Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

This is a nut.

I used the engineering term fastener because people are going to make it weird.

Which has nothing to do with this post.

Well, someone said it was.

I would expect (b) to continue floating. These long and thin paperclips are mostly empty space. On (a), I'd expect the razor to float with how thin and wide it is. But adding the nut to the top, I'd expect it to sink or at least wobble off.

 You are babbling to ignore the fact they are made of steel, so they all have the density of steel.  Which is greater than the density of water. The point by the person that original posted the pictures.

 

Is metal more dense or less dense than water?

Which you are ignoring.  Like you ignore… Why does a mixture of helium and oxygen used in breathing air for diving not separate out.



Soooo…  You need to stop babbling like an idiot to change the subject.

FE has no working explanation for tides and sea level irregularities in the Indian Ocean.

How do you accelerate a mass down without unbalanced forces.

If you think gravity cannot be measured, how does an accelerometer in a smartphone work.  If there is no gravity in your delusion, what does the accelerometer reference for down.

If you don’t think weight is not a down force, why is it harder to lift a 50 lbs weight of steel vs 3 lbs weight of lead.  In a weight sled used for tractor pulls, why does simply moving the weight off the axles increasingly over the pan cause more friction without adding density.

For the dock collapse example, you can multiply the downforce by increasing weight.  Where weight multiples, but density from person to person stays the same.  Like you can take two 5 lbs lead weights.  Add one to a scale, 5 pounds of weight.  Add the second weight, 10 pounds of weight. The down force due to weight doubled, density stayed the same.


  Bulma, the heliocentric model is useful and makes for accurate predictions and engineering. FE is useless.

Thanks to

Surface tension.  Which can be broken with enough weight to sink.   Unless the body of steel displaces enough water to float. 

The density of steel that you are talking about is atomic density.

Nevertheless, this steel ship floats.


A T-ATS (or Navajo class) ship.

The T-ATS ships, specifically the Navajo-class, have a displacement of 5,110 long tons (approximately 5,190 metric tons). This class is designed for towing, salvage, and rescue operations.

This is quite a bit of weight. But because the weight is dispersed over the whole body of the ship, it can more or less float, until it is so loaded down that it can't. Loading weight unevenly would unbalance it though.

Why does a mixture of helium and oxygen used in breathing air for diving not separate out.

Are we talking about a molecule? Or a loose mixture? A loose mixture will separate out through the process of diffusion,

while molecules have bonds that hold it together.


Had you learned chemistry, I would not have to continuously explain this. But you obviously were passed repeatedly thanks to quotas, and never had to earn academic merit.

Helium, btw, is not usually that prevalent in breathing air.

Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, argon, and carbon dioxide account for about 99% of the composition of air. Trace gases in Earth's atmosphere include neon, methane, helium, krypton, hydrogen, xenon, ozone, and many other elements and compounds.

But yeah, this is a melange, a mixture that is not separating easily.

Surface tension.  Which can be broken with enough weight to sink.   Unless the body of steel displaces enough water to float.

You've misunderstood buoyancy.

In a video I made on bitchute, the sphere I dropped didn't even disturb the water. Displacement is not what causes floating. Being less dense than water is. If an object is significantly more dense than air, but less dense than water, it displaces (because it shouldn't float by its "weight" but does float because its density over a broad area is less that the amount of water is being dealt with.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/4XRgmUpvThgf
It's cheese. And the video sucked. But I was expecting a splash when it hit water that never happened. The globe was so light and water resistant that it skimmed on the top of the water. If I dropped a log into a bathtub, there would be a noticeable splash, then the log would resurface. Displacement is literally the object's mass pushing water around it. In the same way, a hot air balloon displaces air above it. The hot air balloon is heavier and more massive than air, but is pushed upward by the heated air inside the balloon, so it forces air aside. When the destiny, I mean density,

of object and surface are close to each other, no displacement occurs.

The density of steel that you are talking about is atomic density.

Quote where I made such a claim.  I was referring to mass divided by volume.

What is the Density of Steel?
Steel has a density of approximately 7.85 g/cm³ or 7850 kg/m³, which is about 490 pounds per cubic foot.

https://www.amardeepsteel.com/blog/density-of-steel.html#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20Density%20of,490%20pounds%20per%20cubic%20foot.

Vs water

The density of water is about 1 gram per cubic centimetre (62 lb/cu ft):


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water

Steel 7.85 g/cm³ vs water 1 g/cm³


Bulma.  Trying to lie about what was posted.  Bulma caught again with no honor. 

Nevertheless, this steel ship floats.

Which is why I posted.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 25, 2025, 08:59:25 AM

Thanks to

Surface tension.  Which can be broken with enough weight to sink.   Unless the body of steel displaces enough water to float.

Now care to address surface tension as in why the razor blade with the fastener stays on top of the water membrane.  Where the steel has more density than the density of the water mass per volume. 

As in why water striders and spiders stay on the surface of water just with their pointy legs.  Killing your false allusion concerning the razor blade.

Look Bulma, your favorite.  AI.



A large spider..

  Bulma.  You need to address surface tension.  And items that have a greater density than water that would normally sink because they don’t displace enough water when under a certain weight can use surface tension to stay on a membrane of water.  In the context of items that don’t float because they don’t displace enough water, can make use of surface tension until there is enough weight to break  the surface tension.  Enough downward force because of gravity working on mass to break the surface tension that requires a force.

Are we talking about a molecule?

Hello.  The argument you f’n abandoned.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 11, 2025, 10:17:15 PM

In a mixture of gases, the least dense one rises to the top.

Really.  How.  When.  By what motive force.

You never addressed this post.  You claim the gasses should separate out in an isolated chamber which is false. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 30, 2025, 12:57:12 PM

Thermal drafts cause things to rise or fall depending on hot or cold, and hurricanes/tornadoes mix hot and cold gases together. And I was talking about oxygen with two atoms.
But in a hermetically sealed room with oxygen and helium pumped in from vents, if the helium is on the bottom and oxygen is on the top? No tornadoes, hurricanes, or thermal drafts. Just one type of gas vs another.

Mean like a tank of helium, nitrogen, and oxygen used for breathing in deep sea diving?  Or just helium and oxygen.  In Trimix or Heliox?  Where the gasses stay mixed and don’t separate out by density.  Where the mixtures wouldn’t be very effective if the gases separated out of mix. 

Added.  As in also our breathing air down on earth is a pretty uniform mixture of diatomic oxygen, diatomic nitrogen, and CO2 which all have different densities. Why aren’t theses gas’s readily separating out by density. 

 
but is pushed upward by the heated air inside the balloon,

The less dense air bubble in the balloon is pushed up by air molecules bunched up at earth’s surface by gravity.  Air molecules that would otherwise equalize with the less dense and pressure of the atmosphere above if it wasn’t for gravity.  Gravity explains the pressure gradient. Explains how the air molecules can bunch up to support the hot air ballon.  And why air molecules are bunched up to the degree and density found at earth’s surface. 

By the way.  The atmospheric pressure and density decreases with altitude.  The hot air ballon will only rise until the average density of atmosphere inside the ballon and the weight in the basket matches the outside density of the atmosphere.  Something you forget to post.

If you don’t think weight is a real downward force.  Why do you need to counter weight with the force of lift to fly? Why does the upward force of lift have to be greater than the downward force of weight. Why can I add enough weight to any given hot air ballon size so it will not lift off no matter how hot the atmosphere inside the ballon is made. 

I would expect (b) to continue floating. These long and thin paperclips are mostly empty space. On (a), I'd expect the razor to float with how thin and wide it is. But adding the nut to the top, I'd expect it to sink or at least wobble off.

Seriously?
You think a paperclip is less dense than water?

Do you have any idea why they float? Surface tension.
In this case it is NOT because of density.
The large surface area and boundary means the surface tension of the water will provide a significant upwards force to  hold up the paperclip and the razor blade.
As long as the weight is not too much, and it is calm, it stays floating.
But have too much weight (note: weight, not density), and it sinks.
Shake it to disrupt the surface tension and it sinks.
Put in the right detergent to lower the surface tension, and it sinks.

But that is a bad example. For you. Do you know why?

It is actually a good example, because it shows it isn't just a case of density.
If you put the razor sideways, it would also sink.
If you start them just below the surface, it would also sink.

In the same way.
If I put these cats on a scale together without the raft

No, in a fundamentally different way.
That boat relies upon the air inside displacing enough water such that the upwards force from the pressure gradient supports the boat.
The razor blade and nut and the paperclip rely upon surface tension.

The density of steel that you are talking about is atomic density.

No, it isn't.
It is also the macroscopic density for the non-water tight regions.

Nevertheless, this steel ship floats.

For the same reason the cats do.
The hull has a massive void in it which doesn't allow the water in, so in order for it to sink it has a to take a bunch of air with it.
Completely different to the provided examples.

The more you double down on this the more you demonstrate your complete inability to think.

No, I didn't. (long pause) What, you expected me to do that?

To justify your BS. To show an actual possible correlation rather than just vague crap which does nothing.
So you failed to show an alternative.

Meanwhile you again entirely ignore the experiments where the test is isolated from the atmosphere showing it can't be that.

You need to listen better.

No, you need to think better.
You make no actual measurements and instead just boldly proclaim complete crap.

not adjustment for curvature

i.e. you are appealing to your wilful ignorance and complete inability to detect things.

The instruments you would need are highly accurate devices to measure position to see a variation in that position, or devices to measure angle.
You took neither.

I should have seen distinct sign of curvature.

Again, you just assert vague crap.
Just what distinct signs should you have seen?
Don't be vague. Clearly explain exactly what you should be seeing.

Because again, you are just appealing to your wilful ignorance and inability to think.
You say you should see something, without putting in the effort to think and explain just what you should see, leaving you ignorant of what you should see, so you can pretend Earth is flat.

I have a good grasp on sanity

Given all the crap you say, you clearly don't.

An invisible curve on an uncheckable sphere is not a rational idea.

Good thing it is nothing like what is being suggested.
Instead we have a clearly visible curve, in the form of the horizon, the shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, and countless photos from space.
You can easily check that Earth is roughly spherical. You just choose not to because you are can't handle reality.

If you mock God for religious people saying they can't see him, but you want FE'ers to believe in a curvature they can't see, then we likewise have the right to mock you.

And given we don't, you don't have the right to mock.

More importantly, human beings can detect God in the order of the natural world.

No, we can't. Because that in no way supports your imaginary fiend.

Meanwhile, there are mountains of evidence that Earth is round, and plenty of things you can do yourself to confirm it which you choose not to.

Are we talking about a molecule? Or a loose mixture? A loose mixture will separate out through the process of diffusion

Wrong again.
Diffusion makes it mix.

Had you learned chemistry, I would not have to continuously explain this.

You mean what you are explaining incorrectly, and doing whatever you can to dodge the question?

If you had learned chemistry you would understand that diffusion makes things mix, not separate out. And when asked about a mixture of helium and oxygen, you would recognise the word mixture was used instead of a compound, and recognise helium is noble gas that doesn't react with oxygen, so wouldn't form a molecule with it.

You've misunderstood buoyancy.

No, that would still be you.
Still failing to understand the role of gravity and the pressure gradient in buoyancy.

And again, we know your claims about buoyancy are BS because of how often you need to flee from these questions about the pressure gradient.

Again, if you wish to invoke your delusional BS you need to explain:
Why down?
Why at that rate?
Why does that rate vary?
How does this create the pressure gradient?
Why does this pressure gradient not push everything up?

So far you have entirely failed on each point.

And you entirely fail to understand the difference between buoyancy and surface tension.

Again, those paperclips and the razor blade are not being held up by buoyancy.

In a video I made on bitchute, the sphere I dropped didn't even disturb the water.

Pure BS.
Provide an image from the side, near water level showing the water not disturbed at all, and the sphere perfectly floating on a single point.
And while you are at it, do the math to calculate the volume of water it needs to displace for the pressure gradient to keep it up.

Displacement is not what causes floating.

Then why does all the evidence show that?
Why does Archimedes explicitly appeal to that?
i.e. when he says an object is buoyed upwards by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced?

Yet again, you are just asserting pure garbage.

If your delusional BS was true, why did the picture of the boat you provided before have so much of the boat under water?

Being less dense than water is. If an object is significantly more dense than air, but less dense than water, it displaces (because it shouldn't float by its "weight" but does float because its density over a broad area is less that the amount of water is being dealt with.

i.e. you demonstrate yet again that you are a lying POS and that beach ball should displace water.

The hot air balloon is heavier and more massive than air

No, when the air inside is hot, the balloon and air inside weigh less than the volume of air it displaces.

Wrong again.
Diffusion makes it mix.

Sometimes. Diffusion is the movement of gas (or liquid) from an area of high concentration to low concentration. Usually, it does mix, but the process can be destabilized, such as with a wave pool, where water keeps getting transferred back and forth because it is never allowed to evenly settle.

In any case, the assumption is that it will mix, but that isn't its role.

Diffusion's main role is to move matter for a greater concentration to a lesser concentration. That's it.

It's sloppy scientists who assume that because diffusion can and often does lead to a mix, that means it always does.

Why does Archimedes explicitly appeal to that?

Archimedes did not discover buoyancy. The same idiots that think diffusion equals mixing are confused by this. The first to discover boats were ancient people in around 10,000 to 700,000 years ago (and no, we don't know their names).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_maritime_history
Archimedes discovered displacement, reportedly sitting in a bathtub and figuring out that his fat ass sploshed out water.  He reportedly said "Eureka" before he ran naked down the street.

He (wrongly) determined that there was an equal upward force to the amount of water displaced. We don't know that. We do know that heavy wide objects like Archimedes's fat ass displace water. We know that the length/width/height of the object creates an indentation where the surface shifts around an object (a splash). But it did not necessarily cause him to float. In fact, I could do a cannonball into a pool, and it would not at all determine that I float, and indeed I could potential drown if I do not try to reach the surface. In the video from BitChute that I made, no water was displaced, as I tossed a tiny globe into the water, and it floated without significantly breaking the surface of the water. You can watch for yourself, and clearly see that I am not talented enough as a video maker to do any editing. What causes people to float is their density vs that of the surface around them. Archimedes did discover (and should be credited for) displacement, as well as many applications of buoyancy. He was a genius after all. But to say that displacement causes buoyancy is a bridge too far. Not only did I observe no significant displacement on a buoyant object (proving displacement is not necessary to cause buoyancy), but it is fairly easy for you to prove that displacement does not cause buoyancy by drowning yourself.

Exceedingly small objects that are not dense do not produce a visible splash (no discernible displacement). Dense objects (regardless of size) will produce a splash, but if they are dense enough they will not surface.

https://rectangles.cc/science-of-volume-capacity-displacement-size-mass-density/
Displacement is wrongly defined as "the upward force exerted by a fluid when an object is submerged."

This is an important article when trying to understand buoyancy and how various factors affect it. But that particular definition is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's an unfortunate side-effect of gravity as a theory.

Displacement is not a force, no matter what other people may say. It is matter that is displaced (moved aside) by another object.
Nor is it an upward force. Why is it not an upward force? Because that is not accurate, even aside from excluding the force part. If we were to use a dyeing substance to color the air purple, and use a helium balloon, we would see the balloon shoving air aside as it moves upward.

The air slides to the side side and above the balloon, until the balloon (unlike with the water) is in an area where atmosphere is too thin, rather than too thick (as it would be with water). It isn't displacement that causes buoyancy, but water compacting around the boat or bucket or whatever doesn't hurt. It's that compacted water is more dense than uncompacted water, and high altitudes are less dense than low altitudes.

This picture is wrong too. Atmosphere won't reach 0 kPa because of the firmament. Rules of diffusion would guarantee that air would gradually disperse, suffocating us all, unless there were were some rule in place to prevent this. There is. "Objects of greater density sink in surfaces of lesser density." Diffusion has limits because of negative buoyancy.

Quote

Wrong again.
Diffusion makes it mix.

Sometimes. Diffusion is the movement of gas (or liquid) from an area of high concentration to low concentration. Usually, it does mix, but the process can be destabilized, such as with a wave pool, where water keeps getting transferred back and forth because it is never allowed to evenly settle.

So if a process can be destabilized, then it's false?

It's sloppy scientists who assume that because diffusion can and often does lead to a mix, that means it always does.

It does if it isn't destabilized.

Archimedes discovered displacement, reportedly sitting in a bathtub and figuring out that his fat ass sploshed out water.  He reportedly said "Eureka" before he ran naked down the street.

He discovered that an object completely submerged in water will displace a volume of water that is equal to the volume object.  He used that principle to determine that objects with the same weight but different densities (and therefore different volumes) displaced different amounts of water.

Quote

Wrong again.
Diffusion makes it mix.

Sometimes.

Which has nothing to do with a mix of diatomic oxygen and helium in a tank used for breathing air doesn’t separate out.

It's sloppy scientists who assume that because diffusion can and often does lead to a mix, that means it always does.

No.  Breathing air mixes with gases of very different densities like diatomic oxygen and helium required for deep sea diving are reliably and accurately mixed to specific concentrations that don’t separate out by density.

Quoted for you a time ago.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 04, 2025, 06:45:25 AM

I tell them

Hello.  Bullma. Presented a real world example you ignored. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 30, 2025, 12:57:12 PM

But in a hermetically sealed room with oxygen and helium

Mean like a tank of helium, nitrogen, and oxygen used for breathing in deep sea diving?  Or just helium and oxygen.  In Trimix or Heliox?

Quote

Trimix is a breathing gas consisting of oxygen, helium, and nitrogen. It is used in deep commercial diving, during the deep phase of dives carried out using technical diving techniques,[1][2] and in advanced recreational diving.[3][4]

Quote

Heliox is a breathing gas mixture of helium (He) and oxygen (O2). It is used as a medical treatment for patients with difficulty breathing because this mixture generates less resistance than atmospheric air when passing through the airways of the lungs, and thus requires less effort by a patient to breathe in and out of the lungs. It is also used as a breathing gas for deep ambient pressure diving as it is not narcotic at high pressure, and for its low work of breathing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliox

Where the helium stays in a mixed concentration?  I don’t think the breathing mixtures would be effective if the helium layered out from the oxygen.

Displacement is not a force, no m

Your idiotic babbling in no way addresses what was actually posted.

You wanted to post in context of hot air balloons.

 
but is pushed upward by the heated air inside the balloon,

The less dense air bubble in the balloon is pushed up by air molecules bunched up at earth’s surface by gravity.  Air molecules that would otherwise equalize with the less dense and pressure of the atmosphere above if it wasn’t for gravity.  Gravity explains the pressure gradient. Explains how the air molecules can bunch up to support the hot air ballon.  And why air molecules are bunched up to the degree and density found at earth’s surface. 

By the way.  The atmospheric pressure and density decreases with altitude.  The hot air ballon will only rise until the average density of atmosphere inside the ballon and the weight in the basket matches the outside density of the atmosphere.  Something you forget to post.

If you don’t think weight is a real downward force.  Why do you need to counter weight with the force of lift to fly? Why does the upward force of lift have to be greater than the downward force of weight. Why can I add enough weight to any given hot air ballon size so it will not lift off no matter how hot the atmosphere inside the ballon is made. 

 "Objects of greater density sink in surfaces of lesser density."

WTF


Anyway.

From this video..




A hand plunger being supported by a column of air.



The plunger is more dense than the air it’s being supported on. 

Now.  What force is causing the air molecules to bunch up to support a hot air balloon like the air in the trapped cylinder supporting the plunger. 

Diffusion is the movement of gas (or liquid) from an area of high concentration to low concentration.

i.e. mixing.
e.g. consider 2 regions.
A starts as pure oxygen.
B starts as pure helium.
The concentration of oxygen is higher in A than in B.
So oxygen diffuses from A to B.
After a short period of time, there is now oxygen in both regions, but the concentration is still higher in A.
So diffusion continues until the point at which A and B have equal concentrations.

i.e. they are now mixed.

Separating would be going initially from this equal concentration to have A have a higher concentration. Then going even further and having it go from B with a lower concentration to A with a higher concentration.
i.e. it would require it to go from an area of low concentration to an area of high concentration, i.e. the exact opposite of what you said.

So diffusion causes mixing not separating.

but the process can be destabilized, such as with a wave pool, where water keeps getting transferred back and forth

Which would just actively help mix it.

Archimedes did not discover buoyancy.

That doesn't address the question.

He (wrongly) determined that there was an equal upward force to the amount of water displaced.

No, he was quite correct in that.
It is measurable.
You can test it yourself.
You can also determine that from an actual understanding and derivation of buoyancy from gravity.
Which includes the pressure gradient you keep fleeing from.
You can also do it based upon a calculation from that measurable pressure gradient.

I could do a cannonball into a pool, and it would not at all determine that I float

Because you have not displaced enough water.

In the video from BitChute that I made, no water was displaced

Yet again you appeal to your wilful ignorance and lack of measurements.

it floated without significantly breaking the surface of the water.

i.e. it DID break the surface of the water, just not to a "signficant" extent.
But what would be deemed significant?
To determine that, you need to calculate what volume of water is required to be displaced to provide the upwards force necessary to counteract gravity.

Instead of even attempting that, you decide to appeal to your tiny balls to pretend that you can't see or measure something in this tiny case it mustn't exist at all.

What causes people to float

is gravity causing the pressure gradient causing an upwards force.

Exceedingly small objects that are not dense do not produce a visible splash

i.e. you intentionally appeal to something where the very thing you are trying to claim doesn't exist is within the uncertainty.

Again, calculate the displacement required, demonstrate you can detect that, and then show it doesn't occur.

But that particular definition is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's an unfortunate side-effect of gravity as a theory.

You mean it is an unfortunate side effect of reality which shows your BS is wrong?

But they didn't provide that as a definition. You did.

If we were to use a dyeing substance to color the air purple, and use a helium balloon, we would see the balloon shoving air aside as it moves upward.

You would see the balloon being pushed upwards by the air, allowing the air around it to move down.

We know it has to be an upwards force, because we can measure the pressure and understand what a pressure gradient does.
We know it has to be an upwards force, because we observe the balloon accelerate upwards

This picture is wrong too. Atmosphere won't reach 0 kPa because of the firmament.

Your imagination has no impact on reality.

Rules of diffusion would guarantee that air would gradually disperse, suffocating us all, unless there were were some rule in place to prevent this.

That rule is gravity, pulling the air down.
The same thing that explains the pressure gradient, which your BS can't explain.

Mmmm hmmm. And if it pulls around down, there should not be clouds because air and water vapor is all pulled toward the ground. We would have fog every day. Instead, water evaporates and moves as high as 30,000 ft (or more) off the ground, and stays there until there is enough for rain.

There is no force of gravity pulling a jumbo jet that is out of fuel toward the ground, it can glide for another several miles. There is no force of gravity pulling clouds down, they can stay up for days and days. There is no force of gravity pulling birds down, they can fly and glide, some of them thousands of feet off the ground.

There is only buoyancy, momentum, aerodynamics, velocity and propulsion, kinetic and potential energy, density and its effect on displacement. It would seem completely fantastic, but I could build a BOTW style balloon raft with enough helium balloons and just sit there until they pop. This actually works.

On the other hand, we have yet to demonstrate any real takeoff into space not sanctioned by NASA or SpaceX. So all these claims of "Why don't you Flat Earthers prove it? Build a rocket and go into space?"
1. Because I do not believe it possible by the rules of buoyancy to go to space? Objects do not rise in a vacuum, meaning suicide trip.
2. Because I do not believe there is such a thing as space? I would be hitting a brick wall known as firmament, and massively explode?
3. Because there are actual laws against it?

18 U.S. Code § 2332g

(a)Unlawful Conduct.—
(1)In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly produce, construct, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use—
(A)an explosive or incendiary rocket or missile that is guided by any system designed to enable the rocket or missile to—
(i)seek or proceed toward energy radiated or reflected from an aircraft or toward an image locating an aircraft; or
(ii)otherwise direct or guide the rocket or missile to an aircraft;
(B)any device designed or intended to launch or guide a rocket or missile described in subparagraph (A); or
(C)any part or combination of parts designed or redesigned for use in assembling or fabricating a rocket, missile, or device described in subparagraph (A) or (B).

But it's not a weapon, you should be ok-
Lemme stop you there.

(2)Nonweapon.—
Paragraph (1)(A) does not apply to any device that is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon.

(3)Excluded conduct.—This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A)conduct by or under the authority of the United States or any department or agency thereof or of a State or any department or agency thereof; or
(B)conduct pursuant to the terms of a contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof or with a State or any department or agency thereof.

Any department...

This means that while I could impress my friends with a toy launch rocket which goes up 20,000 ft, so long as it does not launch when an aircraft flies past, building a real rocket to for instance prove or disprove NASA's claims would likely run afoul of NASA itself. I could also come under investigation by the FBI or CIA for possible surveillance applications of what I have done. It goes on to mention properties and jurisdiction. For example, if I did not know how to build a rocket and instead "borrowed" one,

(b)Jurisdiction
[....]
(4)the offense is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States; or

It also includes a $2 million dollar fine, and imprisonment for 30 years or life.

Yeah. No. But hey, I'm sure all you RE'ers have real rockets for all your proof of RE. Oh wait. No ya don't.

So yeah, demonstrating that NASA really didn't go to the moon? I'd not only be taking my life in my hands, but facing arrest, and a hefty fine. Prison rape is still a thing. There are also laws about construction in residential areas.

"What are you in for?"
"Oh, well, I built a rocket in my backyard to try to prove that NASA has been lying..."
"Boys, hold him down! I want him to know what we do to flat Earthers!"

Meanwhile, I can use a hot air balloon, and I might get this view.

The horizon is flat, regardless of mountains or other landforms.

When an object stops, it falls or rises based on being heavier or lighter than the medium.

Then why isn’t this plunger falling?

From this video..




A hand plunger being supported by a column of air.



The plunger is more dense than the air it’s being supported on. 

Now.  What force is causing the air molecules to bunch up to support a hot air balloon like the air in the trapped cylinder supporting the plunger. 



  A ballon filled with helium ever once in awhile ends up at the house.  For a day or two, its bouncing off the ceiling.  Then after a while it loses enough helium the ballon floats a few feet under the ceiling, but doesn’t fall to the floor.  What force causes the air molecules to bunch up and support the ballon like the air molecules supporting the weight of the plunger in the example.  If you don’t think weight is a real downward force, why does just adding weight to the plunger make it go down more into the cylinder.  Then removing the weight causes the plunger to rise. 

Mmmm hmmm.

Care to address issues with the hot air balloon.  The argument you invoked.

 
but is pushed upward by the heated air inside the balloon,

The less dense air bubble in the balloon is pushed up by air molecules bunched up at earth’s surface by gravity.  Air molecules that would otherwise equalize with the less dense and pressure of the atmosphere above if it wasn’t for gravity.  Gravity explains the pressure gradient. Explains how the air molecules can bunch up to support the hot air ballon in the first place. Where, without a force they want to spread out, equal distance, to the point they would be too spread out to support any thing. 

Gravity, why air molecules are bunched up to the degree and density found at earth’s surface.  Where your delusion doesn’t have a mechanism.

By the way.  The atmospheric pressure and density decreases with altitude.  The hot air ballon will only rise until the average density of atmosphere inside the ballon and the weight in the basket matches the outside density of the atmosphere.  Something you forget to post.

If you don’t think weight is a real downward force.  Why do you need to counter weight with the force of lift to fly? Why does the upward force of lift have to be greater than the downward force of weight. Why can I add enough weight to any given hot air ballon size so it will not lift off no matter how hot the atmosphere inside the ballon is made. 

Mmmm hmmm. And if it pulls around down, there should not be clouds because air and water vapor is all pulled toward the ground.

You sure love pulling this crap.
In one post you say it should go up into space.
In the next you directly contradict that by saying it should go down.

Are you completely incapable of processing the idea of 2 forces acting at once?

As the air is pulled to the ground, it bunches up, causing it to get pressurised and push the air above it up.
This is the pressure gradient you can't explain.
The observable and measurable pressure gradient that destroys your delusional BS.

There is no force of gravity pulling a jumbo jet that is out of fuel toward the ground, it can glide for another several miles.

If there was no force of gravity, it could glide forever.
They would turn on their engines to get airborne, then shut them off and glide however far they need to. And they wouldn't have such large wings.
But because they are being pulled down by gravity they need to generate lift, which comes at the cost of drag.
They can combat that drag by providing thrust, or by descending, using gravity to speed up.

There is no force of gravity pulling clouds down

There is, but there are other forces involved.
If gravity wasn't involved, they would never come down.

There is no force of gravity pulling birds down

There is, they can fly because they flap their wings.
If there was no gravity, they wouldn't need wings.

There is only buoyancy

Except as repeatedly shown, your buoyancy BS doesn't work at all.
The only way to have it work is with gravity.

On the other hand, we have yet to demonstrate any real takeoff into space not sanctioned by NASA or SpaceX.

This comes down to what you mean by "sanctioned by".
There have certainly been independent projects by other nations and by ameteurs.

1. Because I do not believe it possible

i.e. because you have decided that it is impossible, you will not even attempt to prove it.
If that is the case, then you can prove it is impossible.

Because I do not believe there is such a thing as space? I would be hitting a brick wall known as firmament, and massively explode?

Then prove that.
No one is saying you need to be in the rocket.

3. Because there are actual laws against it?

Yet you can't provide any.

(1)In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (3)
...
(A)conduct by or under the authority of the United States or any department or agency thereof or of a State or any department or agency thereof; or

i.e. all you need is a permit.

But have you actually bothered looking at what it prohibits?

(i)seek or proceed toward energy radiated or reflected from an aircraft or toward an image locating an aircraft; or
(ii)otherwise direct or guide the rocket or missile to an aircraft;

i.e. You cannot make a rocket to take out an aircraft.

This means you are free to launch a rocket into space.
But like the lying POS you are, you completely misrepresent that to pretend you can't.

I'm sure all you RE'ers have real rockets for all your proof of RE. Oh wait. No ya don't.

We don't need our own person ones. There is already plenty of proof provided by others.
The distinction between us and you, is that you reject all this as fake, for no reason other than it contradicting your delusional fantasy.
So you need to do it yourself.

The horizon is flat, regardless of mountains or other landforms.

Do you mean ignoring mountains or other landforms?
If so, that is what we expect for a RE, and something the FE is still to explain.

But there you go trying to change topic yet again.

Mmmm hmmm. And if it pulls around down, there should not be clouds because air and water vapor is all pulled toward the ground. We would have fog every day. Instead, water evaporates and moves as high as 30,000 ft (or more) off the ground, and stays there until there is enough for rain.

There is no force of gravity pulling a jumbo jet that is out of fuel toward the ground, it can glide for another several miles. There is no force of gravity pulling clouds down, they can stay up for days and days. There is no force of gravity pulling birds down, they can fly and glide, some of them thousands of feet off the ground.

There is only buoyancy, momentum, aerodynamics, velocity and propulsion, kinetic and potential energy, density and its effect on displacement. It would seem completely fantastic, but I could build a BOTW style balloon raft with enough helium balloons and just sit there until they pop. This actually works.

On the other hand, we have yet to demonstrate any real takeoff into space not sanctioned by NASA or SpaceX. So all these claims of "Why don't you Flat Earthers prove it? Build a rocket and go into space?"
1. Because I do not believe it possible by the rules of buoyancy to go to space? Objects do not rise in a vacuum, meaning suicide trip.
2. Because I do not believe there is such a thing as space? I would be hitting a brick wall known as firmament, and massively explode?
3. Because there are actual laws against it?

18 U.S. Code § 2332g

Quote

(a)Unlawful Conduct.—
(1)In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (3), it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly produce, construct, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use—
(A)an explosive or incendiary rocket or missile that is guided by any system designed to enable the rocket or missile to—
(i)seek or proceed toward energy radiated or reflected from an aircraft or toward an image locating an aircraft; or
(ii)otherwise direct or guide the rocket or missile to an aircraft;
(B)any device designed or intended to launch or guide a rocket or missile described in subparagraph (A); or
(C)any part or combination of parts designed or redesigned for use in assembling or fabricating a rocket, missile, or device described in subparagraph (A) or (B).

But it's not a weapon, you should be ok-
Lemme stop you there.

Quote

(2)Nonweapon.—
Paragraph (1)(A) does not apply to any device that is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon.

(3)Excluded conduct.—This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A)conduct by or under the authority of the United States or any department or agency thereof or of a State or any department or agency thereof; or
(B)conduct pursuant to the terms of a contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof or with a State or any department or agency thereof.

Any department...

This means that while I could impress my friends with a toy launch rocket which goes up 20,000 ft, so long as it does not launch when an aircraft flies past, building a real rocket to for instance prove or disprove NASA's claims would likely run afoul of NASA itself. I could also come under investigation by the FBI or CIA for possible surveillance applications of what I have done. It goes on to mention properties and jurisdiction. For example, if I did not know how to build a rocket and instead "borrowed" one,

Quote

(b)Jurisdiction
[....]
(4)the offense is committed against any property that is owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside the United States; or

It also includes a $2 million dollar fine, and imprisonment for 30 years or life.

Yeah. No. But hey, I'm sure all you RE'ers have real rockets for all your proof of RE. Oh wait. No ya don't.

So yeah, demonstrating that NASA really didn't go to the moon? I'd not only be taking my life in my hands, but facing arrest, and a hefty fine. Prison rape is still a thing. There are also laws about construction in residential areas.

"What are you in for?"
"Oh, well, I built a rocket in my backyard to try to prove that NASA has been lying..."
"Boys, hold him down! I want him to know what we do to flat Earthers!"

Meanwhile, I can use a hot air balloon, and I might get this view.

The horizon is flat, regardless of mountains or other landforms.

Why stop with only proving NASA didn't go into space?

I'd like to see you prove Japan, China, India, Iran, Israel, France, and South Korea have never sent rockets into space. Your argument is super dumb. 

They never sent rockets into space. It's easy to prove. Look at media footage of rocket launches on the news. You have liftoff, then an abrupt cut in perspective where they show an object against a blue background lifting off. The object in question is always centered as though a parallel drone is keeping pace with it. How exactly is this video taken? Then we have a third of the separation phase, and random shots of space.

Which are not possible because space has increasingly no atmosphere according to your own theories. There shouldn't be enough light to do this. But hmmmm, movies do it easily. Almost like... nahhhh that's crazy... almost like in each case, they hired a film company to do the shot. And in some cases, they just give a CGI of everything as it heads into "space." Very convincing though.

And they seem to "lose" all real footage of going from point A to point B.

But I believe you changed the subject, which was a balloon view.

Funny how you accuse me of changing the subject when if it gets too hot, you switch over.

Back to this.


Funny also how you accuse me of fleeing threads, when the truth is that I found this buried at the bottom of the page.

They never sent rockets into space.

Satellites placed in orbit changing the night sky and actively providing satellite phone service and communications throughout the Pacific Ocean proved you wrong.  Just shows your trapped in your parents basement.

No stop derailing your own thread and address the line of argument that you abandoned that ironically is more on topic of this thread.

One of these things is not like the others...

And the earth isn’t a small beach ball either.

Where you have been repeatedly shown you have no understanding of the size of the earth.  And just because you think it looks flat, doesn’t mean it’s flat.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 20, 2025, 06:07:07 AM

As for stupid meme about a beach ball or basketball looking flat when you look at a tiny piece under a microscope, there is a bit of a gaping hole in your logic.

The below with a camera with a built in zoom lens with a macro lens adapter shows just because you think it looks flat isn’t evidence of it being actually flat.



The same case that has been proven many times in different ways.

Quote

Measures “flat” with a straight edge with a small frame of reference.



The tank actually is big enough to have a gentle curve.



What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?

For the Midwest and this picture.
Where probably not even 3 miles of horizon left to right.



Where you can crop the photo. 



Then stretch it to highlight its un-flatness.



Where it quickly becomes realised, for a 3 mile left to right view of horizon is deceiving for the Midwest.  Where 24 inches of drop is not very discernible for the Midwest.

For a photo of a large body of water where you don’t actually understand how narrow the left to right of the horizon is.  Where maybe you get 24 inches of drop from right and left.  “Compressing” the photo shows the curvature that is there.

Anyway.  The curvature of the earth is there if you know how to make the 8 inch drop discernible to a small human with a small prospective close to the earth.
. 

Quote

Flat Earth horizon still wouldn't look flat!

Compressing the photo makes it easier to see.

Quote

Where Bulma the sun doesn’t shrink the entire afternoon for you to invoke vanishing point.  Where the sun would have to shrink in size the entire afternoon through sunset because of changing relative distance from the view as required by the FE.  Where the sun wouldn’t set, because on a flat earth the sun would be in the line of sight the entire time.  Where Bulma you can’t explain the sun rising due east and setting due was on the equinox because in a flat earth delusion, the sun’s path would have to continually curve throughout its journey.

Pulling out the same tired pictures from flatearth.ws

C'mon.

This is a new shot. Do you not have the decency to address it in your own words? Or are you going to forever hide behind "Look I have this weirdly designed thing where the lines don't look straight... that's because they aren't straight. You made the thing crooked. It's not the sky that is curved, it's your crooked device, you crooked people. You curved the sky then you put that stupid device in front of it with a layering tool. It is all too obviously curved, as you made water curve, which it doesn't.


And no matter how individual parts look to be level on that silor, were I to lay this silo or whatever on its side, and pour water on it, or walk on it, it does not matter that pieces of it say it is flat with a level. I can fall off the edge. So can the water.

Same tired arguments, even though it's a new picture. It's also a new day, and I'm wanting you to exert some effort here.

As for your third thing which you loudly bold because like a petulant kid you demand to be heard, I'm going to church. So yeah, deal with that. I'm ignoring it.

Pulling out the same tired pictures from flatearth.ws

C'mon.

This is a new shot. Do you not have the decency to address it in your own words? Or are you going to forever hide behind "Look I have this weirdly designed thing where the lines don't look straight... that's because they aren't straight. You made the thing crooked. It's not the sky that is curved, it's your crooked device, you crooked people. You curved the sky then you put that stupid device in front of it with a layering tool. It is all too obviously curved, as you made water curve, which it doesn't.


And no matter how individual parts look to be level on that silor, were I to lay this silo or whatever on its side, and pour water on it, or walk on it, it does not matter that pieces of it say it is flat with a level. I can fall off the edge. So can the water.

Same tired arguments, even though it's a new picture. It's also a new day, and I'm wanting you to exert some effort here.

As for your third thing which you loudly bold because like a petulant kid you demand to be heard, I'm going to church. So yeah, deal with that. I'm ignoring it.

I've been maintaining for an incredibly long time the Earth in our immediate environment, up to about 5km away, looks flat and horizontal. Your photo of the ocean horizon at sea level, merely proves my point yet again.

Try zooming in on the pixels of that ocean horizon, and you will see it is a hard line against the sky. That means the ocean is curved. Congratulations on finding the curve.

They never sent rockets into space. It's easy to prove. Look at media footage of rocket launches on the news. You have liftoff, then an abrupt cut in perspective where they show an object against a blue background lifting off. The object in question is always centered as though a parallel drone is keeping pace with it.

Or, as if a camera is tracking, pointing up as it goes up.
Not hard to explain.

So looks like it is incredibly difficult for you to prove, and you just assert garbage like you always do.

Which are not possible because space has increasingly no atmosphere according to your own theories. There shouldn't be enough light to do this.

No, that is according to your strawman.
Back in reality, no atmosphere means light wont be scattered or absorbed, so it will continue.

That is also why you can get much sharper shadows in space.

But of course, that wont stop you lying about it.

But I believe you changed the subject, which was a balloon view.

No, that would be you.

In this post here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92610.msg2439863#msg2439863

Because you couldn't justify your delusional BS, you instead decided to talk about rockets going into space and how you aren't allowed, by bringing up the fact you can't make a rocket to take down an aircraft. Strange that your idea of going to space is taking down an aircraft.
And finished that with your BS appeal to a hot air balloon.

i.e. YOU were the one changing topic.

Back to this.

You mean the view which in no way supports your claim that Earth is flat?
Why not stick to what the topic was before you brought up that useless picture?
Your complete inability to defend your BS claims about magic buoyancy and your complete inability to show any fault with gravity?

Funny also how you accuse me of fleeing threads, when the truth is that I found this buried at the bottom of the page.

As if you had fled the thread, because you couldn't defend your BS.
Just look at the post times. You posted on the 26th of March (note, I will be using my dates).
Then myself, Data and Smokie all responded to you within a day.
Then nothing from you until now, the 6th of April.

Meanwhile, we can see you were still posting in other threads. With plenty of posts.

So it went to the bottom of the page, because you fled.
So yes, we accuse you of fleeing threads, as shown by you finding this at the bottom of the page because you fled.

And just to prove the point even more, you came back, and spouted more crap rather than even attempting to defend your BS.

C'mon.

While you present some photo that is a zoomed or cropped zoomed view of the sun with no context? 

With you Bulma having no understanding of how big the spherical earth is?

It’s like taking a zoomed view of my laces and asking how big my shoe is?



Or.  As demonstrated.  Zooming in and saying something looks flat isn’t proof it’s flat.



Where your zoomed in view of the sun is a good metaphor?  That Bulma, your to much in lies or afraid to actually see the landscape.

Notice the difference of this “landscape” picture below vs your narrow “portrait” view of the horizon more representative of you going through life with blinders.



When compressed clearly shows the curvature that is there.




As demonstrated in this video.




Where you can find other examples..

https://mctoon.net/photos-of-the-curve/

Where you also ignore the dip of the horizon.




  Bulma.  Where your posts of late are still just BS flack to smoke screen from how your delusion fails.

  Where Bulma the sun doesn’t shrink the entire afternoon for you to invoke vanishing point.

  Where the sun would have to shrink in size the entire afternoon through sunset because of changing relative distance from the view as required by the FE. 

  Where the sun wouldn’t set, because on a flat earth the sun would be in the line of sight the entire time. 

  Where Bulma you can’t explain the sun rising due east and setting due was on the equinox because in a flat earth delusion, the sun’s path would have to continually curve throughout its journey.

This is a distortion.



The water line here is flat.



The water line here is curved. This distortion has side effects creating a distortion in the object itself (in order to create "curvature" involves warping the object itself)

When the object is lying flat however, look at the water line.

They used digital editing to create a distortion.

You have no understanding of what it means to be spherical. Water lays flat. In a bathtub. In a lake. In a train. On a plane. In a box. With a fox. Water lies flat here and there. Water lies flat practically everywhere!

Except when it's distorted by editing, then all bets are off.

So regardless of how big this picture is zoomed into, as you say, the behavior of water should not change. But naturally it would have to change if forced to conform to a sphere. Even in a small picture like this, we should notice some oddity, a difference between a bath and the ocean. Here, I'll digital edit, so you can see what I mean.

This is the shit that was pulled in that crappy video clip. GIMP has an edit called spherize, where you can make something that is not a sphere look like a sphere.

Exactly. As an amateur artist, I know about this. If an organization (like NASA) has resources, what's to stop that?

And no, the viewfinder in the plane does not negate this. Because layering is a thing.

Where Bulma the sun doesn’t shrink the entire afternoon for you to invoke vanishing point.

Where the sun would have to shrink in size the entire afternoon through sunset because of changing relative distance from the view as required by the FE.

Where the sun wouldn’t set, because on a flat earth the sun would be in the line of sight the entire time.

Where Bulma you can’t explain the sun rising due east and setting due was on the equinox because in a flat earth delusion, the sun’s path would have to continually curve throughout its journey.

Actually on a sphere, the Earth would have to wobble as much as 180 degrees because of its tilt to the seasons means when the Earth is in summer during daylight hours, it is tilted in winter while at night. The sun rides due east and sets due west. I do not see why any adjustment is needed.  But the sun does curve overhead.

You're fixated on the idea of the sun shrinking in size. Let's try to get you to understand this. This parabola I speak of, I'm gonna build it instead as a state of the art light-sensitive planetarium.  When the sun or its light is directly overhead the planetarium, this shows an image of the sky and a picture of the sun. The "sun's" height in the sky is based on the distance from the center.  The size of the planetarium does not actually have to be big. In fact, for our purposes, in this model, the dome is only 40 ft long and wide, so as the sun moves past, the "sun" goes from sunrise to sunset in about thirty minutes or so. Do you think it matters how far away the sun is when it moves past? No, because what distance is being measured is 40 ft. Now, the parabola is not 40 ft (I do not know if physical size is a good means of understanding it), but we're not talking about real distance. This is what I mean by projected distance.

There would not be major shrinkage inside such a small space.
 
The typical visible distance is 3 to 10 miles, whereas your RE delusion involves the sun 93 million miles away or whatever. The sun should have shrunk from distance (but that would already be true), but for day to turn to night, it has to rotate approximately its diameter, or 7000 miles. Should we see shrinkage?

This is a distortion.

The water line here is flat.

Is it.  Again, you don’t understand what you think looks flat doesn’t mean it’s flat.  Especially with a small size cherry picked by you.

Or.  As demonstrated.  Zooming in and saying something looks flat isn’t proof it’s flat.

They used digital editing to create a distortion.

Provide it.  The metal bars should be distorted too. Where the table sags from weight of the bars as expected.  Where the bars are shimmed and adjusted for level.




 Where you can compress the photo yourself and get the same results. 

Where you ignored the other photos, so why fake the photo. 

Where you can find other examples..

https://mctoon.net/photos-of-the-curve/

Where you also ignore the dip of the horizon.

Water lays flat.

Other than high tide, low tide, spring tides, tides coming in, tides going out, tidal bores.

Where you are trying to ignore the surface of water is level.  Level that is perpendicular to earths gravity?

Your friend AI again Bulma.

You're fixated on the idea of the sun shrinking in size.

Because you ousted this.

For the 1100th time, the parabola represents the narrowing perspective of vanishing point.

Bulma.  If you want to invoke vanishing point, the sun has to act like this ball in the below gif moving away from the camera.  Ever shrinking in size.  But never really winking out of view. 



The sun in a flat earth delusion should continually shrink in size through sunset because in the afternoon the sun has to keep increasing in distance for your claim to be true. 

Where the ball stays in the line of sight and can be enlarged by zooming.



Notice the ball cannot be physically blocked from view by the plane it’s sitting on as long as it stays above that plane.  No matter how close it approaches the top of the plane.


Now for something more representative of what actually happens at sunset. 




The sun like the ball goes relatively below the earth’s curvature. Increasingly physically blocked from view.  But the part of the ball still visible isn’t shrinking in the distance because it’s staying the same relative distance from the viewer.

  Bulma, do you understand the difference.

Bulma, your model fails to accurately represent and predict reality.  Where the sun’s path would still have to visibly turn throughout the day to circle above a FE where especially on the equinox it rises due east and sets due west.

Bulma, your model BS is useless.

 It is all too obviously curved, as you made water curve, which it doesn't.

You don’t see the water in your photo curving up?  The water level in your pirated photo with no credit to its source isn’t “level”.  And I don’t think anyone believes water curves upward left to right as presented in the photo you cherry picked as “flat”. (Unless you want to talk about the depression that is the Indian Ocean anomaly)

First.  Compress the photo inward from left and right.



Now crop down to the horizon.



Now stretch the picture inward height.



Bulma.  You’re so crooked, you couldn’t even tell the picture you pirated doesn’t have a “flat” horizon.

😂😂😂😂😂

Water lays flat.

Bulma.  Start with the dip of the horizon. 





  Bulma.  If there is dip of the horizon.  What is going on to the left and right while you look straight ahead.

Give you a hint…

https://mctoon.net/photos-of-the-curve/