Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

But when we do (as in a helium balloon),

What force is forcing the molecules of the atmosphere to bunch up at the earth’s surface to overcome their tendency to space out evenly and equalise with the lower pressure and density of the upper atmosphere, providing the ability to squeeze a helium balloon up.  Where if you take something like a balloon filled with hydrogen, it rises until its density is equal to the density of the atmosphere around it? 

The water balloons filled with helium fell when enough atmosphere was evacuated.  Not all the atmosphere was removed.

What force keeps the higher pressure and density of the lower atmosphere equalising with the lower pressure and lower density of the upper atmosphere.

What force keeps the density and pressure of the lower atmosphere great enough to squeeze up helium balloons?  Where gas molecules and gas atoms want to equal distance themselves to the lease density they can achieve dictated by the container they are in?  Where in the flat earth delusion, the earth is a container with no gravity. 

Wow, gosh, you really showed me!

Oh wait, no, I've showed you this very video.

And you know why? Because it is more damning to the theory of gravity than to the FE model.

Which is more dense? Air or water? Now which is more dense? Air or a vacuum?
A balloon filled with helium is less dense than air. It is less dense than water. It is less dense than you, having been explained this before. But it is more dense than a vacuum, is it not?

So you should naturally expect the balloon not to float. And it doesn't disappoint.

All of the air? No, that's not necessary. Only enough air that it is more dense and has no real surface to float upon.

You're using some kind of fallacy where if I said all air was removed, and it wasn't 100% air, that must make me wrong. Sorry, but the position is unchanged. Whether it's 100% vacuum or only 80% vacuum, the balloon is more dense than its lack of air. Once air is added back in, it will float again, assuming it didn't start to leak in the mean time.

Which is more dense? Air

The point is.  Why does air just above earth’s surface have “density” like it’s restrained by a force or in a tank.  What keeps the air molecules bunched up at the earth’s surface.  What keeps them from equalising with less pressure and density above.  When air molecules want to spread out. 


You didn’t address this either.

Why does a bottle with a mixture of breathing air that contains oxygen and helium not separate out by density. 




 

A balloon filled with helium is less dense than air.

This vacuum chamber isn’t completely evacuated of “air”. 




Yet the balloon sinks. 

Where the same balloons would rise into an atmosphere with less and less density until the less dense atmosphere above is about equal with the density of the balloon.  Then the balloon wouldn’t rise anymore.


So.  Why does the atmosphere lessen in density with altitude. Where in your flat earth delusion of no gravity and the atmosphere contained, the gases should act like a breathing air bottle of oxygen and helium and not layer/ separate out. 

Sorry, but the position is unchanged.

Which has nothing to do with observable reality.

Once air is added back in

From you having no explanation why higher pressure and density of earth’s lower atmosphere doesn’t equalise with the less dense and less pressure of the atmosphere above.  To why a bottle with a breathing air mix of oxygen and helium doesn’t separate / layer out by density.  To why I can lift a 50 lbs weight above my head, but can’t take the same 50 lbs weight and hold it straight out at shoulder height. 

Gravity is a very real thing.  Where it reliably and accurately predicts the strain at my shoulder lifting weights.




Where you offer nothing in the way of an accurate and reliable model. 

I tell them they're trying to shoehorn gravity in.

And you are then asked to provide an explanation which doesn't use gravity but still addresses the key points like the pressure gradient, you just flee.
Gravity is the only answer which actually works.

I had a shaky science idea that water had some properties that caused buoyancy.

You mean you fundamentally failed to understand the model, so you decided to reject it rather than try to understand.

They aren't some magical properties of water.
It is common for ALL fluids, including air.
And do you know what that "property" is? The way pressure operates in a fluid.

That if you were to push down on the top of a region of fluid, it doesn't just sit there and get compressed, instead it moves outwards as well.
And if it is confined into a container so it can't, then that pressure isn't just transferred downwards, but also to the sides.
And this goes in all directions.
So if you consider a tiny bit of the fluid, the pressure is the same in all directions.

And this is not just water, it is all fluids.

There is no distinct system, just floating and sinking. That is how I know it's mutually exclusive.

Except it doesn't at all.
Again, gravity explains buoyancy. So it is not mutually exclusive.
So you don't know that at all. You are just spouting dishonest delusional crap.

And you know why? Because it is more damning to the theory of gravity than to the FE model.

Not at all. It is entirely consistent with gravity.
Meanwhile, your BS continues to not 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 and we know it CAN'T be just buoyancy.

Again, gravity provides a coherent explanation, your BS does not.

And if you just want to focus on one part of that, focus on the pressure gradient.
Because that is what really kills your delusional BS.

The interesting thing about round Earthers is they are never able to admit that personal limitation might be a factor.

The boat needs to make an arc to hit that far off battleship? No, it certainly couldn't be that our ballistics are only 20th century and not 30th century. It must be gravity or the curvature or literally anything besides crappy propulsion. That would force us to admit that maybe instead of tax money being used for better weapons, they just phoned it in and pocketed the weapons research money.  You can't admit that!

Or your arm failing to hold 50 lb weight? Well, it certainly can't be that you overextended your arm, and it can't be that you're out of shape. It's gotta be gravity pulling you down!

Quote from: markjo on January 30, 2025, 02:05:54 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 30, 2025, 09:50:23 AM

Well, if you ask someone like me who believes in buoyancy not gravity...

What if we ask those who do not  believe that buoyancy and gravity are mutually exclusive?  Both exist and both work just fine as defined by the simple physics that you can't quite seem to grasp.

I tell them they're trying to shoehorn gravity in.

And they would tell you that gravity is a vital element of buoyancy.

I used to believe there was gravity and buoyancy. I had a shaky science idea that water had some properties that caused buoyancy. But then i realized that if you switched them up (such as visualizing water as really dense air rather than a different substance), the only reason we don't see more things float on air is that is very much lacks alot of density. But when we do (as in a helium balloon), it tends to match exactly the sort of floating that happens on water. There is no distinct system, just floating and sinking. That is how I know it's mutually exclusive.

Undoubtedly, the relative densities of the object and the medium are important to buoyancy, but without gravity, there is no reason for the object to fall through the medium.  Just watch what happens when you have liquids of different densities in a zero gravity environment.

And they could say that all day and all night, and it wouldn't be any more right than when we started.

If your scientific model is that the moon is made of cheese, it quite literally doesn't matter that you have Nat Geo magazines about it. Or very important people confirming this theory. Or a scientific formula stating it's the cheesiest. Or macaroni made from moon soil samples.

Once again, none of that crap makes a difference in the basic state of something being true or not.

So, the thing is, "gravity" is unnecessary and redundant. It does not affect buoyancy. It's not an "opposing force" to buoyancy.

Buoyancy makes things float AND it makes things sink. Because the real fundamental forces are:

• electromagnetism
• strong interaction (essentially, nuclear cohesion)
• weak interaction (mainly responsible for radioactive decay)
• adhesion/cohesion (responsible for different atoms combining into molecules, and other atoms staying separate by combining with themselves)
• diffusion and buoyancy (greater density to lesser density as in salt water filtering to freshwater, or lesser density to greater density as in a less dense beach ball floating to a more dense beach ball)

Because diffusion is more about sifting two compositions, buoyancy and diffusion are not necessarily opposing forces even though their behavior is practically opposite. While freshwater and saltwater mix, the beach ball can still float on top of the water. Buoyancy always involves lesser density to greater density, so if the ball is more dense, it displaces water and sinks; if the water is more dense the ball floats. Nothing about this behavior changed, nothing required a shoehorned-in force.

Were there no electromagnetism, neither electricity, no light, nor magnetic force would work.
If there were no strong interaction, atoms would not force from their constituents, and we'd have no real matter.
Weak attraction is probably necessary for energetic reactions and entropy.
If there were no adhesion and cohesion, there would be no molecules.
Were there no diffusion, matter would be unable to mix. And buoyancy is responsible for the way matter layers vertically (you wouldn't have a proper sky without it).
All of these are fundamental.

What does gravity do? Well, supposedly on Earth, it's responsible for objects falling toward the center of Earth or "down". In space, supposedly instead of making Earth fall into the sun, Newton dramatically changes this to making things spin. Sounds pretty inconsistent to me. Not to mention, we haven't any proof of this beyond NASA videos of "space." Whereas with no doctoring , you can readily see objects float and sink, you can see examples of electromagnetism, you can see sugar or salt filter around in water, you can notice chemicals combining and atoms staying firmly together, and you can notice fallout.

Once again, gravity is something people claim happens when objects float or sink. It's not real.

But here, have some cheese from the moon!

Once again, gravity is something people claim happens when objects float or sink. It's not real.

Your incoherently babbling again.  Your bad as Turbs trying to change the subject and push what you can’t refute/ explain into the background with long meaningless posts.

Means you lost the argument. 

Let’s focus on these three little things your delusion can’t explain.


The point is.  Why does air just above earth’s surface have “density” like it’s restrained by a force or in a tank.  What keeps the air molecules bunched up at the earth’s surface.  What keeps them from equalising with less pressure and density above.  When air molecules want to spread out.


You didn’t address this either.

Why does a bottle with a mixture of breathing air that contains oxygen and helium not separate out by density.

Why can I push a car in neutral all day long on a nice flat garage floor, but can’t push the same car with the mechanical advantage of wheels up a hill. 

Once again, none of that crap makes a difference l

Actually.  It does make a difference.  You’re like a person trying to push a square peg through a smaller round hole.

You ignore why things suck for you personally is because you try to treat the earth as flat when it’s actually spherical or a globe. 

Again.  Why an equatorial telescope mount is ideal for our globe.  And why it’s important to amateur and pro astronomers.  And why it disproves flat earth.  Ties into the position of Polaris, and why it’s a reliable navigation tool when you understand the earth is a globe.  To why Polaris is physically blocked from view when far enough south of the equator.  To why there is a 24 hour sun at Antarctica in its summer. 









bulmabriefs144.  Yeah.  Life is going to be stupid tough for you if you don’t understand the world is demonstrably spherical, and equipment achieves its most particle design when it’s designed to take advantage that the earth is spherical.

That diagram for Polaris fails pretty horribly and you don't even understand why.

I'll help you out.

Acquire one friend, one beach ball, one softball, (at least) one Lego person, a marker, and I think a protractor and ruler. Actually, acquire a second friend.

Using the marker, draw the required lines of latitude and longitude on the beach ball. To make your model accurate to your RE, the lines should join in a dot at North and South Poles.

First, the still model. Have a friend hold the softball over the North Pole (if you want this model perfectly accurate have a third friend hold the beach ball in midair, while you put four softballs underneath the beach ball). Then put one or more Lego ppl on the beach ball. The first thing you should notice is that they will slide off, invalidating the model. But don't let THAT stop you!
Next, using the protractor, tilt the Lego men so they all look sloped in a very unnatural and uncomfortable position so they look straight up like that model shows. The next thing that invalidates your model is these are people standing perfectly upright but you need them awkwardly tilted to view straight up. The third thing you should notice, if you were capable of noticing anything, is that even if they view straight up, that's not where Polaris is, it's overhead from the center. We have it as a softball (to represent the distant nature of this star), but the angle is simply wrong. It's above the North Pole, but they have everyone facing upward, not at the North Pole.
But we have to orbit and rotate too! So now our third person moves the beach ball. The Lego people fall off (invalidating the model), the softball doesn't keep up (invalidating the model), and finally the first and second friend trip over each other trying to get the model to work.

Next, put the Lego people on a round table, that you've drawn circular lines of latitude and straight lines of longitude on (it should look like a dart board).

The second friend can go play games. The first friend can tie the softball to a string, then sit with the second friend. Then you check for the proper height and distance for the angles to each be right with ruler and protractor. Unless you want to spin the sun around the table, you can join your friends in some three person game. I recommend Secret of Mana.

Order a pizza. It's flat, and will help you adjust to your new reality.

That diagram for Polaris fails pretty horribly and you don't even understand why.

You are either too brainwash or to dishonest to understand the significance of an equatorial mount for a telescope or camera.  And how aligning the mount to parallel to the celestial North Pole eliminates star trails. 

I suggest you actually watch this video.



And understand why it accurately and predictably works because the earth is spherical. 

One.  It turns the camera at 15 degrees an hour.  It’s the right speed to prevent star trails while doing long exposures of the night sky. 

(By the way.  What is the drift per hour of a laser ring gyroscope for most places on earth.  15 degrees an hour.  Funny.  Huh.  )

Two.  There is a switch to control which way the mount turns for what hemisphere you are in.  The southern hemisphere or the northern hemisphere.



That change in direction would not be necessary for a FE.  And the equatorial mount would be useless in the southern hemisphere for a FE.

Three.  To position the mount parallel to the norther celestial pole ( setting parallel to the polar axis results in being parallel to earth’s rotation)  for the norther hemisphere you must change the mount angle with this positioner to your latitude.



So.  To point parallel to the north celestial pole at the latitude of 45 degrees in the northern hemisphere.  You must set the indicator to 45 degrees.  It results in the right angle.  Notice the positioner scale is on a curve.  Funny, huh.



At the equator, you set the angle to 0.  This will point the mount parallel to the celestial North Pole. 









Note.  Because the Polars is not perfectly at the north celestial pole.  You must look at the offset for your latitude in the northern hemisphere. 

Final.  At the equator.  You can also point the mount south with the zero degree setting.  Use the north / south switch to get the correct direction of rotation.  The mount will turn in the correct direction, at the correct speed pointed south to eliminate star trails.  If you think the southern celestial pole was a celestial gear, the mount wouldn’t work to eliminate star trails.  South as indicated by the southern cross constellation would be meaningless. 

Using the marker,

Which is nothing about what I posted.

You have no explanation why a mount based on spherical geometry is useful and accurate to pro and amateurs astronomers.  You have no design based off plane geometry that would achieve the same accuracy as an equatorial mount for astronomy and long exposures of the night sky.



Which pairs perfect with celestial navigation.

7 Ways Flat Earth Conspiracy Will Make You Look Silly

https://newcreeations.org/flat-earth-theory/


The only way the math required for accurate celestial navigation positions works out the way we calculate it is because the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat like some believe, celestial navigation would be based on plane trigonometry instead of spherical trigonometry. And if that were the case, I would be explaining to you that the earth must be flat. But it’s not. It’s a sphere.

Math does not lie. Nor does it have an agenda.

Therefore, the fact that the spherical trigonometry based math required for celestial navigation produces accurate determinations of one’s position on the earth is definitive proof that the earth is spherical.

Celestial navigation truly makes proponents of the flat earth model look silly.

Funny.  I don’t have to change the subject.  Equatorial mounts and why they are accurate perfectly demonstrates the earth is a globe. 

The interesting thing about round Earthers is they are never able to admit that personal limitation might be a factor.

Projection much?

The boat needs to make an arc to hit that far off battleship? No, it certainly couldn't be that our ballistics are only 20th century and not 30th century.

And the question is what is that limitation?
What causes it?
Without gravity or some downwards force acting on it, it travels in a straight line until it hits its target.
No need to arc at all.

Better propulsion means it will go faster, and a better designed projectile can mean it slows down less due to drag; but without a downwards force why shouldn't it go in a straight line?

Or your arm failing to hold 50 lb weight? Well, it certainly can't be that you overextended your arm, and it can't be that you're out of shape. It's gotta be gravity pulling you down!

Again, it is a question of what is trying to make it go down?
Why should it matter if the weight is held close to the body or far away?
Without a downwards force acting on it, there is no reason for it to go down.

Once again, none of that crap makes a difference in the basic state of something being true or not.

Likewise, no matter how much crap you spout, it wont make your dishonest, delusional BS true.

So, the thing is, "gravity" is unnecessary and redundant.

Yet you are unable to produce a viable alternative.
Your garbage is still DOA because of such trivial fundamental flaws you continue to flee from.

Meanwhile, gravity works with you unable to show a fault.

Buoyancy makes things float AND it makes things sink. Because the real fundamental forces are:

• electromagnetism
• strong interaction (essentially, nuclear cohesion)
• weak interaction (mainly responsible for radioactive decay)
• adhesion/cohesion (responsible for different atoms combining into molecules, and other atoms staying separate by combining with themselves)
• diffusion and buoyancy (greater density to lesser density as in salt water filtering to freshwater, or lesser density to greater density as in a less dense beach ball floating to a more dense beach ball)

Pure BS.
You started off well with the first 2, but then just completely failed.
Adhesion/cohesion are primarily electromagnetism.
Substances hold themselves together based upon interactions between the positively charged nucleus and the negatively charged electrons.
This applies directly in molecules such as water, as well as between molecules such as with dipole-dipole interactions and van der Waals interactions.
It is NOT a fundamental force. It is a manifestation of a fundamental force.
Diffusion is not a force at all.
Instead it is the property of a substance to spread out.

And buoyancy is not a fundamental force as repeatedly demonstrated by its complete inability to explain reality without a more fundamental force creating it.
Gravity is the fundamental force, with buoyancy a result of gravity.

What does gravity do? Well, supposedly on Earth, it's responsible for objects falling toward the center of Earth or "down". In space, supposedly instead of making Earth fall into the sun, Newton dramatically changes this to making things spin. Sounds pretty inconsistent to me.

It sounds inconsistent to you because you are refusing to understand.
As you said above, it is a personal limitation of you.
Try understanding it honestly.
At a simple level of understanding, gravity is a force of attraction between masses.
On Earth we easily see this as Earth and objects on Earth are attracted to each other and move towards each other, but because of the massive size of Earth compared to these objects, the acceleration of Earth is insignificant, so it can be further approximated as a downwards force.
We also see this in projectiles as they fly following a roughly parabolic trajectory.
But if they are moving fast enough, to be able to go far enough, the curvature of Earth starts to become significant and they can start following elliptical paths, eventually being able to circle the entire planet.
When you go into space, and start dealing with it at that level, you really need to consider the speed because these objects are typically moving quite fast.
It isn't that it makes objects spin, it makes them orbit, continually accelerating towards each other, yet their speed prevents them from colliding.

And this is entirely consistent, just like if you were talking about a string.
If you have an object on a string just dangling there, the string is holding it up, applying an upwards force.
But if you hold one end of the string and spin it really fast, the majority of the force is then inwards towards your hand, with this same string now causing the object to move around in a circle or orbit.

Not to mention, we haven't any proof of this beyond NASA videos of "space."

There are mountains of evidence if you honestly look.
Including things like the Cavendish experiment you refuse to try, content playing with your tiny balls instead.

Whereas with no doctoring , you can readily see objects float and sink

Likewise, you can measure the pressure gradient and calculate the force on an object, and see that that force accounts for the floating and rising, and all you are left with with your BS magical buoyancy is a downwards force proportional to mass.

Once again, gravity is something people claim happens when objects float or sink.

And something with mountains of evidence supporting it, with you unable to show a single fault, and unable to show a viable alternative.

Meanwhile your delusional BS is refuted by simple questions you continually flee from.

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 and we know it CAN'T be just buoyancy.

Again, gravity provides a coherent explanation, your BS does not.

And if you just want to focus on one part of that, focus on the pressure gradient.
Because that is what really kills your delusional BS.

The first thing you should notice is that they will slide off, invalidating the model. But don't let THAT stop you!

If you want that to be part of your model, you need to do it in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
Once again, Earth is not a tiny ball being held close to a much larger ball.

Next, using the protractor, tilt the Lego men so they all look sloped in a very unnatural and uncomfortable position

Again, just your strawman. In the model, they look fine.

is that even if they view straight up, that's not where Polaris is

And no one said it was. That is kind of the point. Polaris is not directly overhead.
Instead, it is at an angle of elevation equal to your latitude.
Or is this just you yet again using your dishonest BS FE idea of "up" rather than reality?

but the angle is simply wrong. It's above the North Pole, but they have everyone facing upward, not at the North Pole.

It isn't simply directly above the north pole.
Instead it is approximately "above" the north pole at a distance of over 400 light years.
If you want to scale that down to the ball having a radius of 1 mm, that distance would be 593 941 km away.

The change in angle because of that is entirely insignificant.
It would be a staggering 0.0000000001 degrees.
Can you see that on that picture?

So no problem with the RE model shown at all.

invalidating the model

No, invalidating your strawman.

And notice what you entirely failed to do? In any way defend your FE garbage.
Instead you just make the same pathetic lies about the RE.

Then you check for the proper height and distance for the angles to each be right with ruler and protractor.

And you find there is no way to make it work at all.
We place someone at 45 degrees north, and then place the ball to represent Polaris at a height equal to their distance from the north pole.
Then we observe that the person at the equator still sees the ball well above your dart board, and the people south of it still see it.
Your model doesn't work.

And because you did the simple of using a dartboard, all the Lego people fell off it.

But hey, at least this time it wasn't you fleeing from the topic. Instead it was Data.
But I assume you will use it as an excuse to leave your failed buoyancy BS in the dust and just focus on this?

But hey, at least this time it wasn't you fleeing from the topic. Instead it was Data.

This post was before I ever started back on equatorial mounts..

And they could say that all day and all night, and it wouldn't be any more right than when we started.

If your scientific model is that the moon is made of cheese, it quite literally doesn't matter that you have Nat Geo magazines about it. Or very important people confirming this theory. Or a scientific formula stating it's the cheesiest. Or macaroni made from moon soil samples.

Once again, none of that crap makes a difference in the basic state of something being true or not.

So, the thing is, "gravity" is unnecessary and redundant. It does not affect buoyancy. It's not an "opposing force" to buoyancy.

Buoyancy makes things float AND it makes things sink. Because the real fundamental forces are:

• electromagnetism
• strong interaction (essentially, nuclear cohesion)
• weak interaction (mainly responsible for radioactive decay)
• adhesion/cohesion (responsible for different atoms combining into molecules, and other atoms staying separate by combining with themselves)
• diffusion and buoyancy (greater density to lesser density as in salt water filtering to freshwater, or lesser density to greater density as in a less dense beach ball floating to a more dense beach ball)

Because diffusion is more about sifting two compositions, buoyancy and diffusion are not necessarily opposing forces even though their behavior is practically opposite. While freshwater and saltwater mix, the beach ball can still float on top of the water. Buoyancy always involves lesser density to greater density, so if the ball is more dense, it displaces water and sinks; if the water is more dense the ball floats. Nothing about this behavior changed, nothing required a shoehorned-in force.

Were there no electromagnetism, neither electricity, no light, nor magnetic force would work.
If there were no strong interaction, atoms would not force from their constituents, and we'd have no real matter.
Weak attraction is probably necessary for energetic reactions and entropy.
If there were no adhesion and cohesion, there would be no molecules.
Were there no diffusion, matter would be unable to mix. And buoyancy is responsible for the way matter layers vertically (you wouldn't have a proper sky without it).
All of these are fundamental.

What does gravity do? Well, supposedly on Earth, it's responsible for objects falling toward the center of Earth or "down". In space, supposedly instead of making Earth fall into the sun, Newton dramatically changes this to making things spin. Sounds pretty inconsistent to me. Not to mention, we haven't any proof of this beyond NASA videos of "space." Whereas with no doctoring , you can readily see objects float and sink, you can see examples of electromagnetism, you can see sugar or salt filter around in water, you can notice chemicals combining and atoms staying firmly together, and you can notice fallout.

Once again, gravity is something people claim happens when objects float or sink. It's not real.

But here, have some cheese from the moon!

I had nothing to do with the topic changing post above. 

Bulma with that post already stated ignoring several of my points concerning gravity. 


I’m not the one that faltered into posting and entertaining many items of Bulma’s incoherent babbling.  Was I. 

Once again, none of that crap makes a difference

So.  To that point I brought up equatorial mounts. 


It’s the same result for Bulma. Incoherent babbling.

But hey, at least this time it wasn't you fleeing from the topic. Instead it was Data.

I have never been the deciding factor for Bulma ignoring things to answer, or when they interject their BS cometary not FE related.  Or just right out lies concerning science. 

I’m more than happy to ask again what Bulma will not answer.

Just let me know what you want me to ask again that Bulma will not answer anyway. 

Which is more dense? Air

Bulma.  You ever going to address the below? 


Why does a bottle with a mixture of breathing air that contains oxygen and helium not separate out by density. 

I do so dread that I derailed the thread titled “Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense” from the off topic subject of gravity. Where I wasn’t even part of the thread on perspective changing to gravity. 

Soo.  Here you go.

Gravitropism (also known as geotropism) is a coordinated process of differential growth by a plant in response to gravity pulling on it. It also occurs in fungi. Gravity can be either "artificial gravity"[clarification needed] or natural gravity. It is a general feature of all higher and many lower plants as well as other organisms. Charles Darwin was one of the first to scientifically document that roots show positive gravitropism and stems show negative gravitropism.[1] That is, roots grow in the direction of gravitational pull (i.e., downward) and stems grow in the opposite direction (i.e., upwards). This behavior can be easily demonstrated with any potted plant. When laid onto its side,




In the process of plant roots growing in the direction of gravity by gravitropism, high concentrations of auxin move towards the cells on the bottom side of the root. This suppresses growth on this side, while allowing cell elongation on the top of the root. As a consequence of this, curved growth occurs and the root is directed downwards.[3]

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

Back to the same old question.  Why down.  In this case, why a plant turned on its side has the roots start bending with growth to point down? 

And they could say that all day and all night, and it wouldn't be any more right than when we started.

Funny, we can say the same thing about your version of buoyancy.

If your scientific model is that the moon is made of cheese...

It isn't, but thanks for the irrelevant tangent,

Once again, none of that crap makes a difference in the basic state of something being true or not.

Who is the arbiter of what is true or not?  What qualifies you to decide that gravity is not true?

So, the thing is, "gravity" is unnecessary and redundant. It does not affect buoyancy. It's not an "opposing force" to buoyancy.

Gravity is what tells buoyancy which way is up or down.  I'm sorry if you feel that's redundant, but density doesn't know or care about up and down.

Buoyancy makes things float AND it makes things sink. Because the real fundamental forces are:

• electromagnetism
• strong interaction (essentially, nuclear cohesion)
• weak interaction (mainly responsible for radioactive decay)
• adhesion/cohesion (responsible for different atoms combining into molecules, and other atoms staying separate by combining with themselves)
• diffusion and buoyancy (greater density to lesser density as in salt water filtering to freshwater, or lesser density to greater density as in a less dense beach ball floating to a more dense beach ball)

Better publish that in a respected science journal.  A Nobel prize for proving all of physics wrong will surely be in the mail soon.

Because diffusion is more about sifting two compositions...

No, diffusion is more about particles going from a higher concentration to a lower concentration.

...buoyancy and diffusion are not necessarily opposing forces even though their behavior is practically opposite.

Diffusion isn't a force at all.

While freshwater and saltwater mix, the beach ball can still float on top of the water. Buoyancy always involves lesser density to greater density, so if the ball is more dense, it displaces water and sinks; if the water is more dense the ball floats. Nothing about this behavior changed, nothing required a shoehorned-in force.

As I already said, density doesn't know or care about up or down.  That's why you need gravity, to tell density which way is up or down.

If there were no adhesion and cohesion, there would be no molecules.

Molecules are formed by ionic and covalent bonds.

What does gravity do? Well, supposedly on Earth, it's responsible for objects falling toward the center of Earth or "down". In space, supposedly instead of making Earth fall into the sun, Newton dramatically changes this to making things spin.

Spin has nothing to do with orbits.  Gravity is, however, vital to making orbits work.

Sounds pretty inconsistent to me.

That's because you have no idea of what you're talking about.  You really should quit while you're behind.

Not to mention, we haven't any proof of this beyond NASA videos of "space."

What about the private citizens who have been to "space" on SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin space flights?

Whereas with no doctoring , you can readily see objects float and sink, you can see examples of electromagnetism, you can see sugar or salt filter around in water, you can notice chemicals combining and atoms staying firmly together, and you can notice fallout.

You've seen atoms?  Cool beans.  I'm impressed.

Once again, gravity is something people claim happens when objects float or sink. It's not real.

You keep saying that, but that doesn't mean that you're right.

I had nothing to do with the topic changing post above.

You mean that post which was still focusing on gravity and had nothing at all to do with Polaris or equatorial mounts?

So.  To that point I brought up equatorial mounts.

i.e. you changed the topic.

It’s the same result for Bulma. Incoherent babbling.

Then don't bother responding, because you aren't adding anything useful.

Remember, his game is repeatedly changing topic when refuted.
If you give him that opportunity he will happily take it, only to come back and repeat the same refuted BS again.

You mean that post

So.  Now I’m the topic of the thread titled, “Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense.”?  In a thread that was derailed to the off topic of gravity without me.

Your fucked in the head Jack.  Threads get derailed just fine without me. 

Then don't bother responding,

But somehow you now have derailed the thread to me.  I’m flattered, but I don’t date crazy.  I hope you and Bulma relieve that sexual tension between you two. 

But somehow you now have derailed the thread to me.  I’m flattered, but I don’t date crazy.  I hope you and Bulma relieve that sexual tension between you two.

Sorry, but I'm already considered crazy. I'd only date someone who could support me. Or who has ideals that I really admire so we could be poor together.

Basically either a lawyer type or Jesus (who strictly speaking, is an Advocate), so you have to look like this.


Okay so. Since neither you nor Jack gave me a true topic to respond to ( "A house divided cannot stand..." ) let's see what markjo has to say.

Who is the arbiter of what is true or not?  What qualifies you to decide that gravity is not true?

Let's put it this way. Is some guy with a stuffy outfit from overseas in a stereotypical scientist outfit more right? No, take away all of that, and we have a con artist in a costume.
What qualifies me to make that decision is that each of us are arbiters of our own opinions. Meaning, yes, you can very well believe what you want. But I'll thank you you to extend the same right to me. As a person, I get to decide what I believe in, and what I defend. If I let someone else talk me out of what I believe, you have stolen from me. Ideas are property.

Buoyancy doesn't need such a reminder. The theory of gravity is patently absurd. Basically, under a round Earth, if not for a core and kinda lava along the way, you could dig towards China. But there's a problem with this idea. You see, with central gravity, you'd be stuck at the center. Or are we to believe in the Patema Inverted model where people from the topside fall up?



I don't need a Nobel prize.

No, diffusion is more about particles going from a higher concentration to a lower concentration.

Which I said.

diffusion and buoyancy (greater density to lesser density as in salt water filtering to freshwater

But diffusion dictates that if I have two salt concentrations of water, they sift back and forth until equal concentration.

Diffusion isn't a force at all.

And yet this non-force can be observed by something as simple as stirring cocoa into milk. Gravity can only be observed by pretending buoyancy is gravity.

As I already said, density doesn't know or care about up or down.  That's why you need gravity, to tell density which way is up or down.

You sound like a cultist. "That's why you need Ungorr the Untamed, for he will do your bench presses for you." Sorry dude. Ungorr isn't gonna cut it for me, don't need him. Neither does any object need a secondary force when buoyancy is already a force. Density isn't acting on anything, it's just how heavy something is and how wide.

Your idea of gravity depends on a presupposition that weight is external. Have you noticed this? You need an external force to govern what is actually internal reality. The penny is 7.15 grams per cubic centimeter. I'm not using a force of density, so I don't need a force of gravity either. It simply is that heavy per that size.

Molecules are formed by ionic and covalent bonds.

Which bond together by forces of adhesion and cohesion. Or are you going to say those aren't forces.

Spin has nothing to do with orbits.  Gravity is, however, vital to making orbits work.

Spin, orbit, whatever. If I run around a table, you'll probably say I only spin if I rotate. But I'm talking here about the process of moving in a circle. That rotation is also part of this is secondary.

What about the private citizens who have been to "space" on SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin space flights?

So now you believe in Elon Musk?

Why did the Challenger blow up? It's because they realized that "private citizens" wouldn't believably be able to buy this trip. Btw, these people later appeared with different hair as astronauts, they were never in the shuttle. Btw, the Challenger blowing up is wizards passing notes (what we call a coincidence set up deliberately to point out information), as a ship called the Challenger sunk. Why did it sink? Well it was trying to navigate along the southern hemisphere and it found itself where the maps (based on round Earth model) couldn't account for; they blamed this on tides. Anyway, space ships. We put a hold for years on private shuttles, and meanwhile work on VR and AR, and on Hollywood recreation of space. Almost like we're trying to make a lifelike screen so people think they've gone to space and not a few thousand feet...

Don't take those glasses off! The green will be too much for your eyes!

Of course, if you did, even once, you would figure out that things are not real.

You've seen atoms?  Cool beans.  I'm impressed.

No, but I can see atoms stuck together, as in...

Pure silver.

It doesn't mean I'm right? But how are you arbiter of what is right? Unless I am right that each of us gets to arbitrate that for ourselves.

Buoyancy doesn't need such a reminder.

You ever going to address this?

Why does a bottle with a mixture of breathing air that contains oxygen and helium not separate out by density.

Your idea of gravity depends on a presupposition that weight is external.

That’s because the weight of an object is based on the acceleration of gravity.

Added. Funny. If you place an object in a chamber and evacuate the air out.  The object weight increases from the loss of the buoyant atmosphere.  What causes weight in your delusion.  Why down. 

Again..

Why can I push a car in neutral all day long on a nice flat garage floor, but can’t push the same car with the mechanical advantage of wheels up a hill.

How does the lower density and pressure of the upper atmosphere keep the higher pressure and higher density of the lower atmosphere bottled up and from equalising. 


What keeps air molecules and atoms bunched up at the earth’s surface when they want to equal distance themselves into lower pressure and density. 

 The penny is 7.15 grams per cubic centimeter.

Now accelerate the mass of that penny without unbalanced forces. 

Why does a penny thrown straight up slow down faster than is accounted for by air resistance.  What force causes the penny to change direction of travel 180 degrees to fall down.  What force causes the penny to accelerate down.

You want a pressure gradient?

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

And the liquids mix instead of separating out by density?

Then why do these liquids mix?

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'



What’s your expectation why the liquids mix?


Why do a feather and bowling ball drop at the same rate when air resistance is made negligible.

Density isn’t a force.  What drives liquids to form a pressure gradient and separate out by density.

Which is more dense? Air or water?

If it’s just density, then water should always pour out of a container with unplugged holes in it?

I think this has been posted repeatedly.

Let me know if the gif doesn’t play.


The water’s density didn’t change.  The water is still more dense than the air it is spilling into.  Why did the more dense water stop pouring out of the holes on the sides of the bottle near its bottom? 

Your fucked in the head Jack.  Threads get derailed just fine without me.

Which doesn't change the fact that you are directly contributing to it.
So no, I'm not the one fucked in the head.

I made a passing comment on how the topic was changed yet again but this time it wasn't Bulma, and you decided to latch on and attack.
Upset that you were so mildly called out on your BS?