WHY would the government trick us?

A round trip to Jupiter is 888 million miles.

*sigh*  To the best of my knowledge, there never has been, nor are there are any plans for, a round trip to Jupiter.

Go ahead, you tell me why you wasted the big booster getting past the Karman Line (only 60 miles or so). I'm sure there's a good explanation.

Yes, that very good reason is known as the tyranny of the rocket equation,  For better or worse, chemical rocket engines are still the best way of getting out of earth's atmosphere and the worst of its gravity well.  Unfortunately, it takes a lot of reaction mass in order to do that.  Once in orbit, low thrust but high specific impulse rocket engines would be far more efficient.

But as for me, that's a bit like wasting gas to rev up a car to bolt ahead at 300 mph for 1/2 mile, and then not having gas to drive home.

Actually, it's like accelerating to 300 mph and coasting the rest of the way there, saving just enough gas to be able to accelerate and coast back home.

Unless you expect me to believe there is limitless rocket fuel sitting in the much smaller shuttle, I don't buy it.

No one is suggesting that except for you.  As I recall, SpaceX is talking about using their super heavy booster to get a StarShip into orbit and then perform several additional flights to refuel the StarShip so that it has enough fuel to get to the moon and back to earth orbit.

It's also awfully tedious to listen to smug assholes who refuse to be real telling me "Oh you just don't understand The Science."

Well, none of us here are science teachers and there are plenty of resources on the interwebs to explain the science.  If you don't want to learn the science, then that's your fault, not ours.

At the end of the day, the only science that matters is real science.

I'm sorry of you don't consider rocket science to be "real science", but I assure you that it is real and commercial space launch companies like SpaceX make real world use of it almost daily,

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 30, 2024, 06:47:53 AM

A round trip to Jupiter is 888 million miles.

*sigh*  To the best of my knowledge, there never has been, nor are there are any plans for, a round trip to Jupiter.

But there's plans to go to Mars and back. You want to know the distance to Mars? I give it the same feasibility rating.

249 million miles btw, for a one way trip. And nobody is gonna want to stay on Mars their life.

But there's plans to go to Mars and back. You want to know the distance to Mars? I give it the same feasibility rating.

Demonstrating either a complete lack of understanding or a complete lack of honesty.
Especially given how many craft have gone to Mars and how short the trip is compared to going to Jupiter.

You also seem to have yet again pulled a number out of your ass and just stated it as fact.
Where are you getting these 249 million miles?

Mars at aphelion is 249 million km from the sun.

But you still aren't capable of showing any actual fault.
And your argument against it is basically saying guns are useless because they use all their energy in the barrel and they clearly can't harm people.
It is nothing more that stupid wilful rejection of reality.

why does the fuel have to be limitless?

Where are you getting Mars to Earth as 249 million miles?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=distance+to+mars+from+earth&ia=web
(then)
https://starwalk.space/en/news/mars-the-ultimate-guide

How far is Mars from the Sun?
Due to the high eccentricity of the Red Planet’s orbit, there’s a significant difference between Mars’ closest and farthest points from the Sun, which equal 206.6 million km (128.4 million miles) and 249.2 million km (154.9 million miles), respectively. On average, Mars is positioned 228 million km (142 million miles) away from our star, which equals 1.5 astronomical units.

How far is Mars from the Earth?
The distance between Mars and our planet is constantly changing. The farthest distance between Mars and the Earth equals 401 million km (249 million miles). The closest distance the two planets can get to each other is 54.6 million km (33.9 million miles). However, such a close approach never happened in recorded history. The closest approach between Mars and the Earth in almost 60,000 years occurred in 2003 when the two celestial bodies were 55.7 million km (34.6 million miles) away from each other

Bizarrely, Mars can get further away from Earth than it can get from the sun. Those distances also make no sense to me. Can someone how the difference in distance can be only about 25 million miles from nearest to farthest vs the sun, but nearly 210 million miles different from nearest to farthest vs Earth? Cuz to me, that sounds an awful lot like made up numbers.

The time it takes to get there also doesn't add up. I just explained that a space ship going at top speed should be going at over 300,000 mph and get to somewhere nearly 4x that distance within a hundred days. Why then are they plodding along waiting for a 2 year window and taking nine months instead of a mere four months? And this is supposedly to get to the nearest part it takes nine months.

34,600,000 / 364,660 mph (the record was later broken, I found out, but for the sake of consistency)

94.8829046235

That's not even days. That's 94 HOURS. Even if it were 94 days, nine months is closer to 270 days. So someone is lying when the math is done. Either the supposed trip is way shorter than reported or these space ship speeds are a boast.

amazing

at 6pm on a circle clock, are the ends of the hands close to each otehr or far?
how about when compaed to 12pm?
how are teh distances of the ends compared to the center?



also

why does it have to be limitless fuel?

Deary me.

If ever there was a need for an indicator of the degradation of educational standards, BB steps up to the plate.

When things orbit the sun, unless they are in lockstep, which they cannot be otherwise the outer planets would have to doing ridiculous speeds, then there are times when Mars will be on the opposite side of the sun to us, thus adding its radial distance to ours.

But there's plans to go to Mars and back. You want to know the distance to Mars? I give it the same feasibility rating.

249 million miles btw, for a one way trip.

The distance to Mars, or any other celestial body other than the moon, is... it depends.  Because of their orbits, a standard Hohmann transfer orbit would take about 272 days (one way).  However, if you can afford the extra fuel for a high energy transfer, then you can do a shorter trip in as little as little as 176 days.  But we're talking about a lot of extra fuel.

And nobody is gonna want to stay on Mars their life.

You'd be surprised,
https://www.space.com/22758-mars-colony-volunteers-mars-one.html

Quote

Where are you getting Mars to Earth as 249 million miles?

(then)
Bizarrely, Mars can get further away from Earth than it can get from the sun. Those distances also make no sense to me.

i.e. you looked up some numbers, didn't understand them, and then just picked the pig one.

Can someone how the difference in distance can be only about 25 million miles from nearest to farthest vs the sun, but nearly 210 million miles different from nearest to farthest vs Earth?

Basic geometry.
Simplifying it all to circles:


The closest distance is when they are on the same side. This is given by R2-R1.
The furthest distance is when they are opposite. This is given by R1+R2.

This greatest distance must necessarily be greater than the distance to the centre.

So putting in 150 million km as the R1 (the distance between Earth and the sun), and R2 = 250 million km as the greatest distance between Mars and the sun, that gives us a closest distance of 100 million km and a greatest distance of 400 million km.

It gets more complicated when the paths are ellipses, as it then depends on where the closest and furthest point from the centre is.

But thanks for showing everyone you fail to comprehend incredibly simple things.

The time it takes to get there also doesn't add up. I just explained that a space ship going at top speed should be going at over 300,000 mph and get to somewhere nearly 4x that distance within a hundred days.

Because you don't actually understand what is involved.
They don't simply freeze the planets in their orbit and go along the straight line path, and you are just pulling out a speed from no where with no understanding of the context of it.

When craft go to mars, they go into what is effectively a transfer orbit.
That is go from Earth orbit into a very elliptical orbit which meets the orbit of Mars, timed such that the arrive in that part of Mars' orbit when Mars is there.

Where is this top speed coming from?

amazing

at 6pm on a circle clock, are the ends of the hands close to each otehr or far?
how about when compaed to 12pm?
how are teh distances of the ends compared to the center?

also

why does it have to be limitless fuel?

Let me speak slowly so you understand.

I go into space with this rocket ship.
I drop off the boosters into the ocean (where somehow the EPA is totally cool with it).
Between Earth and Mars, there are supposed to be weeks or months of travel.
With no "gas stations" in space.
With no refuel points on Mars.
And the space shuttle itself doesn't appear to have enormous storage for extra rocket fuel.


I see a mockup with suspiciously empty space where literally tons of fuel or oxygen cartridges should be.


And this is a schematic of how the fuel system on the shuttle works.
Yet it still looks very far from several months of fuel.  And no reserve tank that I can see.

And this is a schematic of how the fuel system on the shuttle works.
Yet it still looks very far from several months of fuel.  And no reserve tank that I can see.

FFS!  The shuttle was never designed for long duration or deep space flight.  It was only ever intended for two weeks or so in low earth orbit.  Its longest duration mission was a little under 18 days.  Stupid things that you say this like this are why I keep telling you to learn what you're trying to debunk.

I also wish that you would get it through your thick skull that space craft do not need to continuously burn fuel to stay in orbit.

So what resistance in space will slow down the rocket?

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 31, 2024, 01:03:14 AM

amazing

at 6pm on a circle clock, are the ends of the hands close to each otehr or far?
how about when compaed to 12pm?
how are teh distances of the ends compared to the center?

also

why does it have to be limitless fuel?

Let me speak slowly so you understand.

I go into space with this rocket ship.
I drop off the boosters into the ocean (where somehow the EPA is totally cool with it).
Between Earth and Mars, there are supposed to be weeks or months of travel.
With no "gas stations" in space.
With no refuel points on Mars.
And the space shuttle itself doesn't appear to have enormous storage for extra rocket fuel.


I see a mockup with suspiciously empty space where literally tons of fuel or oxygen cartridges should be.


And this is a schematic of how the fuel system on the shuttle works.
Yet it still looks very far from several months of fuel.  And no reserve tank that I can see.

Since when are NASA planning on sending the space shuttle to Mars?

You don't seem to be able to comprehend what a gravity free environment is, and what that means for a spaceship in Earth's orbit or travelling to a distant planet. No gravity means no fuel is required.

Am I speaking slow enough for you? 

Ha! Again.

Wonder-brain confusses the space shuttle with the Enterprise, comedy gold.

“There's an anomalous power signature in the triolet deuterium crystal core. If I don’t de-polarize the forward nacelles, she’s gonna blow captain.”

I notice he dropped “how can Mars be further away than the sun” pretty damn quick.

I notice you entirely ignore the multiple demonstrations of your stupidity.
Do you understand how the distances can vary so much?
How mars can be further from Earth than from the sun?

Do you admit you clearly don't understand what you are talking about.

Let me speak slowly so you understand.

Or, even better, try saying something intelligent.

I go into space with this rocket ship.
I drop off the boosters into the ocean (where somehow the EPA is totally cool with it).
Between Earth and Mars, there are supposed to be weeks or months of travel.

Well there is your problem.
You have taken a shuttle made for operations in LEO, and tried to go to Mars.

That is like trying to take a golf buggy for a cross country trip.

With no refuel points on Mars.

They want to make fuel on Mars.

And the space shuttle itself doesn't appear to have enormous storage for extra rocket fuel.

Why does it need it?

I see a mockup with suspiciously empty space where literally tons of fuel or oxygen cartridges should be.

No, that's for cargo.

Yet it still looks very far from several months of fuel.  And no reserve tank that I can see.

Because it doesn't need it.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 31, 2024, 06:58:44 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 31, 2024, 01:03:14 AM

amazing

at 6pm on a circle clock, are the ends of the hands close to each otehr or far?
how about when compaed to 12pm?
how are teh distances of the ends compared to the center?

also

why does it have to be limitless fuel?

Let me speak slowly so you understand.

I go into space with this rocket ship.
I drop off the boosters into the ocean (where somehow the EPA is totally cool with it).
Between Earth and Mars, there are supposed to be weeks or months of travel.
With no "gas stations" in space.
With no refuel points on Mars.
And the space shuttle itself doesn't appear to have enormous storage for extra rocket fuel.


I see a mockup with suspiciously empty space where literally tons of fuel or oxygen cartridges should be.


And this is a schematic of how the fuel system on the shuttle works.
Yet it still looks very far from several months of fuel.  And no reserve tank that I can see.

Since when are NASA planning on sending the space shuttle to Mars?

You don't seem to be able to comprehend what a gravity free environment is, and what that means for a spaceship in Earth's orbit or travelling to a distant planet. No gravity means no fuel is required.

Am I speaking slow enough for you?

Oh wonderful, gaslighting. And I suppose you've gone out and removed all evidence by hiding it in a drawer.

No, you should talk slower. I'm clearly not capable in your eyes.

So, back to your question.
https://science.nasa.gov/planetary-science/programs/mars-exploration/future-plan-2023-2043/

Maybe here?

As for the notion of a gravity free environment, that's an absurdity. First it's a "friction-free" environment. And that too is nonsense. Friction and gravity are part of the fundamental force system that your science depends on. That is, planets and stars aren't able to stay together without force holding them in place (my science works differently, using the liquid theory of buoyancy; objects settle into areas with similar densities).  No, your gravity doesn't disappear in space, nor does your friction. They are facts of life, that your magical thinking cannot brush away.

So yes, you will have to account for every drop of rocket fuel from Earth to Mars or Jupiter. Is there enough fuel for months of travel? No, there doesn't seem to be. And there are no refuel stations (unless the ISS has some, but they are really too close to your starting position). And there no reserve tanks that I could see in that schematic. If I'm wrong, please point it out.

why is there friction in space?

And again wanting to ignore the clear demonstration of your stupidity.
Going to accept your comments about the distance and your incapable of accepting Mars could be further from Earth than the sun was pure stupidity showing either blatant dishonesty or a complete lack of understanding?

Oh wonderful, gaslighting.

Then maybe you should stop gaslighting?

I'm clearly not capable in your eyes.

Well given your stupid claims demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of basic geometry, is that at all surprising?

So, back to your question.
https://science.nasa.gov/planetary-science/programs/mars-exploration/future-plan-2023-2043/

Maybe here?

WHERE?
Where on that page does it say their plan to go to Mars involves using the decommission space shuttle orbiter?

As for the notion of a gravity free environment, that's an absurdity.

Congrats, you got one right.

Yes, there is gravity, gravity which makes the craft orbit.
It doesn't magically stop it.

First it's a "friction-free" environment. And that too is nonsense.

No. Your misrepresentation of it is nonsense.

my science works differently

You don't have science, and what you have doesn't work.

So yes, you will have to account for every drop of rocket fuel from Earth to Mars or Jupiter. Is there enough fuel for months of travel?

Again, the rocket does not need to be on the entire time.

You may as well be saying guns aren't possible. That is the level of your stupidity here.

Wonder-brain confusses the space shuttle with the Enterprise, comedy gold.

Well, it's probably NASA's fault for naming the shuttle prototype Enterprise.

(my science works differently, using the liquid theory of buoyancy; objects settle into areas with similar densities).

Buoyancy relies on gravity.  That is unless you can show a formula for buoyancy that doesn't include gravity.

Done.

Given density is ρ, expressed as mass divided by volume (m/V), then I define ρ_s as the density of a surface and ρ_o the density of an object (within a surface), and buoyancy is B.  Therefore:
+B= ρ_s < ρ_o
and
-B= ρ_s > ρ_o
and
ħB= ρ_s > ρ_o

Negative buoyancy means objects sink, positive buoyancy means they float, neutral buoyancy means they bob up and down and stay put at around the same surface level. This is demonstratably what happens, and I have no need to ever invoke gravity.

Meanwhile, you need to invoke two separate formulas for behavior within water and outside of it. Even though that's not what happens. Heavier objects fall through lighter surfaces. Lighter objects float through heavier surfaces. I'm talking density not weight, so I should explain that objects can be heavy overall yet light enough to float on air. Which is why I'm not complaining about space ships flying in atmosphere, but I start to do so when it leaves for thinner atmosphere or a vacuum.

Done.

And as usual, instead of defending your insane BS, you go for the low hanging fruit.

Still no comment on your complete failure to comprehend trivial geometry.
Still no justification for your claim that they plan on using the decommissioned space shuttle to go to Mars.
Still no justification for why they need to run the engine the entire time, with your nonsense claims about it refuted by the simple existence of firearms.

Given density is ρ, expressed as mass divided by volume (m/V), then I define ρ_s as the density of a surface and ρ_o the density of an object (within a surface), and buoyancy is B.  Therefore:
+B= ρ_s < ρ_o
and
-B= ρ_s > ρ_o
and
ħB= ρ_s > ρ_o

Negative buoyancy means objects sink, positive buoyancy means they float, neutral buoyancy means they bob up and down and stay put at around the same surface level. This is demonstratably what happens, and I have no need to ever invoke gravity.

Now try doing it in a manner that explains why it doesn't work in free fall, and which can explain the pressure gradient.

Even better, just try actually explaining how it works at all.
Why should being denser make it go down? Why at a particular rate?

And explain why the same thing happens in an accelerating vehicle.

And try one which actually provides a force.

Meanwhile, you need to invoke two separate formulas for behavior within water and outside of it.

Be honest, it is a formula for the downwards force due to gravity, and the upwards force due to a pressure gradient.
That isn't just for water. It is for ALL fluids.

I'm talking density not weight, so I should explain that objects can be heavy overall yet light enough to float on air.

Which is why you complaining about spaceships in space is pure garbage.
You want to appeal to the space shuttle orbiter, fine lets appeal to that.
It has a length of 37 m, a width of 24 m and a height of 18 m.
Assuming it was a box, that gives it a total volume of 15 984 m^3.
It has a dry mass (i.e. empty) of 78000 kg.
That means it has a density (again, assuming a magical box) of roughly 4.9 kg/m^3.
The density of air is 1.225 kg/m^3. (and gets lower as you get higher).
Notice how it is still denser than air?
We can do the same with planes, and clearly demonstrate buoyancy is NOT the answer.
These crafts are NOT floating on air.

So saying they are denser than space is pointless BS.

What causes friction in space?

Which is why you complaining about spaceships in space is pure garbage.
You want to appeal to the space shuttle orbiter, fine lets appeal to that.
It has a length of 37 m, a width of 24 m and a height of 18 m.
Assuming it was a box, that gives it a total volume of 15 984 m^3.
It has a dry mass (i.e. empty) of 78000 kg.
That means it has a density (again, assuming a magical box) of roughly 4.9 kg/m^3.
The density of air is 1.225 kg/m^3. (and gets lower as you get higher).
Notice how it is still denser than air?
We can do the same with planes, and clearly demonstrate buoyancy is NOT the answer.
These crafts are NOT floating on air.

This is why they call it "heavier than air" flight (as opposed to "lighter than air" flight).  All air vehicles not classed as balloons or dirigibles have to fly using a combination of aerodynamics and propulsion.

What you're doing is trying to say, "You didn't explain the whole story, therefore everything is said is a lie." No, I just didn't explain everything. I didn't write a textbook explaining all types of flight. Get over it.

The bottom line of heavier than air flight is that the object is aerodynamic and is motion, or not aerodynamic but propulsion is applied to put it in motion, or both.

Aerodynamic and not in motion, though, nothing happens. So the first prerequisite is that if no buoyancy exists, the object must be in motion. It does not float passively.

As an example, let's take a stack of bricks.

On either side, we put two small rockets next to it. Will they lift the bricks? No, they won't generate enough upward thrust.  So we have to keep upgrading the size and thrust of these rockets until they can in fact push themselves and the bricks into the air. We might also need more rockets.

A rocket is a heavier than air, non-aerodynamic flight system.  I do not know why they don't try to at least make it aerodynamic, but the reason they don't make it buoyant has to do with the speed they are supposedly going being enough to rip non-durable materials apart.  Either it has to be very big (spreading mass over a wide volume) and made of a lightweight material, or we have to effectively launch a brick into space. But buoyancy still matters. It is far easier to launch a rocket through thick air than it is to have it continue going up into thin atmosphere.


TL;DR Yes, you can launch a brick into the air. Now, continue to launch it all the way up into the upper atmosphere, shut off the fuel, and show us how it will continue to fly upwards in a vacuum.

Meanwhile, in reality, this is what happens in a vacuum.


Oh look, isn't that interesting. Did you see how that little rocket continued moving upward and upward in the vacuum chamber and didn't ever fall to the ground? No? Me either, because it never happened.

This is why they call it "heavier than air" flight (as opposed to "lighter than air" flight).  All air vehicles not classed as balloons or dirigibles have to fly using a combination of aerodynamics and propulsion.
What you're doing is trying to say, "You didn't explain the whole story, therefore everything is said is a lie."

No, what I'm saying is your appeal to buoyancy is BS deflection.

Rockets don't use buoyancy, so it is irrelevant.
i.e. it doesn't matter that they are denser than a vacuum. That wont stop them.

A rocket is a heavier than air, non-aerodynamic flight system.  I do not know why they don't try to at least make it aerodynamic

It is aerodynamic, it just doesn't use aerodynamic lift.
The only reason it needs to be aerodynamic is to reduce drag as it speeds through the atmosphere on its way to space.

the reason they don't make it buoyant has to do with the speed

No, it isn't.
The reason they don't make it buoyant is because lighter than air craft are quite limited in operation. It would be quite difficult to get them into space.

But buoyancy still matters. It is far easier to launch a rocket through thick air than it is to have it continue going up into thin atmosphere.

No, it is much easier to have the rocket push through thinner atmosphere (or none) than it is to push through thick atmosphere.

TL;DR Yes, you can launch a brick into the air. Now, continue to launch it all the way up into the upper atmosphere, shut off the fuel, and show us how it will continue to fly upwards in a vacuum.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, it isn't simply up.
Instead most go into an orbit. That requires quite a lot of sideways velocity.
It has been explained how it works to you repeatedly, with you continually unable to show a fault.

Done.

Quote from:  bulmabriefs144, just now

Given density is ρ, expressed as mass divided by volume (m/V), then I define ρ_s as the density of a surface and ρ_o the density of an object (within a surface), and buoyancy is B.  Therefore:
+B= ρ_s < ρ_o
and
-B= ρ_s > ρ_o
and
ħB= ρ_s > ρ_o

Negative buoyancy means objects sink, positive buoyancy means they float, neutral buoyancy means they bob up and down and stay put at around the same surface level. This is demonstratably what happens, and I have no need to ever invoke gravity.

Then why is gravity included in the buoyancy formula?  Also, a surface is 2 dimensional and therefore has no volume and, as a result, density does not apply.  And the term "object in a surface" makes no sense whatsoever.

Meanwhile, you need to invoke two separate formulas for behavior within water and outside of it.

Not sure what you're talking about, the buoyancy formula works just as well out of water as in water. 

Even though that's not what happens. Heavier objects fall through lighter surfaces. Lighter objects float through heavier surfaces. I'm talking density not weight...

Then don't use the word "weight" when you mean "density", it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.   

...so I should explain that objects can be heavy overall yet light enough to float on air. Which is why I'm not complaining about space ships flying in atmosphere, but I start to do so when it leaves for thinner atmosphere or a vacuum.

Not sure what you're going on about.  Airplanes don't float on air, they use thrust and lift to counteract gravity and atmospheric friction.  Space ships rely primarily rely on thrust to overcome gravity and atmospheric friction until it can it can get out of enough of the atmosphere where friction is no longer a problem and gain enough speed so that it can use gravity to achieve orbit (or, possibly, escape velocity).

Because you are gullible. Newton's followers have altered the formula for buoyancy. And in some cases altered history to make it seem like Archimedes was a staunch proponent of globe-headedness (we don't know this, being about 600 BC).

How hard do you think it would be make an old text or whatever from "Eratosthenes", have some allied "historians" confirm its authenticity, then when you want to take a close look at it, insist that it needs to be behind this glass case in a vault where nobody can find out if it even exists. Oh people believed our nonsense way back when about the Earth being a globe!

By the way:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes was one of the most pre-eminent scholarly figures of his time, and produced works covering a vast area of knowledge before and during his time at the Library. He wrote on many topics – geography, mathematics, philosophy, chronology, literary criticism, grammar, poetry, and even old comedies. There are no documents left of his work after the destruction of the Library of Alexandria.

Oh even better, there is literally no proof that this guy existed. None. All records were in the famed Library of Alexandria, which conveniently burned.

So the man who is supposed to have verified for us that the shadow of the Earth is round, oh look, we can't read it for our own.

Archimedes?

The works of Archimedes were written in Doric Greek, the dialect of ancient Syracuse. Many written works by Archimedes have not survived or are only extant in heavily edited fragments; at least seven of his treatises are known to have existed due to references made by other authors. Pappus of Alexandria mentions On Sphere-Making and another work on polyhedra, while Theon of Alexandria quotes a remark about refraction from the now-lost Catoptrica.

Heavily edited fragments. That's not a good sign.

So do we know that his buoyancy formula is the authentic original? No. We know he existed and there probably was a buoyancy formula, but we do not know that it is original.


Look at this model. Now remember that what you have is heavily edited fragments. Can we assume the original text said there was a down arrow saying gravity and and up arrow saying buoyancy? No, you cannot assume anything. So I tell you that the only thing we maybe know here is that the object has mass, and that there is density of that object, and density of that surface (here we have it called fluid, so let's adjust that. I also goofed on the third line, making another greater than. Let's fix that too.

Given density is ρ, expressed as mass divided by volume (m/V), then I define ρ_f as the density of a fluid and ρ_o the density of an object (within a surface), and buoyancy is B.  Therefore:
+B= ρ_f < ρ_o
and
-B= ρ_f > ρ_o
and
ħB= ρ_f = ρ_o

Buoyancy is positive, neutral, or negative. That's all we know, given heavily edited fragments. The word "gravity" came with Newton, and is not authentic.

Because you are gullible.

You mean we think and don't just accept your delusional BS you cannot justify at all.

Newton's followers have altered the formula for buoyancy.

No, we haven't.
Instead, we have a more thorough explanation.
Right from the start, Archimedes has the buoyant force as an UPWARDS force equal to the WEIGHT of the fluid displaced.
This did not have your delusional negative buoyancy. It simply had buoyancy as an upwards force.
And even Archimedes recognised its dependent upon WEIGHT, (gravitas), the word where gravity comes from.

YOU are the one desperately trying to alter it so you can pretend you don't need gravity.

How hard do you think it would be make an old text or whatever from "Eratosthenes", have some allied "historians" confirm its authenticity

If you don't want to appeal to history, then don't.
But that means you don't get to accuse us of distorting things, especially not when YOU are the one distorting it.

Instead, stick to now.
Stick to the observations we can make.
And stick to the attempts at explaining it.

As a reminder, gravity in a fluid directly explains the upwards buoyant force as due to the pressure gradient due to gravity.
You have no explanation at all.
You just have things magically going up or down for no reason at all.

So I tell you

And you telling us is worthless.

What we know is that there is downwards force (known as weight) acting on the object, and acting on the fluid.
And that the buoyant force is upwards in direction and equal in magnitude to the weight of the fluid displaced.

Again, you have no explanation at all for how it could work without gravity.

You are a gullible fool who has accepted delusional FE BS, and are now doing whatever you can to pretend that FE BS works.

So do we know that his buoyancy formula is the authentic original?

Wrong question.  The correct question is "does the current buoyancy formula work?"  The answer is "yes".

Does it really though?

Or are you making the facts conform to assumptions?

There is a significant difference.

If the density of an object is less than water, it floats atop the surface. Your idea is that gravity pushes it down to prevent it from rising further.  But this is an explanation that assumes that an object only has to answer to one surface or fluid. Nope. It floats atop the water, and sinks under the air.