempting to address the issues raised.

Yes, I get it, you have your BS buoancy pretending to produce the same results as gravity, but you can't address the simple issues raised.

if you're being perfectly honest with yourself, you know damned well that's what you should see.
Yes, the result of gravity along with the effect of the pressure gradient it creates.
Being honest I recognise the overall result of gravity.

Meanwhile, you continue to be dishonest and continue to ignore all the issues with your BS.

If you were being honest with yourself you would admit buoyancy alone doesn't work.

Again if you want to pretend it is some magical buoyancy, you need to explain:
Why this makes it move at all,
Why at a particular rate,
Why this rate varies over Earth,
Why/How this creates a pressure gradient,
Why/How this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up.

If you can't, your BS is DOA.

Until you can address those points, your BS does not work.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43154
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1040 on: January 17, 2025, 02:04:20 PM »
And this all has to do with density not "weight". There is no need in this theory for any force other than buoyancy.
Density is not a force.  So what makes buoyancy a force?  What is your formula for buoyancy?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3533
  • God winds the universe
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1041 on: January 26, 2025, 03:39:38 PM »

Talking of density and logs!

Apparently, you need to have it explained to you.

Are you denser than a log?

Quote
So what makes buoyancy a force?  What is your formula for buoyancy?

FFS.

Goto Members, go to Search for Members, enter my name, go to Profile Info, then Show Posts.

Look through what I have already said. So I don't have to fucking repeat myself over and over again.

They talk about how much of the population going through school today can barely write because they use the computer too much. Are you telling me that you aren't capable of managing the computer either?!?

Fine. Surface density (Sρ) vs object density (Oρ). It's that simple. If the object is denser than its surroundings, it sinks. It stays put (floats) if the two are equal.  If it's less dense, it rises. No invisible force, no Earth putting pressure on things. It's just the same thing you see in water and in air.
I took a plane flight twice this week.  I believe in gravity no more. In fact, the sensation of flying over a cloud could best be compared in my mind to gliding a skate across a layer of ice, descending felt like diving, and rising felt like climbing a hill.

No, density isn't a force. What does that matter? Momentum is based on mass and velocity. Buoyancy is a force. And it is not a requirement that forces need other forces. What force does gravity depend on? It kinda doesn't. They throw math formulas at you and hope you'll give up instead of realizing the formula is tautological.
 

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43154
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1042 on: January 26, 2025, 06:52:01 PM »
Quote
So what makes buoyancy a force?  What is your formula for buoyancy?

FFS.

Goto Members, go to Search for Members, enter my name, go to Profile Info, then Show Posts.

Look through what I have already said. So I don't have to fucking repeat myself over and over again.
I'm hoping that if you repeat yourself enough times that you will eventually see where you went wrong.  I'm guessing that it's going to take a few hundred more times.

Fine. Surface density (Sρ) vs object density (Oρ). It's that simple. If the object is denser than its surroundings, it sinks. It stays put (floats) if the two are equal.  If it's less dense, it rises. No invisible force, no Earth putting pressure on things. It's just the same thing you see in water and in air.
And no formula.  By the way, no such thing as "surface density" either. 

No, density isn't a force. What does that matter?
Because forces are what make things change their motion. 

Momentum is based on mass and velocity.
Momentum is not not a force.

Buoyancy is a force. And it is not a requirement that forces need other forces. What force does gravity depend on? It kinda doesn't.
According to GR, gravity is not a force.  However, since force is defined as mass * acceleration, then acceleration due to gravity applied to the dense matter is what makes buoyancy a force.

They throw math formulas at you and hope you'll give up instead of realizing the formula is tautological.
Actually, they throw math formulas at you so that you know how to test the claim for yourself.  FE'ers shun formulas and hope that others will just take your word for it.  Sorry, but I have no intention of just taking your word for it,
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1043 on: January 27, 2025, 05:42:56 AM »
The mechanism for bouayncy is to push things up through pressure and surface area.

Swimmers know in water you lie flat, giving much surdace area for rhe lower water (at high pressure) to push you up.
If you are up-down position, only the bottoms of your feet are pushed up and you sink.



So how does that same mechanism that oushes up, manage to push things down?


*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3533
  • God winds the universe
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1044 on: January 27, 2025, 08:23:14 AM »
Quote
Momentum is not not a force.

Missing the point yet again.

Why is momentum not a force? Because people say it isn't. Oh sure. "Herp derp, no, it's because it's an impulse, blah blah blah." An impulse? Really? When I launch an arrow with enough force to move 20 ft, but it instead goes an extra 30 ft, that's an "impulse"? No, that's the force of momentum driving it forward.

But even if momentum weren't a force:

Is mass a force? What about distance? You see, you demand that forces (which buoyancy is, and needs no other forces to govern it) depend on forces or somehow they are no good. Where is the force that gravity needs to push little birds and jumbo jets down?

Oh right. Because gravity is "fundamental" it needs no other forces. But if it were so fundamental, how come non-forces like momentum, propulsion, or aerodynamics can basically scoff in its face? I was 30,000 ft above the ground in a full plane that itself weighed tons.

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1045 on: January 27, 2025, 12:23:37 PM »
Fine. Surface density (Sρ) vs object density (Oρ). It's that simple. If the object is denser than its surroundings, it sinks. It stays put (floats) if the two are equal.  If it's less dense, it rises. No invisible force, no Earth putting pressure on things. It's just the same thing you see in water and in air.
No, it isn't that simple.
You have no basis for any directionality there.
Nor can you address the pressure gradient which destroys your delusional BS.

Again if you want to pretend it is some magical buoyancy, you need to explain:
Why this makes it move at all,
Why at a particular rate,
Why this rate varies over Earth,
Why/How this creates a pressure gradient,
Why/How this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up.

If you can't, your BS is DOA.

Until you can address those points, your BS does not work.

It's that simple.

But your very last point is right, it is the same in air and water. We have gravity pulling things down and the pressure gradient induced by gravity pushing them up.

I took a plane flight twice this week.  I believe in gravity no more.
You say that as if you believed in it before, rather than had already discarded reality long ago.

The issue, that plane flight in no way shows any issue with gravity.

No, density isn't a force. What does that matter? Momentum is based on mass and velocity. Buoyancy is a force.
Momentum isn't a force either.
Buoyancy is a force, a force from the pressure gradient induced by gravity.
Your magic buoyancy has no explanation and no basis for any directionality.

Why is momentum not a force?
Because it isn't.
It doesn't meet the definition of a force in any way.
You may as well ask why isn't a potato a force?

From a simple view, a force is something which is acting to accelerate an object.
Momentum does not do this. Instead it is the tendency for an object to continue with its motion.

When I launch an arrow with enough force to move 20 ft, but it instead goes an extra 30 ft, that's an "impulse"? No, that's the force of momentum driving it forward.
No, that is the force from the bow accelerating the arrow, and the arrow continuing in flight, following a roughly parabolic trajectory until it hits something.

Is mass a force? What about distance?
No. Gravity is. See the G?
And see how you have r, giving you a direction (the vector based one has r as a vector)?

Oh right. Because gravity is "fundamental" it needs no other forces. But if it were so fundamental, how come non-forces like momentum, propulsion, or aerodynamics can basically scoff in its face? I was 30,000 ft above the ground in a full plane that itself weighed tons.
Because it isn't magic and all you need to do to "scoff in its face" is apply a force greater than it.
So propulsion can as long as you have enough thrust, and aerodynamics can as long as you have enough thrust to keep your speed and the appropriate shape to have air flow over the wings generate lift.

Fundamental doesn't mean it can't be overcome.
The electrostatic force holding matter together is a fundamental force.
Yet you can easily tear plenty of things apart, and with appropriate heating it tears itself apart.

Now again, if you want to pretend it is some magical buoyancy, you need to explain:
Why this makes it move at all,
Why at a particular rate,
Why this rate varies over Earth,
Why/How this creates a pressure gradient,
Why/How this pressure gradient doesn't just push everything up.

If you can't, your BS is DOA.

Until you can address those points, your BS does not work.

It's that simple.

Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1046 on: January 27, 2025, 12:27:02 PM »
Quote
Momentum is not not a force.

...

Why is momentum not a force?

Because it's not.

Forces cause mass to accelerate. Does momentum cause mass to accelerate? No. It is constant if velocity and mass are constant. Velocity of a constant mass remains constant if there are no forces applied to it. Therefore momentum is not a force.

Dimensions of force:
mass × acceleration = mass × distance / time2

Dimensions of momentum:
mass × velocity = mass × distance / time

Distance is a vector quantity... it has magnitude and direction, so both force and momentum (and velocity and acceleration) are vectors.

They have different dimensions; they are different things.

Quote
When I launch an arrow with enough force to move 20 ft, but it instead goes an extra 30 ft

What did you expect to happen after 20 feet? What finally happened after the next 30?

If you tried to launch the arrow with enough energy (force times distance) to travel 20 feet before its momentum was overcome by drag (a force in the opposite direction of momentum), but it traveled 50 feet instead, you applied more energy than you thought, or the arrow is "slicker" (has less drag) than you thought, or both.

Quote
... that's an "impulse"? No, that's the force of momentum driving it forward.

Until what happens? The arrow stopped moving forward because of atmospheric drag? Remember, drag is a force in the opposite direction of a mass' momentum. Or it flew as long as it could while gravity accelerated it in the direction of the ground and it hit the ground? Apparently you launched it faster than you thought (more acceleration from the force of the string, or accelerating for longer, or both) so it flew further in the time it had until it hit the ground.

Quote
But even if momentum weren't a force:


Definition of a Newton (a quantity of force): 1 kg × 1 meter / (1 second)2
Dimensions: mass × distance / time2

Definition of G, above: 6.67 × 10-11 Newton × 1 meter2 / (1 kg)2
Dimensions: mass × distance / time2 × distance2 / mass2

Dimensions of FG:
mass × distance / time2 × distance2 / mass2 × mass2 / distance2
 = mass × distance / time2 × distance2 / distance2 × mass2 / mass2
 = mass × distance / time2

In other words, FG is force. I don't see a thing about momentum in the above.

Quote
Is mass a force?

No.

Quote
What about distance?

No.

Quote
You see, you demand that forces (which buoyancy is, and needs no other forces to govern it) depend on forces or somehow they are no good. Where is the force that gravity needs to push little birds and jumbo jets down?

Buoyancy is a force. It acts in the opposite direction as gravity, so there's that.

The force of gravity on little birds and jumbo jets is opposed by the force of lift provided by the little birds' and jumbo jets' wings. The energy necessary to produce that lift comes from metabolizing food and burning jet fuel, respectively. Jet engines can convert fuel to kinetic energy much more rapidly (i.e. produce more power) than real-life birds can convert food to kinetic energy. That's why jet aircraft can be much, much heavier than any bird and still fly.

Quote
Oh right. Because gravity is "fundamental" it needs no other forces. But if it were so fundamental, how come non-forces like momentum, propulsion, or aerodynamics can basically scoff in its face? I was 30,000 ft above the ground in a full plane that itself weighed tons.

So now you're saying that momentum is not a force? Good.

Propulsion is a force.

Aerodynamics can produce forces (drag and lift).

The lift (a force) produced by aircraft wings exceed the weight (force) of the loaded aircraft while it gains altitude, balances its weight when it maintains altitude, and is less than its weight when descending.

Seriously...

Before you try to argue against the basics of what you think physics says, it would behoove you to know at least the basics of what physics actually says. The level of understanding you lack should be expected from any competently-taught high school physics student. If you're not yet finished with high school, sign up for physics. If you're not still in school, can you enroll in a beginning physics class at a local community college? Doing so will help you understand what all these terms mean and how they relate to each other.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

JackBlack

  • 23739
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1047 on: January 27, 2025, 12:31:13 PM »
The mechanism for bouayncy is to push things up through pressure and surface area.

Swimmers know in water you lie flat, giving much surdace area for rhe lower water (at high pressure) to push you up.
If you are up-down position, only the bottoms of your feet are pushed up and you sink.



So how does that same mechanism that oushes up, manage to push things down?
That is almost pure BS.
For the most part, buoyancy does not care what orientation the object is in, with the sole exception of at an interface, or if the object is so large you can not treat g as constant across it or the density of the fluid as constant.
Where if you lay on your back you can float with your centre of mass quite close to the interface, while if you are vertical your centre of mass will be lower because part of you will be in the air.

The force from buoyancy is based upon the area and the pressure gradient. The pressure gradient is in turn based upon the density of the fluid, g and the vertical distance.
If you take the the density of the fluid and g as constant, then what you are left with is the area and the vertical distance.
And area times height is volume.

So it doesn't matter what the orientation of the object is, it will have the same buoyant force acting on it for the same fluid.

At an interface, you need to look at the volume of the object in each fluid. e.g. how much of the swimmer is in the water vs in air.

Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1048 on: January 27, 2025, 12:58:09 PM »
what?



is it not the surface area and teh directional up?

if the square is tall and skinny, there is less push up.
if the square is long and flat, there is more push up.




force = pressure x area
the gradient is higher on the low side.
if you orient your body so there's more up, then you go up.


BUT
i see there is no orientation.
only volume
Fb = ro x volume x g


so how does that make sense?
why float on your back to float on water/ quick sand?
what if the square were a triangle?






« Last Edit: January 27, 2025, 01:03:39 PM by Themightykabool »

Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #1049 on: January 27, 2025, 01:08:44 PM »
oh nm
i see it all cancels out.

P and H are proportiional
P = ro g H.
the delta H between the up-down is proportional if you lie flat will have a smaller delta P.