Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

Which doesn't change the fact that you are directly contributing to it.

So you’re changing the topic back to me in a thread off topic anyway?

How many threads do you personally keep on life support?  And how many of those threads have been repeatedly derailed. I would guess you are the most prolific poster on many threads.  I’m not the most common denominator concerning threads that get derailed.

Your fucked in the head Jack-O.

But keep posting about me to prove your hypocrisy. 


Note.  Changed word to derailed. 

Well.  To get back on track to the off topic of gravity in a thread about Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense.

 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? 

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.

Lying again I see.
I did provide one, and like usual you entirely ignored it because it so easily destroys your BS.

What qualifies me to make that decision is that each of us are arbiters of our own opinions.

Opinions. Not facts.
That means you don't get to decide that gravity is not real.
As that would be a statement of fact.
Likewise you don't get to decide that your delusional buoyancy BS is true, because that would also be a fact.

Instead, you get to have the opinion that you don't like gravity and prefer your BS.

If I let someone else talk me out of what I believe, you have stolen from me. Ideas are property.

The sheer of delusional and cult like behaviour here.

You are suggesting if someone talks you out of believing pure BS they have stolen from you.

Buoyancy doesn't need such a reminder. The theory of gravity is patently absurd.

Then why is it that it is trivial to show that your buoyancy BS doesn't work, while you are unable to show a single fault for gravity.

But there's a problem with this idea. You see, with central gravity, you'd be stuck at the center.

Why would that be a problem?
If you just dig a large hole and sit there, you would be stuck at the bottom of the hole.

How is it any different?

I don't need a Nobel prize.

And you have done nothing worthy of one.
There are no Nobel prizes for pure BS.

Which I said.

Which is not a force.

And yet this non-force can be observed

Yes, this non-force, which is driven by actual forces (the interaction between particles) and motion/time can be observed.
Also, if you want to pretend it is a force, it is probably best to NOT stir.

Gravity can only be observed

In countless ways, including by observing things fall (which we know is NOT buoyancy), the Cavendish experiment and experiments like it, objects orbiting and so on.

You sound like a cultist.

No, that would be you.
Acting like density should make things do down, even though you cannot justify it at all.

Neither does any object need a secondary force when buoyancy is already a force.

And upwards force, based upon the pressure gradient in the fluid.

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

It is based upon the fact that weight and mass are different.
This is a fact you can verify yourself by taking an object of a given mass around to different locations on Earth and measuring that the weight of the object has changed.

Which bond together by forces of adhesion and cohesion.

No, by electrostatic forces.

Again, adhesion and cohesion are NOT fundamental. They are a manifestation of electromagnetism.

But I'm talking here about the process of moving in a circle.

Then saying moving in a circle, or orbiting, not spinning.

And again, the reason why has been explained to you.

So now you believe in Elon Musk?

It is quite clear that he exists, and that he has a rocket that has been into space and another family of rockets which are quite good at blowing themselves up.

Why did the Challenger blow up?

Because of poor design choices.

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.

These problems wont just magically go away because you ignore them.

Quote

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, that would be the guy who has the math that provides quantifiable, testable and verifiable results.  That ain't you.

What qualifies me to make that decision is that each of us are arbiters of our own opinions.

You have the right to your own opinions, but you don't have the right to your own facts.  Gravity being fundamental part of buoyancy is a fact.

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.

If your belief is wrong and you're going to discuss in public, then expect people to disagree and try to change your mind,

Buoyancy doesn't need such a reminder.

It does.  It really, really does.

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.

There's another problem with that idea.  If you dig straight down from the northern hemisphere, you wind up in the southern hemisphere and, last time I checked, China isn't in the southern hemisphere.  But, given your premise, you might get stuck in the center where gravity cancels out, you just dig from the other end and meet in the middle, just like modern tunnel diggers do routinely.

Quote

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

Which I said.

Quote

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.

There is no "sifting back and forth" with diffusion.  It's just high concentration spreading out into the lower concentration until equilibrium is achieved.

Quote

Diffusion isn't a force at all.

And yet this non-force can be observed by something as simple as stirring cocoa into milk.

Sure, but that doesn't make it a force.

Gravity can only be observed by pretending buoyancy is gravity.

Can buoyancy be used to help find petroleum deep underground?
https://wiki.aapg.org/Gravity_in_petroleum_exploration

Quote

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.

When you say "heavy", you're referring to weight, which is a force that requires gravity.

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.

Are you under the impression that mass, density and weight are all the same?  They are related, but they are not the same.  Mass is how much of something there is.  Density is how much of something there is per unit of volume.  Weight is how heavy something is under the influence of gravity.  Perhaps you're confused by the fact that grams are used as units for both mass and weight, although people who know the difference can tell the difference by the context in which they are used.

Quote

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.

Adhesion and cohesion are intermolecular forces, not intramolecular forces.  Intramolecular forces are what bind atoms together to form molecules.  Intermolecular forces are what bind molecules together to form larger structures.
More about intra and inter molecular bonds here:
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/chemical-processes/covalent-bonds/a/intramolecular-and-intermolecular-forces

More about adhesion and cohesion here:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/chemistry-of-life/structure-of-water-and-hydrogen-bonding/a/cohesion-and-adhesion-in-water

Quote

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.

*sigh* Spinning and rotating are the same thing.

But I'm talking here about the process of moving in a circle. That rotation is also part of this is secondary.

Moving in a circle is revolving, not rotating or spinning.  Words.  Learn them.

Quote

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?

I believe that Elon Musk exists.  Why wouldn't I?

Why did the Challenger blow up?

Challenger blew up because they launched when the temperature was too cold for the O rings in the solid rocket boosters to properly contain the exhaust gasses.

It's because they realized that "private citizens" wouldn't believably be able to buy this trip.

NASA never intended to sell trips to private citizens, but SpaceX, RosCosmos, Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin have.  However, NASA did use the shuttles to sell commercial satellite launch services to a number of customers.

Quote

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

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

Pure silver.

How do you know that atoms even exist if you haven't seen them individually?

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.

I don't claim to be an arbiter of what is right or wrong.  I am simply trying to inform you of what has already been determined to be correct and incorrect by those who have done the appropriate research in the relevant fields.

How do you know that atoms even exist if you haven't seen them individually?

Well, atoms have properties. For example, sodium metal cuts like a chunk of cheese and reacts violently when tossed in water. We know that there is something distinct about sodium from chlorine, and from gold and silver. Even if atoms look nothing like depicted, we understand this much. Also, having taken chemistry, I seem to remember combining things. It might not be 100% true, but it's accurate.

Now you, how do you know that the Earth is round? It's locally flat everywhere on Earth. And it being round would require water to behave differently from how it is observed.
I visited Lake Okeechobee in Florida. We could not see the other side of the lake, as it was massive. Did I believe for a second that the lake curved? Don't be ridiculous. If that were so, it should spill out the sides.

Also, having taken chemistry, I seem to remember combining things. It might not be 100% true, but it's accurate.

Now try taking physics and applying the same to gravity.

Now you, how do you know that the Earth is round? It's locally flat everywhere on Earth. And it being round would require water to behave differently from how it is observed.
I visited Lake Okeechobee in Florida. We could not see the other side of the lake, as it was massive. Did I believe for a second that the lake curved? Don't be ridiculous. If that were so, it should spill out the sides.

From the mountains of evidence supporting it.
Including things like the perspective of the sun, observations of celestial objects and how these observations change (and importantly parts that remain the same) as you move around Earth.
Things like the horizon, including how it changes with altitude and how objects interact with it.

And then there is evidence of gravity, which would make it round.

No, it shouldn't spill out the sides, that is just your strawman.

 

It's locally flat everywhere on Earth

Not where I live.



Evidently there is curvature to the ocean and bodies of water.

Again..

Quote

Flat Earth horizon still wouldn't look flat!

Compression the photo makes it easier to see.

Quote

Or how about a laser test?

From this video…


Learned about this experiment using a laser tangent to the curved earth with a boat as a target on a lake 3 miles out.

Where Are We? Ch. 1 The Circumference of the Earth | Genius by Stephen Hawking

https://indiana.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/hawking_genius_ep06_clip01/where-are-we-ch-1-the-circumference-of-the-earth-genius-by-stephen-hawking/



In this clip from Genius by Stephen Hawking, learn how to calculate the circumference of the Earth. Three volunteers learn by measuring the flatness of the lake that they will be able to calculate the size and shape of the Earth. Using a powerful laser that projects a straight beam of light and a boat, the volunteers shoot the beam across the lake. This experiment shows the curvature of the lake. This was first discovered by the ancient Greek philosopher, mathematician and geometer Eratosthenes. He proved the Earth wasn't flat through observing the sun and the direction it cast shadows. If the Earth was flat, the sun would always shine at the same angle no matter what time of day it was. Using all the data collected from the curvature of the lake the volunteers are able to calculate the circumference of the Earth.

How about high altitude photography?

Interesting video with interesting pictures from the life of the Concorde Airline and the official photographer.


Photo from 1976 taken by Adrian Meredith

Quote

Concorde: A Photographic Tribute: A Photographic...
by Adrian Meredith

Amateur high altitude balloon flights?

Students film breathtaking curvature of Earth using high-altitude weather balloon

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-students-breathtaking-curvature-earth-high-altitude.amp

Cabrini School's weather balloon captures stunning footage of Earth




https://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/2020/12/11/alexandria-school-weather-balloon-captures-stunning-earth-footage/6496653002/

Anyway…

Well, atoms have properties.

You ever going to answer the below?


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

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 06, 2025, 10:51:32 PM

Also, having taken chemistry, I seem to remember combining things. It might not be 100% true, but it's accurate.

Now try taking physics and applying the same to gravity.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 06, 2025, 10:51:32 PM

Now you, how do you know that the Earth is round? It's locally flat everywhere on Earth. And it being round would require water to behave differently from how it is observed.
I visited Lake Okeechobee in Florida. We could not see the other side of the lake, as it was massive. Did I believe for a second that the lake curved? Don't be ridiculous. If that were so, it should spill out the sides.

From the mountains of evidence supporting it.
Including things like the perspective of the sun, observations of celestial objects and how these observations change (and importantly parts that remain the same) as you move around Earth.
Things like the horizon, including how it changes with altitude and how objects interact with it.

And then there is evidence of gravity, which would make it round.

No, it shouldn't spill out the sides, that is just your strawman.

"Mountains of evidence."

We have a handy planet maker.
http://planetmaker.apoapsys.com


If we put a lake on a curve, it does something like this...


The problem is with your mountains of evidence is precisely trying to put a lake on a mountain.

It works if you have a level point on the mountain. But a lake on a slope is a rapids... or...

A waterfall.

You like to boast about your mountains of evidence, but all I've ever seen is fallacious reasoning.

"Mountains of evidence."

See post before yours.

After flat earthers acquired a 20,000 dollar ring laser gyroscope to prove the earth rotates…



Why don’t the go for the coup d'état, and flying a high altitude ballon with cameras?

Students film breathtaking curvature of Earth using high-altitude weather balloon

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-students-breathtaking-curvature-earth-high-altitude.amp

Cabrini School's weather balloon captures stunning footage of Earth




https://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/2020/12/11/alexandria-school-weather-balloon-captures-stunning-earth-footage/6496653002/

Anyway…

Well, atoms have properties.

You ever going to answer the below?


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

If we put a lake on a curve, it does something like this...

And no problem shown.

The problem is with your mountains of evidence is precisely trying to put a lake on a mountain.

Still no problem.

But a lake on a slope is a rapids... or...

Now try defining slope in a coherent manner.

It is a lake where the surface isn't level.
Not simply at some angle relative to some entirely useless made up reference.

So still no problem.

You like to boast about your mountains of evidence, but all I've ever seen is fallacious reasoning.

Then stop looking in the mirror and start paying attention to what people say.

You are yet to present a single piece of sound reasoning against the RE.
Likewise you continually refuse to present any sound reasoning or evidence to justify your fantasy.

Instead you blatantly lie, appeal to strawmen, ignore questions, deflect and flee to change topic.

Again, if you want to reject gravity and appear sane in any way, you need an alternative, and one which actually works.

Your magic buoyancy does not.

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.

These problems wont just magically go away because you ignore them.

Quote

How do you know that atoms even exist if you haven't seen them individually?

Well, atoms have properties. For example, sodium metal cuts like a chunk of cheese and reacts violently when tossed in water. We know that there is something distinct about sodium from chlorine, and from gold and silver. Even if atoms look nothing like depicted, we understand this much. Also, having taken chemistry, I seem to remember combining things. It might not be 100% true, but it's accurate.

I think that you had better ask your chemistry teacher for a refund for not teaching you the difference between the properties of atoms, molecules and chunks of metal.

Now you, how do you know that the Earth is round? It's locally flat everywhere on Earth.

I live in a river valley with hills all around.  The only flat earth in my locale is due to the result of a bulldozer.

And it being round would require water to behave differently from how it is observed.

Not if you know how water is supposed to behave on a round earth, which you obviously don't/

I visited Lake Okeechobee in Florida. We could not see the other side of the lake, as it was massive. Did I believe for a second that the lake curved? Don't be ridiculous. If that were so, it should spill out the sides.

Case in point.

I think that you had better ask your chemistry teacher for a refund for not teaching you the difference between the properties of atoms, molecules and chunks of metal

An atom is a single unit of a material, for instance: silver, iron, lead, sodium, phosphorus, etc. Each of these has different traits.
Molecules are conjoined groupings of the same or different atoms. These may have traits not shared by their constituent parts.
Chunks of metal are molecules of the same type. Unless they're alloys.

I live in a river valley with hills all around.  The only flat earth in my locale is due to the result of a bulldozer.

In other words, you have confirmation bias. Seeing sloped Earth all about, you believe it plausible for the Earth to be round.

Not if you know how water is supposed to behave on a round earth, which you obviously don't

I actually do.



A frypan. What do you think would happen if I flipped this over, and put it in the sink, then poured water on it? A convex surface does not hold water. We can try this with a beach ball, soccer ball, upside-down jar, etc.

Your case in point is that you don't understand how water behaves. At all.

In other words, you have confirmation bias. Seeing sloped Earth all about, you believe it plausible for the Earth to be round.

Projecting again.
YOU have confirmation bias, as demonstrated by you repeatedly strawmanning the RE.
The point that was being made there is that Earth is not locally flat.

The best you get is not being able to tell the shape.

Quote

Not if you know how water is supposed to behave on a round earth, which you obviously don't

I actually do.

If you do, you're a lying POS.
Again, I said how it is supposed to behave on a round Earth, not your strawman.

A frypan. What do you think would happen if I flipped this over, and put it in the sink, then poured water on it?

Water would be drawn towards the large round Earth beneath it due to the massive gravitational attraction to it.

Replacing your tiny balls with a saucepan doesn't change that strawman.

Why don't you try answering honestly.
For the RE model, based upon gravity, what would you expect to happen?


Then try it well away from Earth or any body more massive than the tiny balls/saucepan in question. Then ask yourself what would happen with gravity.

Your case in point is that you don't understand how water behaves. At all.

Quite the opposite, I do understand.
It doesn't magically cling to a flat surface.
Nor does it magically go down.

Instead, it follows simple rules of attraction, which for the most part means it tries to go towards the centre of Earth.
At least near Earth.

And again, if you want to pretend it isn't gravity and replace it with your buoyancy BS, you need to address the issues you keep fleeing from (with that pressure gradient being the real killer):
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.

These problems wont just magically go away because you ignore them.

Well, atoms have properties.

Density being one of them?  Mass? 

You ever going to answer the below?


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

Atoms have atomic mass, not density. Density is a factor of how things were made, not some inherent attribute. That is to say, the atoms themselves have a sort of density in how many protons, neutrons, and electrons are packed within a square inch. However, I can make a hollow walking stick gold, or a solid iron walking stick. If the latter is thick enough and long enough, they might even weigh the same. But they different feel to them, as gold is heavy over a very small surface area, but iron cold iron is significantly lighter per  cubic centimeter (gold has a density of about 19.3 g/cm³, while iron has a density of about 7.87 g/cm³). This mean even if you were to make the golf staff hollow and not as long to increase its weight, its density would always be less.

Why doesn't it section off? It could. That is called diffusion. The balloon simply doesn't split apart or something because it is made all of similar material. If there are molecular bonds, then they don't break (this is called cohesion, and sometimes adhesion). If there aren't preexisting bonds, either it diffuses or it forms bonds.

This entire world is a microcosm of the social behaviors we ourselves display. If I invite you to a party, will you sift off by yourself, sitting alone? Or do you chat with five people at a table? Atoms of oxygen and hydrogen have a similar choice. They could be pure hydrogen or oxygen (usually forming twin pairs like O₂) or they can mix together to form water.

Truly truly I tell you, this universe is bound together by bonds of love. And it is separated by boundaries.
Diffusion. And cohesion (and adhesion in some cases).

Also, what's this "are you ever going to answer"? Quit being emo.

Projecting again.
YOU have confirmation bias, as demonstrated by you repeatedly strawmanning the RE.
The point that was being made there is that Earth is not locally flat.

Do I? I have been to North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. I have seen both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific. It sounds like you have barely been out of your town. You have an impoverished way of looking at the world.

Earth is about 71% water (unless people are lying about hidden continents). This means most of Earth is at sea level, totally flat except for waves. Having seen both coasts  of the Atlantic and Pacific, it is more than reasonable to me that tides are water drifting back and forth between coasts. But this behavior doesn't make any sense on an Earth spinning in one direction like a top. It would have to spin more like a dancer.

You are biased. I have seen things.

Do I? I have been to North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. I have seen both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific. It sounds like you have barely been out of your town. You have an impoverished way of looking at the world.

Yes, travelling around the world wont magically remove your bias.
You are desperate for Earth to be flat so see everything through that lens.

This means most of Earth is at sea level, totally flat except for waves.

No, it is LEVEL, not flat.
There is a big difference.

Again, you are letting your bias show.
You want it to be flat, so you say it is flat and ignore everything that shows otherwise.

An honest person, without bias, would admit that at the small scale we cannot tell, and it is only at the large scale where we can begin to tell.
And with how objects over the horizon, which are still above the water, have the bottom obscured by the water, to an observer above the water; this shows that water is curved.

Having seen both coasts  of the Atlantic and Pacific, it is more than reasonable to me that tides are water drifting back and forth between coasts. But this behavior doesn't make any sense on an Earth spinning in one direction like a top.

Why?
Why would it spinning consistently make it different?

You are biased. I have seen things.

Yet you cannot provide a single example of that bias, nor can you provide a single example of things you have seen with evidence to support it which shows any fault with the RE model.
You can only show faults with your strawmen.

And another example of your bias/cognitive dissonance is how you refuse to address the pressure gradient.
Again, gravity makes sense.
The weight (i.e. the force due to gravity) of the fluid creates a pressure gradient with the pressure increasing as you go down.
This pressure gradient in turn pushes things in the fluid up, being the buoyant force.

This explains what is observed in reality.

Meanwhile, your delusional BS of "it's just buoyancy" cannot explain the existence of this pressure gradient, nor can it explain why it doesn't push things up.

But because that so easily destroys your BS, you just keep ignoring it.

Quote

Projecting again.
YOU have confirmation bias, as demonstrated by you repeatedly strawmanning the RE.
The point that was being made there is that Earth is not locally flat.

Do I? I have been to North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. I have seen both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific. It sounds like you have barely been out of your town. You have an impoverished way of looking at the world.

Earth is about 71% water (unless people are lying about hidden continents). This means most of Earth is at sea level, totally flat except for waves. Having seen both coasts  of the Atlantic and Pacific, it is more than reasonable to me that tides are water drifting back and forth between coasts. But this behavior doesn't make any sense on an Earth spinning in one direction like a top. It would have to spin more like a dancer.

You are biased. I have seen things.

You need to work out how it does make sense, because it is reality.

If you submit and buy yourself an Earth globe, a number of things will become immediately apparent to you.

A) You are holding a scale representation of the entire earth in the palm of your hand.

B) All land and sea is accounted for - there is no question mark as to extra lands or undiscovered parts of the earth - anything undiscovered is either underneath the ocean surface or land surface, or you are possibly looking at surface areas which have not been more fully explored.

C) All land shapes and sea and ocean shapes, are accurately represented and accounted for.

D) You can use the scale of your purchased globe and maths, to calculate distances between places and speed and time to travel between those places, accurately.

If you submit and buy one of Mark Sargent's flat earth models that he's flogging on his YouTube channel, a number of things will be made immediately apparent to you.

A) All land mass shapes and sea and ocean shapes will look squashed or out of shape, and look wrong.

B) There will be no scale printed on your purchase.

C) With no scale you cannot calculate distances between places or speed and time to travel between those places.

D) It is an impractical idea.

The impracticality of a flat earth model held in your hand will force you to re-examine the globe.

Were you alive in the 1980's, Bulma? Or were you awaiting being a twinkle in your parents eyes in the 1980's?

Quote

I live in a river valley with hills all around.  The only flat earth in my locale is due to the result of a bulldozer.

In other words, you have confirmation bias. Seeing sloped Earth all about, you believe it plausible for the Earth to be round.

No, I'm just contradicting your claim that "the earth is flat everywhere".
 

Quote

Not if you know how water is supposed to behave on a round earth, which you obviously don't

I actually do.



A frypan. What do you think would happen if I flipped this over, and put it in the sink, then poured water on it? A convex surface does not hold water. We can try this with a beach ball, soccer ball, upside-down jar, etc.

Your case in point is that you don't understand how water behaves. At all.

You keep saying that you understand, and then you post stupid shit like this that proves that you obviously don't.  Suggesting that the gravitational attraction of a frying pan should somehow overpower that of the entire earth is absurd and only makes you look like a fool.

You keep saying that you understand, and then you post stupid shit like this that proves that you obviously don't.  Suggesting that the gravitational attraction of a frying pan should somehow overpower that of the entire earth is absurd and only makes you look like a fool.

No, what's absurd and makes people look like fools is when you can demonstrate other things (you know, like science) by showing examples of them. But then you give a lame excuse about Earth's gravity as why you can't demonstrate it.

Magnetism from the North Pole is enough to attract all compasses north through much of the northern hemisphere and part of the southern hemisphere. Yet, you can nonetheless use magnets to pull metal anywhere on Earth.

You know what this reminds me of? Yesterday, my mom was watching this thing that tried to tell us that dinosaurs were relatives of birds. And they only have one missing link, the Archaeopteryx (which paleontologists sometimes think is a hoax). They were explaining on the show that the reason birds survived and the dinosaur fossil records were destroyed was that these birds were small and fast. Or... maybe all these fossil records didn't fucking exist.

Which fails Occam's Razor worse? "Gravity doesn't exist." Or "the reason tests of gravity don't work is that gravity from the Earth is pulling harder. Of course, this doesn't work for magnets. And it doesn't work for much of anything else, as microcosm tends to verify macrocosm. But you should trust us!"  Trust you?!? Hah!

Yes, I know you think I'm an idiot, and that if you keep arguing this, I'll believe you. But I prefer to trust God first, and then science. And real science, not the crap you call science, always relies on tests that can be verified.

It is impossible that water can cling to a sphere. I know it, an AI knows it, and when you are being honest, you know it too. You know water can't cling to balls, nor upside-down frying pans. If you don't, go to your sink, and scrub the top and bottom with soap, then rinse with water. And watch what happens to the water.

No, what's absurd and makes people look like fools is when you can demonstrate other things (you know, like science) by showing examples of them.

Which we can do with gravity, like with the Cavendish experiment.
But instead of being honest and demonstrating understanding by trying to do it yourself, you instead want to focus on your tiny balls and now fry-pans.

Magnetism

As already explained, is not the example which helps your case.
If you want it to be comparable, go get a massive electromagnet, the kind which is used to lift cars.
And then hold a fridge magnet a tiny bit above it to try to demonstrate magnetism.

That is what your stupid strawmen are like.

Which fails Occam's Razor worse?

Your delusional BS which you still can't explain.

Yes, I know you think I'm an idiot, and that if you keep arguing this, I'll believe you.

I certainly don't.

I think you are either so severely brain damaged you have no chance of ever understanding, especially because you have absolutely no desire to; or you are knowingly lying to everyone.

I just don't know which.

always relies on tests that can be verified.

Like the Cavendish experiment to verify gravity.
Something you never want to do.

It is impossible that water can cling to a sphere.

Now try saying that more honestly.
It is impossible for water to stick to your tiny balls when you are so close to a much more massive ball.

Again, this is comparable to magnetism, where you wont be able to get a paperclip to stick to a tiny fridge magnet when it is right next to an electromagnet used to lift cars.

Intelligent, honest people understand this.
Brainwashed morons wont, and lying conmen will pretend not to.

Again, if you had a shred of honesty and intelligence, you would stop with your pathetic strawmen and instead ask what is the expected result?
You can even use the formula F=GMm/d^2.
You can even see that m will be common, as will G, so just focus on M and d^2.
So we can treat that M/d^2 as a measure of the relative strength.

For Earth, M=~ 6 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 kg and d=6 371 000 m
This gives that measure as ~150 000 000 000 kg/m^2.

So if you have a ball which has a radius of 1 m, you will need a mass of 150 000 000 000 kg kg to be able to overcome the gravity of Earth.

So every test you have done produces the result expected for a RE with gravity.


Now compare this with your delusional BS.

We can make an object "neturally buoyant" that is, an object which has the same density as the fluid it is in.
According to your delusional BS, your buoyancy should now have no affect on it.
But there is still a pressure gradient in the fluid.
This pressure gradient should still be pushing the object up.
So the object should rise.

Yet it doesn't.

Your BS actually fails.

So yes, you are either a brainwashed idiot, or a lying POS.
Which is it?

Quote

You keep saying that you understand, and then you post stupid shit like this that proves that you obviously don't.  Suggesting that the gravitational attraction of a frying pan should somehow overpower that of the entire earth is absurd and only makes you look like a fool.

No, what's absurd and makes people look like fools is when you can demonstrate other things (you know, like science) by showing examples of them. But then you give a lame excuse about Earth's gravity as why you can't demonstrate it.

Magnetism from the North Pole is enough to attract all compasses north through much of the northern hemisphere and part of the southern hemisphere. Yet, you can nonetheless use magnets to pull metal anywhere on Earth.

You know what this reminds me of? Yesterday, my mom was watching this thing that tried to tell us that dinosaurs were relatives of birds. And they only have one missing link, the Archaeopteryx (which paleontologists sometimes think is a hoax). They were explaining on the show that the reason birds survived and the dinosaur fossil records were destroyed was that these birds were small and fast. Or... maybe all these fossil records didn't fucking exist.

Which fails Occam's Razor worse? "Gravity doesn't exist." Or "the reason tests of gravity don't work is that gravity from the Earth is pulling harder. Of course, this doesn't work for magnets. And it doesn't work for much of anything else, as microcosm tends to verify macrocosm. But you should trust us!"  Trust you?!? Hah!

Yes, I know you think I'm an idiot, and that if you keep arguing this, I'll believe you. But I prefer to trust God first, and then science. And real science, not the crap you call science, always relies on tests that can be verified.

It is impossible that water can cling to a sphere. I know it, an AI knows it, and when you are being honest, you know it too. You know water can't cling to balls, nor upside-down frying pans. If you don't, go to your sink, and scrub the top and bottom with soap, then rinse with water. And watch what happens to the water.

I don't think you're a complete idiot. Maybe only 99.9%.

Forget fucking gravity, its beyond your feeble comprehension.

Concentrate on why trucks in every country over the world, prove distances between cities and towns everyday, clearly establishing the dimensions of land masses. Then concentrate on why ships all across the world also prove distances between ports on different countries and between cities and towns on the same coast lines.

All establish the relative distances between places which when put together forms the outside of a globe.

If we put a lake on a curve, it does something like this...

Looks like when an object has enough mass to produce enough gravity, water sticks just fine…

https://www.brown.edu/news/2017-09-29/balloon

Again.  A flat earth group acquired a 20,000 dollar ring laser gyroscope just to prove the earth rotates.

Why not do amateur high altitude balloon flights?  Already too much proof the earth is a globe?

Anyway? 

 Blast from the past…

All water and earth heads toward the equator. 

Except for high tide, low tide, and tidal bores.  All examples of gravity interacting with the earth.

A tidal bore,[1] often simply given as bore in context, is a tidal phenomenon in which the leading edge of the incoming tide forms a wave (or waves) of water that travels up a river or narrow bay, reversing the direction of the river or bay's current. It is a strong tide that pushes up the river, against the current.



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

Other things fist earth cannot explain without contradicting it’s self.

While gravity explains how a hanging spring scale works in accordance with Hooke’s law and the three laws of motion. High tide, low tide, and tidal bores.

youtu.be.  1HoVqtjY-Og

  So Bulma.  Explain Tidal bores, high tide, and tide coming in that makes rivers where they meet large bodies of water reverse flow. 

Which fails Occam's Razor worse? "Gravity doesn't exist."

You ever going to answer the below?


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

Why does density fail when objects are in free fall?

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? 

"Herp derp, density is not a force.  What force controls buoyancy?"

Buoyancy is a force. Forces do not need other forces to be their nannies.

And the liquids mix instead of separating out by density?

What is wrong with your brain?



It plays just fine. The problem is the following.

When the guy is holding it, the water rushes down from the holes in the bottle. When he lets go, water stops pouring out.

Does gravity account for this? No, it does not. Water in this case would move against gravity (that's right, the reason water stops pouring out is that it shifts to the top of the bottle).

What exactly is happening here? Well, it's like this. The not very dense or heavy plastic as basically all manufactured as one unit. The water in the bottle is actually an aggregate (like sand) of water molecules. So, the whole of the water is heavy, and pushes the water bottle to drop much faster than say a totally empty water bottle (what is attributed to air resistance). But each droplet of water is individually less dense than the bottle. This means that when it falls, each droplet reaches terminal velocity, causing it to slow in comparison to the bottle, but the aggregate has not reached terminal velocity, causing it to continue falling at speed.   

There is no such thing as zero gravity. There are motion experiments that make objects reach states of motion where they do not fall. This is part of the same principles as terminal velocity, the object reaches velocity that surpasses the limits of its mass, so it tends to drift instead of falling. Like the parabolic plane trip, or the Gravitron ride. This is not a contradiction to buoyancy. Fish and humans swim by being in motion. They generate thrust ahead of them, drag behind them, and momentum carries them forward despite the fact that they are denser than water (on average).

Occams razor on birds amd dinosaurs:

Which is easier?
Animals that were just roaming about or a mass conspiracy started 500yrs ago to plant fossil bones around the world for people to discover?

Yes... occam

Mass conspiracy? Not even that mass.

To answer your question, which is more likely?

That we manage to find million year old fossils but only recently (starting in about the 1800s, after Darwin put forth evolutionary theory)? That people digging aqueducts in ancient Roman times didn't find it, people making tunnels for trains or electrical lines, or sewers didn't find it, but (what a coincidence!) paleontologists manage to find bones for some new species in this dig site over here.

Or people wanted to make money and be famous (and push evolutionary theory), so they buried essentially cattle or fish bones in the ground, then put them together in interesting ways.


(Love the 90s music)

There is a vested interest in pushing evolutionary theory. "Dinosaur bones" can be sold for a great deal of money.

When the guy is holding it, the water rushes down from the holes in the bottle. When he lets go, water stops pouring out.

Does gravity account for this?

Yes it does.
For the very same thing you are continually ignoring.
THE PRESSURE GRADIENT!

If you consider inside the bottle, the top is at atmospheric pressure.
Then as you go down through the water, while it is being held, each layer of water needs to support the weight of the water above.
This pressurises the water, making the pressure at the bottom greater than atmospheric pressure, so it pushes out the side of the container.
This pressure gradient, and the way pressure works in fluids, converts the weight of the water above into a pressure pushing the water outwards.

When it released, so it is in free fall, the entire bottle is falling together, and there is no more need to support the weight of the water above, so the pressure gradient disappears.
This means there is no longer a pressure greater than atmospheric pushing the water out to the sides.

So yes, gravity explains it quite well.

Conversely, as you are doing whatever you can to flee from this pressure gradient, your delusional BS can't explain it at all.

So yet again, your delusional BS is destroyed by the pressure gradient.

You should really try looking into it and coming up with a model that doesn't need to ignore it.

Water in this case would move against gravity (that's right, the reason water stops pouring out is that it shifts to the top of the bottle).

Firstly, even if it were to end up at the top of the bottle, that does not mean it is moving against gravity, as the bottle being pushed down would cause that.
In order for it to move against gravity, to the outside observer it needs to go up, not just relative to the bottle.

But far more importantly, that doesn't happen at all.
The water remains at the bottom of the bottle.

So straight away, to try to explain it, you just blatantly lie about what happens.

But each droplet of water is individually less dense than the bottle.

Pure BS.
Each droplet of water has the same density as the bulk water.

each droplet reaches terminal velocity

Terminal velocity is based upon drag with the air. If you are inside a falling container, which would shield you from the air, you don't experience that.
It is like how you don't feel the air when you are inside a plane.

There is no such thing as zero gravity.

Which is why it is called 0g.
That is the absence of gravity. It is the absence of a normal reaction force to it.

i.e. when you stand on the ground with the downwards force of gravity being 1g, the upwards reactionary force is 1g.
So that is experiencing 1 g.

If instead you are in a plane, which is pulling up, so it is accelerating upwards at a rate of 1g, while you are still experiencing gravity of 1g, you will experience 2g.
If instead, the plane is accelerating downwards at the rate of 1g, then you experience 0g.

That we manage to find million year old fossils but only recently (starting in about the 1800s, after Darwin put forth evolutionary theory)? That people digging aqueducts in ancient Roman times didn't find it, people making tunnels for trains or electrical lines, or sewers didn't find it, but (what a coincidence!) paleontologists manage to find bones for some new species in this dig site over here.

It isn't simply finding it. It is finding it and caring.

We have people happy to bulldoze ancient graveyards with loads of bones with a care in the world.
Do you really think these people would care if they ran into a few old bones (which have actually fossilised which can make them appear more like rocks).

so they buried essentially cattle or fish bones in the ground

Which then magically transformed them into bones which look completely different.

Just because your conspiracy people put out false covid false flatearh false science false politics doesnt mean everyones a liar.

Grifters gotta grift.

Mass conspiracy? Not even that mass.

To answer your question, which is more likely?

That we manage to find million year old fossils but only recently (starting in about the 1800s, after Darwin put forth evolutionary theory)? That people digging aqueducts in ancient Roman times didn't find it, people making tunnels for trains or electrical lines, or sewers didn't find it, but (what a coincidence!) paleontologists manage to find bones for some new species in this dig site over here.

Or people wanted to make money and be famous (and push evolutionary theory), so they buried essentially cattle or fish bones in the ground, then put them together in interesting ways.


(Love the 90s music)

There is a vested interest in pushing evolutionary theory. "Dinosaur bones" can be sold for a great deal of money.

You say you dont follow Eric Dubay, yet every chance you get, you post up one of his backwards videos, like you are Eric's publicist.

It's very sweet, but clearly it's a case of love being blind.

Only a complete utter moron would announce that archaeologists dig no deeper than ancient Roman's who made aqueduct trenches and tunnels, which are only what, no deeper than 10 meters from ground level?

For flat earthers, you and your mentor and lover, Eric Dubay, do zero research.