Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

Why else should they fall?

It’s more than just falling though.

Gravity explains and allows for accurate predictions of why a ball thrown straight up slows down faster than can be explained by just air friction, why the ball stops for a split second, charges direction of travel 180 degrees, and what unbalanced forces causes the ball to accelerate straight down.

Gravity explains why a bullet still accelerating away from a muzzle also starts to drop as soon as the bullet leaves the muzzle, and accurately predicts the bullet’s trajectory.  To the point air resistance of a bullet can be ignored and still arrive at pretty accurate predictions.

  How do you accelerate a mass downward without a force like gravity!


Why can I hold 50 pounds with one arm close to my body, but the weight is pulled down if I try to straighten my arm.






It was slow and shaky, but I can even lift the 50 pound weight straight up over my head.  What changes when I try to lift the weight straight out where I can’t get it shoulder high at arm’s length. 




Why with gravity I can calculate the actual strain on my shoulder.

Quote

Occam's Razor indicates there is a downwards force proportional to mass.

It does, does it?

Yes. As repeatedly explained.
Firstly, if we exclude objects falling from consideration, then EVERY other example of an object accelerating requires a force.
So why shouldn't this?
Occam's Razor rejects the idea of falling getting a special exception, so it indicates there is a force accelerating the object.

We can even directly measure this force, in a variety of ways.
Including when it is submerged in a fluid (either entirely or partially)

And as already explained, if we look at fluids, they have a pressure gradient.
We also know what pressure gradients do, they push things.
Again, if we exclude this vertical pressure gradient, we can test this repeatedly and see that in all cases the pressure gradient applies a force to objects in it.

Then if we measure the pressure gradient and the object and the overall force on the object, and subtract the force due to the pressure gradient, we end up with a downwards force proportional to the mass of the object.

And again, this downwards force then directly explains why things fall, as well as explaining the existence of that pressure gradient with that pressure gradient then explaining the upwards buoyant force, with that then explaining why heavy things sink and low density objects can float.
We get so much explained from just a simple downwards force proportional to mass.

So yes, Occam's razor just at that level indicates that there is a downwards force proportional to mass. It is NOT your magic buoyancy.

And if we go further and look at other experiments it indicates it is a force of attraction between masses.

So on top of believing gravitas fey go around zapping everything with downward pull magic

That is only your strawman. Nothing to do with reality.

someone earlier confused the North Pole and the Earth's core

That would be you.
You falsely claiming the north pole is a strong magnet; while in reality Earth's core is the magnet. And the strength of that magnetic field near the surface is tiny.
It is so weak, it can be overcome with a fridge magnet.

yet somehow cannot catch up to jumbo jets and birds

Because they have wings to generate lift.

Unlike you, who has to reconcile how such a big object isn't pulled down by force proportional to mass

Which is trivial, as above, WINGS!

they have low density

Which as already explained, doesn't help your case at all.

that even this density is overcome by aerodynamic motion.

And why can't that be gravity that is overcome?

This just shows your hypocrisy and the stupidity of your example.

We both know that regardless of WHY you want to claim it happens, things fall to Earth.
That if you got a plane, took off its wings and held it in air above a point on Earth, it would very quickly fall to Earth.
There is clearly something trying to make it go towards Earth.

It doesn't matter what that something is, there is something.
And that something has to be overcome by the wings and aerodynamic forces.

So if this was going to be a problem for gravity, it would equally be a problem for your nonsense.
If it is fine and not a problem at all for your nonsense, it is equally not a problem for gravity.

Oh, and here's the Cavendish Experiment.

No, that is a video by a high prophet in your cult.
With no reason why I should bother watching it.
Why do you believe him so much, but dismiss everything else as fake?

Why don't you go do the experiment yourself?

Negative buoyancy and directionality. Both of which are largely internal to the state of the object.

Except you have no explanation for the directionality, and as already addressed, negative buoyancy doesn't work.

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

If you can't, your BS is DOA.

And not only that, you also proceed to provide an example clearly demonstrating that neither is magically tied to the internal state of the object.
If it was, tilting a bookshelf should still have the books go "down" relative to the bookshelf. Instead, they go down to Earth.

Why with gravity I can calculate the actual strain on my shoulder.

Arnold says you're a girly man.

Oh, and here's the Cavendish Experiment.

Fixed that for you.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 16, 2025, 06:32:44 AM

Oh, and here's the Cavendish Experiment.
(Wrong video)

Fixed that for you.

That's funny. Mine looks like this.


Lemme adjust that for you...


There you are. This is the right video. "Whenever a sock goes missing... Gnomes."
"Isaac Newton observed something that he couldn't explain, so he made up a force called Gnomes... erm, sorry, Gravity."

Again, if gravity pulls things down that has mass (supposedly it does), and helium has mass (it does), then filling a balloon with helium should make it go downwards. Instead, the opposite happens, because, well, buoyancy is independent of gravity and the thing you have been calling "gravity" was actually buoyancy all along.

"Isaac Newton observed something that he couldn't explain, so he made up a force called Gnomes... erm, sorry, Gravity."

No, he came up with a coherent explanation which actually works to explain what is observed in reality; unlike your delusional BS which doesn't work at all.

Again, if gravity pulls things down that has mass (supposedly it does), and helium has mass (it does), then filling a balloon with helium should make it go downwards.

And if you do that in the absence of air, IT DOES!.
Your BS strawman is like getting a see-saw, putting a really heavy kid on one side, and then putting a light kid on the other and saying gravity is wrong because the light kid isn't going down.

But again, the result observed is exactly what we expect with gravity.
What you are ignoring is the air around the balloon, air which wants to go down.

At the most basic level, you have gravity pulling the balloon down, and pulling an equal volume of air down.
In order for one to go down, the other has to go up.
Which should actually be able to go down?
The one with the greater force.

At a more explanatory level, the weight of the air causes a pressure gradient in the air which then acts to push objects up.

buoyancy is independent of gravity and the thing you have been calling "gravity" was actually buoyancy all along.

It has already been explained why that is pure BS, repeatedly.

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

If you can't, your BS is DOA.

And if you do that in the absence of air, IT DOES!.

So basically, you need to invoke a vacuum to get your theory to work.

My theory works on a train, in a plane, in a box, with a fox.  Buoyancy can work here or there. Buoyancy can work anywhere!

So back from the Seuss tangent, "gravity" only pays attention to weight or mass. But density gives a mo re consistent idea. And no, a vacuum doesn't disprove buoyancy, if that was your next thought. It's like this.

• Gravity insists adding weight will cause things to fall, but it didn't work for the balloon except from you taking away air from the room.
• That is because the helium balloon is less dense than air. The reason it lowers in a vacuum is that it is more dense than void. In fact, all physical matter more dense than a vacuum, so it will sink (this is also why space travel is a pipe dream, it would require zero-point fuel to maintain energy or the rocket would return to Earth or be stranded).
• Extending this idea to Newton's apple, an apple falls like an apple in normal air, like a stone in a vacuum, bobs in water, and it we had a canal compacting water or a geyser, the apple would rise as the water left rises.

You can scream and cry that "Of course my idea works and  your BS is dead on arrival." No, it never has worked. Creating vacuums is a senseless waste of money that rather disproving, actually reinforces buoyancy. An apple, a feather, and a bowling ball are all "heavier" in a vacuum, "lighter" in pressurized air or water, and behave as they should in normal air.

There is an only website btw that explains how many helium balloons it takes to lift various objects. Yes, we know how tomake helium battles work and heated air balloons. And that is what your theory is. It's filled with hot air.

So basically, you need to invoke a vacuum to get your theory to work.

No, you need to invoke a vacuum to have your strawman work.

The point is that it is NOT just the balloon.
There is also the air around it.
That air also has mass.
That air is also being pulled down.

My theory works

No, it doesn't.
As explained.
Your BS doesn't work AT ALL.
So much so that you need to ignore so much to pretend it works.

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

If you can't, your BS is DOA.

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

Again, gravity does work.

Again, for the simple view:
The air and the balloon are both pulled down by gravity, but in order for one to go down the other must go up.
The balloon is pushed up by that force of gravity pulling the air down.
As the air has more mass (for that volume), this means the force pulling the air down is stronger, so it goes down, pushing the balloon up in the process.

Just simple gravity producing the results we observe in reality.

You can scream and cry that "Of course my idea works and  your BS is dead on arrival."

I'll leave that to you.
If you have noticed, I have explained why gravity works and your BS doesn't.
Meanwhile, all you can do is boldly proclaim gravity doesn't work, appeal to the results of experiments which match what is expected for gravity, and flee from the issues which clearly demonstrates your delusional BS doesn't work.

If you want to stop screaming and crying, try addressing those issues and stopping with the strawmen.

why you think it's invoking a vacuum?

the vacuum is isolating variables.

one of those variables being air.

air that is required for your theory to work.

so......thoguhts?

Quote

Why with gravity I can calculate the actual strain on my shoulder.

Arnold says you're a girly man.

You’re running from the argument because flat earth no gravity doesn’t have an answer.



For a a 50 pound weight I can keep close to my body and raise above my head.

  Why does a 50 pound weight I try to raise arm straight out, gain a little momentum, raises, what force overcomes my muscles and makes the 50 pound weight stall out, then change the travel of direction down. 

Gravity's "answer" is a dodge and a bluff. You're the one running away. Replacing what the actual measurement is with one of mass only.

Again, the girl is lifting a weight. Her density vs the surface below her. If she were standing on creaky floorboard, this might especially be an issue. The weight she lifts is like 15 lb (?) divided by the surface area of the weight  vs the air around her.

If she were lifting a weight that was also 15 lb, but much larger (hollow weights?), it would actually be easier for her to lift than the solid metal weight she has.

Why does a 50 pound weight I try to raise arm straight out, gain a little momentum, raises, what force overcomes my muscles and makes the 50 pound weight stall out, then change the travel of direction down. 

When we used to lift stuff at Amazon, they talked about the ergonomics of keeping objects close to the body. This is because you are using your entire body to lift, versus overextending. When you overextend, only your arm lifts.  In other words, your dumbassery extends not only to not discovering the difference between a proper FE with buoyancy and a RE with gravity, but also to poor lifting safety. Lurching forward like you mentioned means the density of the weight has only your hand and arm to hold it up while it rests against nothing but air otherwise. You're also risking screwing up your back.

Again, the girl is lifting a weight.

Is she holding it like this with my starting position.




I’m holding the weight up until I try to push my arm straight out.  The argument is what happens when I try to extend my arm and weight straight out. 

 Her density vs the surface below her.

Density is mass per volume.  Not a force.

Nowhere in her body is it more dense that a solid steel dumbbell.


If you mean counter weight.  My 220 lbs body is always more in weight than the 50 lbs dumbbell.


  bulmabriefs144.  What happens if a person tries punching a solid steel 50 lbs dumbbell.  They risk breaking open their skin and breaking their hand.


What if I drop a 50 lbs dumbbell on a person’s head from five feet above them.  Their head cracks like an egg with a direct hit.

What if I jump on a 50 lbs solid steel dumbbell with my 220 lbs.  The dumbbell doesn’t deform in any way. 

I have to exert a force by muscle using energy to lift the weight which is more dense.


bulmabriefs144, your post is meaningless jibber.

If there is no gravity.  Why can I lift a 50 pound weight straight over my head if I keep it close to my body.  But can’t push it straight out. 


It’s the same reason I can push around a car in neutral on a flat garage floor all day long, but can’t push the same car up hill.  bulmabriefs144, you going to say I’m more dense than the car? 


And we haven’t even gotten into why a ball thrown straight up slows down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  And that isn’t even getting into why the ball thrown straight up stops all forward momentum, changes direction of travel 180 degrees, and accelerates straight down.

bulmabriefs144, How do you accelerate an object with mass without unbalanced forces. 

 weight

On earth.  Weight is the downward force and magnitude of that force an object exerts because of gravity.

bulmabriefs144.  Care to define weight.  And define why something like falling water can produce work through a waterwheel powering a grind stone. 

Bulma... you confuse torque with weight.

Torque is a weight at a distance.
Thats why amazon told you to lift with your knees and keep it tight.


So basic....


The weight didnt get magically heavier when held away from body.
It didnt magically gain mass.


Its a real simple concept thats provable by well... well the fact that can weigh the weight.



So dumb
Astounding!

Gravity's "answer" is a dodge and a bluff. You're the one running away. Replacing what the actual measurement is with one of mass only.

No, YOU are the one running away.
Running away from simple points which show that buoyancy alone cannot work, that buoyancy only works as a result of gravity.

a proper FE with buoyancy

You are yet to present one. Your BS still has massive flaws in it which you refuse to address.

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

If you can't, your BS is DOA.

Until you can address those points, your BS does not work, and you do not have a "proper FE with buoyancy".

You are yet to present one. Your BS still has massive flaws in it which you refuse to address.

You just ignore things because they don't fit your model, then four pages later, you say I never said it.

If Oρ is an object's density and Sρ is a surface's density...
Oρ < Sρ; buoyancy is positive
Oρ = Sρ; buoyancy is neutral
Oρ > Sρ; buoyancy is negative

So if a raw egg floats when raw, it (usually) sinks when hard-boiled, because the yolk and albumen have become a solid mass. However, air pockets can form in older eggs, making them float regardless. And younger eggs have so few air spaces that they may sink regardless.

If Oρ is an object's density

If you wrongly think there is no gravity.


Why can’t I lift this 50 lbs of select-a-weight dumbbell to arm straight out.




But if I go to 30 lbs of solid steel dumbbells I can do it for a split second.  Sort of.



And if I go to 20 lbs, I can do it with relative ease.  But my arm does get tired because it is fighting gravity.



Density did not really change.  Or you could make the real argument density went up as I went to solid steel dumbbells.  But my arm had to fight the force of gravity less


  Where gravity accurately and predictably calculates the actual strain at my shoulder.  How do you do that with density without using the downward force of gravity. 



Why does 10 lbs of aluminium exert the same down force as 10 lbs of lead. 

Bounacy over to the bounacy thread.




Oh look.
Someone else modelled the round earth and its accurate.
Amazing!

https://youtube.com/shorts/rc1WEQALcJo?si=2-rpiVOrJKfed6_Y

Anything to distract from FE is a useless model from navigating, surveying, to basic astronomy.  And the Final Experiment that was designed to be in the face demonstrable proof of the Antarctic 24 hour sun was a death blow to FE talking heads. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 26, 2025, 04:20:57 PM

If Oρ is an object's density

If you wrongly think there is no gravity.


Why can’t I lift this 50 lbs of select-a-weight dumbbell to arm straight out.




But if I go to 30 lbs of solid steel dumbbells I can do it for a split second.  Sort of.



And if I go to 20 lbs, I can do it with relative ease.  But my arm does get tired because it is fighting gravity.



Density did not really change.  Or you could make the real argument density went up as I went to solid steel dumbbells.  But my arm had to fight the force of gravity less


  Where gravity accurately and predictably calculates the actual strain at my shoulder.  How do you do that with density without using the downward force of gravity. 

Why does 10 lbs of aluminium exert the same down force as 10 lbs of lead.

I was lifting an old solid-as-brick suitcase on my way , and the actual weight was 33 lb. But I've lifted somewhere from 45 to 60 lb with both hands before. Yet this suitcase literally dug into my skin and felt like it weighed 100 lb.

Reddit has your answer.

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kfooxe/eli5_why_is_a_50lb_dumbbell_so_easy_to_pick_up/

There’s rigid weight and then there’s “dead” weight.

A solid mass like a dumbbell has a constant center of mass and you just have to lift from the center of mass. It’s also designed to be grabbed.

A more gelatinous object is “dead” weight and will shift the center of mass as you move it, forcing you to continually attempt to adjust to the new center. The more unstable the material is, the more pronounced this effect becomes. Lifting a 50lb bag of liquid is almost impossible because it offers no easy grip points and wobbles everywhere.

The poster beyond this one spews out crap about gravity. But no, it's just dead weight. If you somehow had an absolutely huge dumbbell that weighed 50 lb (something like 20 ft wide), it would be impossible for a normal person to lift, but if dropped on water, it floats. Having lifted things like plastic folding chairs that someone held at a weird angle, I can confirm this.

So yes, even though the dumbbell is more massive and less dense, compared with the solid metal dumbbell, there is more dead weight. It has nothing to do with gravity.

Try this: put the 50 lb weight upright on your palm so that its center of mass is directly centered in the middle of your hand and tie the 30 lb weights together with rope and put them on the other hand. Tell me, which of these feels harder to lift? Now that the lb are directly on the hand rather than on either side, the 30 lb now has dead weight. The 50 lb should be easier to lift.

no
you should try my swimming experiment.



also
sun-orbits-shadows-modeling and predictions: 

since you have none of your own, so find fault in the two provided.


https://youtube.com/shorts/rc1WEQALcJo?si=2-rpiVOrJKfed6_Y

no
you should try my swimming experiment.

also
sun-orbits-shadows-modeling and predictions: 

since you have none of your own, so find fault in the two provided.

https://youtube.com/shorts/rc1WEQALcJo?si=2-rpiVOrJKfed6_Y

Why?

You have a bunch of youtube videos that you think are proof, and I need to go examine your silly arguments why exactly? I already have a model. It's called math.
https://planetcalc.com/1875/

This simple online calculator gives a vertical object shadow length for a specified day and geographic coordinate. The calculator uses Sun position algorithm to calculate sun altitude.
Then it uses this formula to calculate shadow length:
L=h/tan(alpha), where h - object height, and alpha - the angle between Sun and horizon.

Using straight lines and the horizon, not some imagined curvature, we can use this calculator to estimate the length and probably the position of shadows, and regardless of what the person who made this thinks about the shape of the Earth, I don't have to agree.

the title is
"Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense"


yet the models match reality.
and the models are based on ball earth.
so you need to clarify what doesn't make sense.
and if you can't do that, then you make no sense.

Reddit has your answer.

That’s not what I asked. 

There is no weight in your delusion because there is no gravity.

What is the downward force that keeps me from lifting a 50 lbs dumbbell straight out arms length shoulder high.





Even if I move it upwards a bit to make it a “live load / weight”.  Added.  As in upward momentum. 

Where I can lift a 20 pound weight with greater density arm straight out, but my arm tires holding the 20 pound weight up against a downward force.

What force keeps air molecules bunched up at the earth’s surface, and results in less atmospheric pressure higher in the air column.  Where air molecules want to spread out equal distance.  What force is bunching up air molecules in a uniform mix at the earth’s surface like they have weight where in your delusion of no gravity they should be equal distance with a uniform pressure throughout the pressure column.

How is a less dense atmosphere above keeping more dense atmosphere below trapped to prevent pressure from equalizing. 

Why can a push a car around in neutral from a “dead load” all day long on a flat garage floor.  But once the car is moving by my own power, I can’t push the car up hill?  Where if I try to push the moving car by my own power up hill, it might make it a few inches.  Stop.  Then change direction of travel 180 degrees and roll back off the hill. 

You have a bunch of youtube videos

Reality has been explained and demonstrated to you repeatedly.

Like why the direction south, the southern celestial sphere, and how they both only work for navigation if the earth is spherical.

 If the Flat Earthers were allowed to fly without restriction over Antarctica,

Oops.  Two or three flat earther’s just live streamed from Antarctica in the final experiment.  Gotcha there.  And documented a 24 hour Antarctic summer sun. 

1- FE totally is erroneous in the relative positions and distances of the southern ends of Australia, Africa, and South America to each other.




VS


https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/antarctica_map.htm#google_vignette

2-  No evidence of a huge Ice Wall encircling all the continents.

3- South is meaningless on a FE.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 18, 2022, 05:27:06 AM

South of San Francisco? South Pole. South of Chile? South Pole? South of Israel? South Pole. South of Australia? South Pole

One of my favorite arguments seen time from time.

Now.  How can individuals in South America, Africa, Australia all see the constellation the southern cross by looking south.  With two of the three locations able to see the southern cross at the same time?

Possible on a Globe.


Not possible on your flat earth delusion


Cited from

Quote

How to Navigate the Ocean Using Stars

https://www.formulaboats.com/blog/navigate-using-stars/

Crux: Commonly called the Southern Cross, Crux is the most important constellation for navigating in the Southern Hemisphere, as it can be used to find due south. Crux contains five stars that form a slightly irregular cross and is the smallest constellation in the sky. The Southern Cross is visible from latitudes of about 27 degrees north and farther south.

4-  How a simple dial star atlas actually predicts the night sky where FE fails. 

You just ignore things because they don't fit your model, then four pages later, you say I never said it.

No, I don't.
That is you.
You continually ignore things that don't fit your model, typically fleeing from the topic, only to bring up the same refuted crap and have the same issues pointed out later on.

The entire deflection to gravity and buoyancy is based upon your complete inability to address what the topic was, your inability to explain the perspective of the sun for a FE, after your failure to try to deflect to the lunar eclipse which you also fail to explain.
You continually ignore so much which doesn't fit the delusional garbage you call a model, and spout whatever lies you can about reality.

You still have no explanation for why the sun should set at all in your fantasy, or how it magically casts light upwards onto clouds.
Nor are you able to show any fault in this area with the RE model.
Likewise, you have no explanation for the phases of the moon or the lunar eclipse in your model, and you have no rational, honest objection to the RE model.

All you can do is spout pathetic crap, flee from issues and blatantly lie to everyone.


The crap you have provided is NOT a proper model.
It has so many flaws it isn't funny.
Flaws you continually ignore and flee from.

Providing the same crap which does not address these flaws doesn't address the flaws at all and doesn't make you have a proper model.

If you want a proper model you need to explain the directionality and the pressure gradient. Things you continually flee from.
And no, saying if it is denser it goes down is NOT addressing any of it.

Notice how I gave several key points to address, which you entirely ignored and decided to repeat the same crap which doesn't address any of it?

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

If you can't, your BS is DOA.

Until you can address those points, your BS does not work, and you do not have a "proper FE with buoyancy".

This is not just saying denser goes down or crap like that.
You need to explain why being denser should cause the things above, and you need to address the pressure gradient which kills your BS.

You have a bunch of youtube videos that you think are proof, and I need to go examine your silly arguments why exactly? I already have a model. It's called math.

And that math shows you are wrong.
The same math equates the angle to the sun with the height of the sun and the distance to the sun.
i.e. L can be the distance to the sun, h is the height of the sun above your fantasy disc and alpha is the angle of elevation of the sun.

There is no way to make it work with your fantasy.

No, I don't. I ignore your entire post, as it has nothing useful to say.

This is significantly different from pretending you didn't say it, and asking again and again until you hope that you get the answer you want. One is apathy, the other is a sort of special pleading.

Having been subject to this, I no longer bother to care what you say. This is the consequence of your dishonesty, like with my nephew cheating in board games (he played Stratego and when I got his commander with my spy he's like "Wait no, I want to move this piece over here") I just shut him down. "Time for bed, kid!" So also to you.

Again if you want to pretend it is some magical buoyancy, you need to explain:

 No I don't. You are pretending you have authority to make that demand of me when actually...

I don't have to tell you anything.

 Bed time for you, kid.

No, I don't. I ignore your entire post

i.e. YOU DO ignore all the problems with your BS, you just pretend you are better than that and lie about it, because you don't care about the truth at all.

This is significantly different from pretending you didn't say it, and asking again and again until you hope that you get the answer you want.

It isn't about getting the answer I want, it is about getting something which actually addresses the issue instead of your pathetic deflections like you always give.

For example, when I ask how the sun magically appears to be illuminating the cloud from below, and you instead decide to talk about the angular position of the sun, you are not addressing the issue at all.
That is not you giving an answer I just don't want, that is you not answering the question.
You may has well have told me the name of a young cat is a kitten. It would be just as good an answer as neither address the issue.

Likewise, when I point out the issue of the pressure gradient, such as what magic forms it in your delusional fantasy and how that doesn't push everything up; you responding by telling me "dense thing goes down" is not addressing it at all.

Having been subject to this, I no longer bother to care what you say. This is the consequence of your dishonesty

No, it isn't.
It is a consequence of me continually pointing out your BS, with you entirely incapable of responding honestly and rationally.
So you come up with dishonest BS like this.

You can't point to a single example of my dishonesty.
But I can show plenty of yours.

I just shut him down. "Time for bed, kid!" So also to you.

i.e. like the arrogant, lying POS you are, you treat everyone who shows you are wrong like a child, who should just obey you.

Sorry, I'm not a kid. I'm not going to just accept your BS.
I will keep calling you out on it.
Maybe it's time for you to go to bed, and not bother coming back until you can understand how to address issues raised instead of deflecting, lying and treating others as children?

No I don't.

Yes, you do.
Otherwise your BS doesn't work.

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

If you can't, your BS is DOA.

Until you can address those points, your BS does not work, and you do not have a "proper FE with buoyancy".
Trying to dismiss those pointing out the fact you have a pile of incoherent BS will not change that. Instead it just shows your dishonesty and desperation.

Hmmm, you're right. Treating you like a child is probably wrong.

You need to sit still.
And you're gonna need to beg me if you want any response.
Now, roll over.

What? I'm only giving you the same respect that you have given my ideas in the past. Treating me like some dumb animal because I didn't think as you do. Well, I'm not gonna throw you any sticks or bones, so tough luck.

magically

magic

magical

Notice that you pretend toward science, but have a superstitious and nonsensical idea that looks at things you don't understand as magic. Even though I have explained the simple reality of buoyancy over and over again, you prefer the notion that objects hanging upside down on a spinning globe is rational, while people standing upright on a plateau-like disc somehow is worthy of being called magic. This is why I have taken to treating you like a child, and now like a rough beast. Because like a trained animal, you will always do what your overlords tell you.

No, I don't have to answer your questions, but you will sit, beg, and roll over when your betters tell you to.

Your globalist masters are themselves mere dogs in rebellion with God. Their days are numbered.

Hmmm, you're right. Treating you like a child is probably wrong.

You are projecting and trying to run from the subjects you stated.

 If the Flat Earthers were allowed to fly without restriction over Antarctica,

Oops.  Two or three flat earther’s just live streamed from Antarctica in the final experiment.  Gotcha there.  And documented a 24 hour Antarctic summer sun. 


Anyway.  Back to gravity.

What is the downward force that keeps me from lifting a 50 lbs dumbbell straight out arms length shoulder high.





Even if I move it upwards a bit to make it a “live load / weight”.  Added.  As in upward momentum. 


If there is no downward force.  Why do objects of mass exert a downward we call weight.

If there is no downward force but density, why does my arm fail and the straight (force) at my shoulder increase if I try to take a 50 lbs weight I can lift straight out at shoulder hight.