Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

Quote

You appear to have overlooked the fact that it is a mixed gas. i.e. it is not separated.

Why do you think I used granite?

Because you're terrible at analogies.

Do the rocks in granite separate into clean layers? No, they don't. They remain a mixture.

I'm not sure why I feel that I need to state the obvious, but here it is: granite is not a fluid and therefore not analogous to mixed gasses.

Why do you feel the need to call it a fluid?

Solids, liquids, and gases are surfaces. Let's call them surfaces not fluids.



This is what cement looks like blown up. By adding water, you can get it to bind together as a solid. But these surfaces are aggregates of different molecules. Cement is mixed with sand and gravel to make concrete (I said granite, but I think I meant gravel which contains granite). So, if we look at concrete, this is a solid yet it is a surface that can mix multiple molecules into a single mass.

Does a block of concrete separate? No, not normally.

Why do you feel the need to call it a fluid?

Because of properties specific to fluids. Specific to how pressure works.
These properties are in common with fluids, e.g. liquids, gases and supercritical fluids.
These properties are NOT shared by solids.

e.g. Take a container in a U shape, with a piston at the top of each side sealed against the walls but able to move up and down.
Have it with a solid inside. See what happens when you push down on one of the pistons. It just resists, with you needing to crush to solids to be able to move it down and without that affecting the other side.
Then try it with a fluid. Now as you push down on one side, the other side lifts up.
This is because the fluid acts in an isostatic manner, with the pressure equal in all directions.
This allows it to transfer the pressure from you pushing down on one side, to the other piston to push it up.

You can even do more fun stuff with hydraulics and pneumatics.


Another important distinction is how they mix.
If you take 2 different solids and put them next to each other, they don't mix.
If you take 2 miscible fluids and put them next to each other, they do mix.

And this is where we can see a distinction between solids, liquids and gasses.
Solids don't mix.
Liquids mix if the intermolecular forces are comparable.
Gases do mix.

Solids, liquids, and gases are surfaces. Let's call them surfaces not fluids.

No, they aren't.
A surface is an interface between 2 things or the boundary of something.
Water isn't a surface, it has a surface.
e.g. when you pour water into a glass, you have the surface between the water and glass, the surface between the water and air, and the surface between the glass and air.

The water itself is a bulk substance.

This is what cement looks like blown up.

Who cares.
It isn't a gas nor a fluid, so it is irrelevant.
Likewise, concrete isn't a gas nor a fluid.

And none of this brings you any closer to explaining the pressure gradient or explaining why it doesn't push things up.

Why do you feel the need to call it a fluid?

We get solids and fluids.

The topic is you butchering the science of the atmosphere and pressure gradients.  And how you keep contradicting yourself.

By no force.

Again…

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

Really.  How.  When.  By what motive force.

You never addressed this post.

I tell them

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

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

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


Back to this.

By no force.

Like how I can place a car in neutral, and push it all day long on a good garage floor?  So.  Why can’t I push the same car up hill?  In an atmosphere that goes from higher pressure and density down low into lower pressure and lower density above.


What keeps me from pushing a car up hill that I can push around in a garage.


Why do items have weight that exert a downward force.

You keep blaming other stuff for your weakness. Let's put it this way.

Can you lift a car?

No?

We've explained this before.

On a level plane, so long as the car is in neutral, pushing a car is mostly done by the wheels.

Pushing a car downhill is even easier. The downhill slope means the car effectively sits with one wheel wedged against earth, and the other resting on lower ground, or to be more precise, if we were to lay the car completely level on wheel is against air. The car is less dense than all the earth below it (on the high wheel), and more dense than the air in front of it (on the low wheel). So when pushed downhill, angular momentum is a thing, and it keeps rolling.
Quick hint: there is actually no such thing as an "uphill slope." This is because if I turn the car around from facing uphill, it is now a downhill slope. So there is no special difference between downhill and uphill. The car simply tends to roll away from solid earth and towards air.

If gravity were forcing it down, it should be impossible to drive up a hill, but it's not.

So what you are describing when talking about getting out and pushing is either a car that is not in neutral therefore harder to push than one that is, or a car that is actively rolling against you from the same buoyancy difference I mentioned. Can you lift a car? No? Then this is a you problem, not a gravity problem. You are basically trying to catch it and halt its path. I have on occasion pushed a car. If it's on a slight uphill (1° to 5°) slope, you need to have friends to help. If it's on a great uphill (15° to 45°) slope, you call the tow truck.

Does the tow truck claim it's impossible because of gravity and let your car sit there? No, they do their job. Quit whining about gravity and accept that you are talking about your physical limitations. You can't lift a car. Get over it.

Objects have mass and length/width/height. They aren't affected by a gravity spell telling them to fall. They fall by virtue of their own density. And empty briefcase thrown off a bridge might float when it hits the water, but you never would have gotten the sense it would do that when it was moving through the air. It's not being pulled down, again, it's sinking.

I can hydraulically Force a car up using a proportional equal fluid Pressure on a pistons cross Area.

How amazing

Good for you.

You can also enlist a group of adults to grunt and sweat. Or hire a tow truck to put the car on a bed.

In any case, that hydraulic thing you did probably did nothing to prove gravity and everything to prove that pressure is a thing that works.  If the car were sufficiently watertight and sufficiently buoyant (most aren't, again not a proof of gravity, but proof that cars are not built with the idea of driving through water, meaning they SUCK),

you could use water in an enclosed system to lift the rear wheels, and a level car should be in theory easier to push. Though you'd have to keep moving the basin of water.

You keep blaming other stuff for your weakness.

No, we don't.

Instead, we point out that there is a force you need to oppose, which you need to be strong enough to fight against.

If there was no such force, then it wouldn't matter how weak you were.

Can you lift a car?

No, but I can push one.
So I am clearly strong enough to move that mass.
So it is clearly not that the car someone overcomes my strength.
Instead, it is clearly another force which I need to fight against.

If you would like a simple comparison, say there is a rope lying on the ground. Can you pick it up and pull it towards you? Yes.
But now, instead of it just being on the ground, have it attached to a very weak person who will try to pull it as soon as you pick it up. Can you still pick it up and pull it towards yourself? Yes, because even though there is a force trying to pull it away, you are strong enough to overcome it.
But now, instead of a very weak person, who have an incredibly strong person. Can you still pick it up and pull it towards yourself? No, because you aren't strong enough to overcome them.

The same happens here.
I am strong enough to push the car, but not strong enough to overcome the force of gravity pulling the car down.

On a level plane, so long as the car is in neutral, pushing a car is mostly done by the wheels.

Pure BS.
Supporting the car is done by the wheels.
The wheels pressing against the grounds, on a level surface, does not make the car go forwards or backwards. If it did, you wouldn't need to push it.
The person coming up behind the car and pushing on it is what does most of the pushing.

Pushing a car downhill is even easier.

Because you now have gravity pulling it down the hill.
If the hill is steep enough, you no longer need to push, you just let gravity do the work.

Quick hint: there is actually no such thing as an "uphill slope." This is because if I turn the car around from facing uphill, it is now a downhill slope. So there is no special difference between downhill and uphill.

Instead the "special difference" is that in one case you are pushing with gravity with it helping you, while in the other case you are fighting it.

If gravity were forcing it down, it should be impossible to drive up a hill, but it's not.

Why?
Yet again you spout pure BS with no justification at all.

Once more, GRAVITY IS NOT MAGIC!
Your BS is like saying if magnetism is real you would never be able to take a magnet off a fridge.
It is pure BS.

Gravity, like other forces, is a force which can be overcome with a greater force.

If you had a 1kg block, the force of gravity acting on it on Earth is roughly 10 N.
If you can apply a force greater than 10 N, you can lift it up.

If you are going up a hill, it gets more complex, as the force of gravity is now partly pulling the car into the hill, and partly down the hill.
This decomposition of the forces is based upon the angle.
For a shallow angle, gravity primarily pulls it into the ground and only a little bit down the hill. So it is still easy to push up.

For a steep angle, it is mainly down the hill and not much into the ground. So it is very hard to push up.

Objects have mass and length/width/height.

And without something like gravity, there is no reason for them to try to go down.
There is no reason at all for them to fall just because of their density.

And we know it certainly isn't your buoyancy BS, because it doesn't work at all.
And this is further supported by you continually fleeing from the issues which so easily demonstrate it doesn't work.

In any case, that hydraulic thing you did probably did nothing to prove gravity and everything to prove that pressure is a thing that works.

And importantly, proving that pressure is a thing that works proves you are spouting pure BS, because your BS needs to pretend pressure isn't a thing, or pretend it doesn't work.

You still have no explanation at all for the pressure gradient, nor why this pressure gradient isn't pushing everything up.

You still have no explanation at all for why your BS should work.
No explanation for why it should cause things to move at all.
No explanation for why it should go down.
No explanation for why it should accelerate at a particular rate, or why this rate varies over Earth.
No explanation for why this should result in a pressure gradient.
No explanation for why this pressure gradient shouldn't push things up.

All you have is a pile of useless garbage.

Meanwhile, gravity continues to work to explain it with you still unable to show a single fault.

Can you lift a car?

No?

I never claimed I could without mechanical advantage.  I have an explanation why I cannot push it up hill.  Gravity.


The entire argument.  Where you claim…

By no force.

Objects rise or fall, they aren't pushed up or down. They are however pushed out of the way. 

The question.  Where there is no gravity to cause weight in your delusion.   With mechanical advantage of wheels, I can push a car around a garage by hand.  Why can’t I take the same car I’m already moving, and push it up hill.

We've explained this before.

No.  You make some vague claim then try to change the subject to some BS

On a level plane, so long as the car is in neutral, pushing a car is mostly done by the wheels.

The wheels are offering the same mechanical advantage in your no gravity no weight delusion if I try to push the car up hill.

Pushing a car downhill is even easier.

How do you accelerate a mass with no force.

 wheel wedged against earth,

The car moves downhill because unbalanced forces are acting on it to accelerate it downhill.  What are those forces. 

The car is less dense than all the earth below

Density isn’t a force.  Or liquids of different density wouldn’t mix in free fall.  They would stay separated.

Then why do these liquids mix?

Liquids in near-Zero G



Weightless Water - Experiments In 'Zero Gravity'

Seems density isn’t the driving force.


If density was a force, a bottle with a mixture of helium and oxygen used as breathing air would separate.  It doesn’t.

it (on the high wheel), and more dense than the air in front of it (on the low wheel). So when pushed downhill, angular momentum is a thing, and it keeps rolling.
Quick hint: there is actually no such thing as an "uphill slope." This is because if I turn the car around from facing uphill, it is now a downhill slope.

You are babbling.  Is that you Kamala Harris

So there is no special difference between downhill and uphill.

Yeah.  There is a difference.  Take a car in neutral with a wheel chocked with a small wedge on a hill.  I can rock the car by hand to get the car over the wedge and get it to roll down.  I can’t do that to push a car up hill.

If a car is in neutral on a hill with a wheel chocked with a wedge so it will not roll away.  If I can remove the wedge, the car will roll down hill. 
Not up hill.

If gravity were forcing it down, it should be impossible to drive up a hill, but it's not.

Why.  The force of gravity is only causing a downward acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared.  One only has to apply a greater force.


If there is no gravity, why do thing’s have very real force of weight.

from the same buoyancy difference I mentioned.

Again.  The atmosphere is already trying to push the car up.  The whole higher pressure and more density lower in the atmosphere being held down by lower pressure and density above.

The whole thing if you weigh an object in a chamber and evacuate out the atmosphere it weighs more.

Can you lift a car? No?

Again.  No gravity in your delusion.  You claim no force. Where you claim simply getting out of the way.  For a car I can push in neutral all day long in a garage. Evidently pushing the atmosphere out of the way.  Where I can take a car parked on a hill and place it in neutral and it will roll down hill.  There is a big difference between up hill and down hill. How do you accelerate a mass without applying a force? 

Where it’s been shown density is not a force.


You only babbled.  And have no coherent explanation why a car I push around in a garage can’t be pushed up hill.  You still have no explanation for the pressure gradient of the atmosphere.  Still no explanation for the atmosphere and what force causes a mixture of gasses of different densities not separate out, to bunch up at the surface of the earth to cause greater pressure and density below when gas molecules want to equal distance themselves.  You still have no explanation why a bottle of helium and oxygen stays mixed and doesn’t separate out.  And you still have no explanation why liquids of different densities mix in free fall.

In any case, that hydraulic thing you did probably did nothing to prove gravity and everything to prove that pressure is a thing that works. 

Pumping from vacuum

Fluid Handling

https://en.suurmond.com/products/pumping-from-vacuum/

Pumping liquids from a tank with a negative pressure or even with (high) vacuum is not an easy task. The only driving force that still exists to get the liquid into the pump is gravity. In such cases, the so-called NPSHa (“net positive suction head available”) is usually very low. Then it is extremely important that the pump has an even lower NPSHr (net positive suction head required).

Gravity strikes again.

They aren't affected by a gravity spell telling them to fall. They fall by virtue of their own density.

Then why do liquids of different densities mix while in free fall?  Density isn’t not a force.  Density isn’t a driving force. 


 

 The car is less dense than all the earth below it (on the high wheel), and more dense than the air in front of it (on the low wheel). So when pushed downhill, angular momentum is a thing, and it keeps rolling.

Again.  How do you accelerate a mass without a force.  Density isn’t a force.

Let’s fix the above statement by you

The car having mass is attracted to the more massive earth. Despite air resistance, the gravity of the earth due to its mass accelerates the car downhill. So when pushed downhill, gravity is working on the mass of the car.  Causing the mass to have weight, which is a downward force.  And gravity acting as the greatest magnitude of force on the car in this example overcomes friction and air resistance to accelerate the car down hill.

Let's try this a bit differently.

Buoyancy is a force.

Weight is a force (mass * acceleration due to gravity).

Forces are vectors.  They have both magnitude and direction.

For buoyancy, that direction is always up.

For weight, that direction is always down.

If the magnitude of the buoyant force is less than the magnitude of the weight force, then the object will go down.

If the magnitude of the buoyant force is greater than the magnitude of the weight force, then the object will go up.

If the magnitude of the buoyant force is the same as the magnitude of the weight force, then the object will hover.

Neither have anything to do with the perspective of the sun (the supposed topic of this thread).

I don't know how to make it any more simple than that.

Weight is not a force. Any more than mass or density are forces. Weight is mass in pounds rather than grams or kilograms. Any other definition is Newtonian crap. Or do you think that when you get on a scale to measure your weight, it measures gravity? Nonsense.

Nice try.

Thanks for playing.

Now, I'm sure that you want to revise my definition of things, but I don't have to do any of that.
I am who I am, and I believe what I believe. I don't have to accept your model, and neither do you for me.
You appear to be under the mistaken impression that the purpose of all debate is to sway peoples' opinions, but I don't think that way. "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." My only purpose is to explain my thinking to anyone who wants to know. I know from watching my parents fight over the same things that people don't really change. The fact that you don't accept what I have to say doesn't really matter to me. The fact that I have to explain it again  kinda annoys me though.

You are correct, this doesn't have much to do with perspective of the sun. But as I said before, it's my thread. I've decided to allow it. Now, if you really wanna talk about the perspective of the sun, that's fine.  But I suspect like Biden blaming Ukraine for his rising gas prices, you want the excuse, and won't pursue it. You'll just bring it up to be like "Look, you're off topic!" But you have had ample opportunity to lead the topic back. I don't care either way.

mass and density aren't forces...

weight is a force proportional to the mass (density x volume) and the direction of acceleration.



easily provable by anyone who can hold a scale and vary their speed over time.





fucking moron.

Weight is not a force. Any more than mass or density are forces. Weight is mass in pounds rather than grams or kilograms.

No, it isn't.
Weight is a downwards force, that can be measured in Newtons.

You wanting to pretend it is just mass is just your wilful rejection of reality.

Even Archimedes realised it is a force.

Or do you think that when you get on a scale to measure your weight, it measures gravity? Nonsense.

No, a scale is a device which uses weight to determine mass.
Due to gravity, it needs to be calibrated because the weight of an object varies with location.

I am who I am, and I believe what I believe. I don't have to accept your model, and neither do you for me.

Yes, you can believe whatever crap you want, no matter how little it matches reality.
And everyone else is free to call you out on that BS.

My only purpose is to explain my thinking to anyone who wants to know.

So you are not interested in debate.
All you are interested in is preaching.

But still, you refuse to explain.
You refuse to explain what causes the pressure gradient nor why that doesn't push things up.

If you can't, then just admit it.

The fact that I have to explain it again  kinda annoys me though.

Then stop with the deflection and explain what is asked.
Then you don't need to explain it again.

But you have had ample opportunity to lead the topic back. I don't care either way.

And ample attempts were tried, with you continually refusing because you can't defend your BS.

Weight is not a force.

Weight is the downward force an object exerts.

In your delusion.  More dense lead as a floor suspended between lead pillars to suspend the floor above the ground should support an unlimited amount of less dense steel.  That’s not the case.

Or do you think that when you get on a scale to measure your weight, it measures gravity?

How do you accelerate a mass without applying a force.  Density isn’t a force.

Do you remember how you butcher the principles of Hooke’s law and hanging spring scales. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 04, 2022, 06:19:01 AM

If gravity really was in action and  pulled objects toward the center,

You mean like how a hanging spring scale works in accordance with Hooke’s law? 

Why does a spring in a hanging spring scale elongated when a mass is placed on bottom of the spring?

Quote

A spring scale, spring balance or newton meter is a type of mechanical force gauge or weighing scale. It consists of a spring fixed at one end with a hook to attach an object at the other. It works in accordance with Hooke's Law, which states that the force needed to extend or compress a spring by some distance scales linearly with respect to that distance. Therefore, the scale markings on the spring balance are equally spaced.

A hanging spring scale works because of gravity.

  Bulma. There are hanging spring scales that use steel springs and Hooke’s law to measure things hanging vertically from 0 to 10 lbs.  If there is no such thing as a downward force called weight and no downward force called gravity.  How does a less dense 5 pound block of styrofoam pull down a more dense steel spring in a hanging spring scale to indicate 5 lbs. 

Weight is not a force. Any more than mass or density are forces. Weight is mass in pounds rather than grams or kilograms.

Units of measure for mass and weight are often use the same name because a given mass at 1g is the same as its weight.  However, precision scales must be calibrated to its local environment by using reference masses because of variations in local values of g.

Any other definition is Newtonian crap. Or do you think that when you get on a scale to measure your weight, it measures gravity?

Actually...

Now, I'm sure that you want to revise my definition of things, but I don't have to do any of that.

No, you are the one who is revising the definition of many things.

You are correct, this doesn't have much to do with perspective of the sun. But as I said before, it's my thread. I've decided to allow it. Now, if you really wanna talk about the perspective of the sun, that's fine.  But I suspect like Biden blaming Ukraine for his rising gas prices, you want the excuse, and won't pursue it. You'll just bring it up to be like "Look, you're off topic!" But you have had ample opportunity to lead the topic back. I don't care either way.

:looks:

Funny how none of you took me up on it.

I've looked in the past, it and seems like the subject changes when you feel cornered, and not before.

No, you are the one who is revising the definition of many things.

There is a difference between changing the official definition as a tool for understanding (what I did), and trying to get someone to admit some "official" definition because you don't like or accept theirs.


You show a gnome being heavier in North America than the South Pole, and you say "See?!? Proof of gravity."
Like most of your "experiments" (such as TFE) it really isn't a true experiment, just a set of observations. More importantly, it has no rule-out tests. You see, to be a true scientific experiment, we use controls and repeated tests to rule out the following:
1. Fraud. Did we film the gnome the entire time? No? Then we don't know they didn't switch the gnomes. We also don't know they didn't switch or reprogram the scales.
2. Mistakes. Mistakes happen when you don't carefully control the experiment. If you're doing a test on the weight of gnomes and you do not check air pressure, you have left out an important detail. Similarly, if the gnome has gotten wet through improper sealing, this is a mistake that can affect the experiment.
3. Wrong Attribution. Wrong attribution is neither fraud nor mistakes, but it can technically be either. It's when you call something one thing when in fact it might be another. This can be intentional or accidental. For example, testing for inertia when sliding shelves, but you actually have a metal bottom and a small magnet under the shelf. You say it's inertia, but it's magnetism. This can also happen by accident. Like when people routinely call gravity what is a reaction to air or water pressure through buoyancy.

That there are multiple people means they could be holding it wrong, there might be multiple gnomes of nonstandard mass. But let's assume they passed around the same gnome, didn't switch scales, and the gnome didn't get wet. Again, air pressure and maybe humidity. With the general density of the object, differences exist based on the surroundings.

(San Francisco, as noted by the nearby bridge) California: 308.23 g
Mumbai: 307.56 g
Cape Town: 307.82 g

We're going by climate averages here. So let's look at the three.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/san-francisco/climate
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/india/mumbai/climate
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/south-africa/cape-town/climate

San Francisco, California, USA:
Precipitation: 3.93"
Humidity: 76%
Pressure: 30.08 "Hg

Mumbai, India:
Precipitation: 0.01"
Humidity: 56%
Pressure: 29.89 "Hg

Cape Town, South Africa:
Precipitation: 0.48"
Humidity: 68%
Pressure: 29.92 "Hg

If it were a matter of sinking or floating, we should expect the highest air pressure and humidity to be lighter based on the principles of buoyancy. But it's heavier, what is going on? Could gravity be... let me stop you there. Let's look at the moisture content of those three areas. Mumbai is the driest at 0.01" precipitation and 56% humidity, while San Francisco has 3.93" precipitation and 76% humidity. Clay ceramic (which gnomes are made of, has a tendency to be porous. These gnomes are drier in Cape Town and Mumbai than they are in San Francisco.

So if we wanted to test buoyancy vs gravity out, we would need a nice dry area preferably with high pressure on account of being below sea level. Somewhere like Death Valley or...

During his Canadian visit, Kern was weighed both on the surface and two kilometres underground. Snolab's underground facilities are known as the deepest underground multi-purpose lab in the world.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/travelling-gnome-experiment-visits-world-s-deepest-lab-1.1294979
Yeah okay, that'll do. If gravity is responsible, this gnome should be significantly heavier the closer it is to Earth's core, which we are told is pulling all objects towards it. If buoyancy is responsible, then absent any moisture, having high air pressure ought to make objects lighter.

So, let's test who is right...

"When we measured the gnome underground, it actually came out about 0.11 grams lighter than on the surface," Jillings said. According to the scale, Kern weighed 307.73 grams on the surface and 307.62 grams underground.

Oops! Looks like high air pressure, without excess moisture, and things get 0.11 grams lighter.

Their explanation? "There's less rock underneath you pulling you in." That has got to be the lamest explanation ever. They then go on to talk about rocks above you pulling you upward. I see. So I naturally like to mountain climb because the mountains are pulling me up. Hmmmm, that makes no sense, ever.

They then talk about the South Pole. That website? It has climate statistics (fake, but we'll go with it) for the South Pole.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/south-pole/climate

Kern was found to weigh the most at the South Pole — 309.82 grams — his last stop before Snolab.

So let's look at the South Pole:
Precipitation: 0.12"
Humidity: 78%
Pressure: 29.49 "Hg

Bizarrely, it gets less precipitation, but has more humidity, making it a moist desert. The pressure is also lower even than Mumbai.  So not only is the gnome damp but the air around it is not that dense, causing it to sink. Their explanation for this? A difference in gravitation. Without explaining why there should be such a difference in the South Pole. 

Do you wanna talk about the perspective of the sun yet?

Quote

No, you are the one who is revising the definition of many things.

There is a difference between changing the official definition as a tool for understanding (what I did), and trying to get someone to admit some "official" definition because you don't like or accept theirs.

I don't accept your re-definitions because they are wrong. 

You show a gnome being heavier in North America than the South Pole, and you say "See?!? Proof of gravity."

Not proof of gravity.  Proof that gravity varies depending on the location.

Like most of your "experiments" (such as TFE) it really isn't a true experiment, just a set of observations. More importantly, it has no rule-out tests.

What controlled experiments have you performed to confirm that buoyancy does not rely on gravity? 

You see, to be a true scientific experiment, we use controls and repeated tests to rule out the following:

The gnome is the control and the tests were repeated all over the world.

If it were a matter of sinking or floating, we should expect the highest air pressure and humidity to be lighter based on the principles of buoyancy. But it's heavier, what is going on? Could gravity be... let me stop you there. Let's look at the moisture content of those three areas. Mumbai is the driest at 0.01" precipitation and 56% humidity, while San Francisco has 3.93" precipitation and 76% humidity. Clay ceramic (which gnomes are made of, has a tendency to be porous. These gnomes are drier in Cape Town and Mumbai than they are in San Francisco.

One of the neat things about ceramics is that they are often glazed and fired so that they don't absorb moisture.  Very handy for when you want your ceramic piece to last in moist environments.

So if we wanted to test buoyancy vs gravity out, we would need a nice dry area preferably with high pressure on account of being below sea level. Somewhere like Death Valley or...

Quote

During his Canadian visit, Kern was weighed both on the surface and two kilometres underground. Snolab's underground facilities are known as the deepest underground multi-purpose lab in the world.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/travelling-gnome-experiment-visits-world-s-deepest-lab-1.1294979
Yeah okay, that'll do. If gravity is responsible, this gnome should be significantly heavier the closer it is to Earth's core, which we are told is pulling all objects towards it. If buoyancy is responsible, then absent any moisture, having high air pressure ought to make objects lighter.

Great idea.  I look forward to seeing your calculations showing how much variation in buoyancy should be attributed to the variations in air pressure, humidity and other factors that you identified.  You do know how to calculate the value of a buoyant force, don't you?

Funny how none of you took me up on it.

You have already fled the subject, being completely and utterly defeated with you running like the lying coward you are.
Why use it as an excuse for you to run from this?

There is a difference between changing the official definition as a tool for understanding

Which is not what you did.
Instead you try changing the definition to lie to everyone and because the real definition doesn't fit in your delusional fantasy.

You show a gnome being heavier in North America than the South Pole, and you say "See?!? Proof of gravity."
Like most of your "experiments" (such as TFE) it really isn't a true experiment, just a set of observations.

You mean like most of your strawmen.
It is an experiment when done properly.
Taking the gnome to a multitude of locations, not just 2, and going back and forth rather than just one way. Ideally measuring or controlling for as many variables as possible.
A sealed absolute gravimeter would be great for that purpose.

You see, to be a true scientific experiment, we use controls and repeated tests to rule out the following:
1. Fraud.

Your use of "we" there is quite dishonest.
You do whatever you can to avoid doing such experiments. Likely because you know you will show you are wrong and can't use this pathetic excuse.

If you want to dismiss it as fraud, do it yourself.

3. Wrong Attribution.

This is not a problem with the experiment, it is a problem with the conclusion.
You are free to try to provide a better explanation. But until you do, gravity remains the best explanation we have.

This can also happen by accident. Like when people routinely call gravity what is a reaction to air or water pressure through buoyancy.

You mean when you intentionally lie about it, calling it buoyancy rather than gravity.

That there are multiple people means they could be holding it wrong, there might be multiple gnomes of nonstandard mass.

At which point you would expect a random distribution without any significant correlation.

differences exist based on the surroundings

Which you are unable to use to explain it.

Let's look at the moisture content of those three areas

Then try doing it properly.
Don't just provide it as a % of the equilibrium vapour pressure, tell us how much is actually in there.

Clay ceramic

Which this gnome is not made of. It is made of plastic.

So if we wanted to test buoyancy vs gravity out, we would need a nice dry area preferably with high pressure on account of being below sea level.

Or, use an absolute gravimeter, which has been done and shows comparable results.

If gravity is responsible, this gnome should be significantly heavier the closer it is to Earth's core, which we are told is pulling all objects towards it.

No, you aren't told that, that is your strawman.

Back in reality ALL the mass of Earth is pulling in the gnome.
So when you go underground, the mass above is pulling the gnome up.

You can't just ignore that and pretend should increase.

Fortunately, for a spherically symmetric object, you can ignore all mass above and only focus on the mass below.
That means the mass is less, but on average it is closer.

If Earth's density was uniform, then gravity would be proportional to distance from the centre.
So if you went 10% of the way down to the core, gravity would drop to 90% of what it is on the surface.

So based upon that simple approximation, you would expect it to get lighter as it goes down.

That has got to be the lamest explanation ever.

Now try that honestly, it shows you are wrong, you don't like so you dismiss it.

So I naturally like to mountain climb because the mountains are pulling me up. Hmmmm, that makes no sense, ever.

Because it is yet another strawman.

Consider a setup where you have a magnetic block of metal in the centre.
To its left, you have a very strong magnet.
Now compare this to the same situation where as well as that, to the right you have a quite weak magnet.

Do you expect the force on the magnetic block of metal to be the same in both situations? Or a force more to the left or more to the right?

Any sane, educated, HONEST person, would happily admit that the force will be still towards the left, but reduced.

Bizarrely, it gets less precipitation, but has more humidity

Not bizarre at all.
As I said above, this humidity is a percentage of the equilibrium vapour pressure of water.
Temperature plays an important role.
At the temperatures of Antarctica, the humidity is meaningless.

You want to appeal to it, do it properly.
In Mumbai, using your link, the mean temperature is 25C (for Feb anyway).
The equilibrium vapour pressure of water at 25C is 3.1690 kPa.

At 0C, it is 0.6113 kPa. When it changes to ice, it drops a bit further, to 0.6108 kPa.
But again, using your link, we get a temp of -41C. That gives a pressure of roughly 0.1283 kPa.
So 100% humidity here would have as much moisture as 4% in Mumbai.

So no, it is MUCH drier.

Without explaining why there should be such a difference in the South Pole.

It is quite well known why there is a difference.
Because Earth spins, making the equator budge out.

Do you wanna talk about the perspective of the sun yet?

No. I want you to explain the pressure gradient and why that doesn't magically push things up.

Do you wanna talk about the perspective of the sun yet?

The curvature of the earth can be captured and measured. So you are a moot point anyway.

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

Flat Earth horizon still wouldn't look flat!

Compressing the photo makes it easier to see.

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.

Do you wanna talk about the perspective of the sun yet?

No.  You have too many falsehoods, contradictions, and unanswered questions concerning your delusions.

And with your lie concerning gravity used as propaganda when the earth very clearly curves.

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

One.  How do you accelerate a mass?

 The penny is 7.15 grams per cubic centimeter.

Now accelerate the mass of that penny without unbalanced forces. 


  Two.  Your contraction. 

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

Really.  How.  When.  By what motive force.

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

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

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

  Three.  Objects do exert a downward force because of gravity. 

You..

 Gravity does not force it down.

Any person trying to raise a weight straight overhead knows they have to exert a greater force than the downforce of the object.  Where that downward force is caused by gravity.




To raise this 50 lbs weight above my head, I have to exert an upward force greater than 50 pounds.



But if I try to push the weight straight out.  The downward force is multiplied at my shoulder from my arm working as a lever.  And no matter how much I strain to provide resistance, the weight is pulled against my effort and falls down.

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



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



Funny.  Density did not change.  But reducing the amount of mass reduced the downward force where I could hold out 20 lbs.  But I had to exert real energy and counter force to hold the 20 lbs weight straight out  against the very real downward force called gravity.  Where I could use a more dense 20 lbs weight of lead and have to exert the same amount of force to hold the 20 lbs weight of steel.  It’s not density, but the amount of mass that impacts the downward force of weight caused by gravity.

  And think Bulma, that’s not even going into you ignoring tides! 

Or weight elongates a spring in a hanging spring scale in accordance of Hooke’s law.

Or why the more weight on a bike, the more force and energy you have to exert to peddle that bike up hill.

Or the more weight in a car, the higher the rpms, lower the gear, more fuel used to create more force to get the car up hill.

Don't worry, I will get to derpy dangling  object too.

Just wanna clear something up about the world of Kern The Gnome.

The gnome is the control and the tests were repeated all over the world.

That is not how you use a control.

Here's an example of control. Three groups of people have metastatic breast cancer. One is a group of women who get no treatment at all, one gets a placebo, one gets the effective medicine. If we want this test to be more interesting, we also have a fourth group told they are getting the medicine and warned of the side effects but given a placebo (basically a super-convincing placebo), and a fifth group that may or may not be getting the real drug, but their faith in it is undermined. In all those groups, the control is the ones that aren't getting nothing, not anywhere there.

The gnome is the control... 

Quote

If it were a matter of sinking or floating, we should expect the highest air pressure and humidity to be lighter based on the principles of buoyancy. But it's heavier, what is going on? Could gravity be... let me stop you there. Let's look at the moisture content of those three areas. Mumbai is the driest at 0.01" precipitation and 56% humidity, while San Francisco has 3.93" precipitation and 76% humidity. Clay ceramic (which gnomes are made of, has a tendency to be porous. These gnomes are drier in Cape Town and Mumbai than they are in San Francisco.

One of the neat things about ceramics is that they are often glazed and fired so that they don't absorb moisture.  Very handy for when you want your ceramic piece to last in moist environments.

I can show you my waterproofed boots, how they eventually tore while I walked out in snow that I mentioned earlier, and I am having to try to re-waterproof them using lithium grease. I can't say that I expect it to work, even though when it dries it should make a thin film of waterproof layer. Or lemme put it this way. Waterproof glaze doesn't prevent this from happening.



As we can see, waterproof doesn't mean nonstick. It really means water-resistant, or the ability to not have water destroy the gnome. Human beings are likewise water-resistant in that we can be hours outside, unlike a zombie, we don't rot. But anyone who has been outside understands, that human beings do get wet, but water doesn't soak into their skin, it just kinda moisturizes them. Prolonged rain can give them hypothermia though, unlike the gnome.

Great idea.  I look forward to seeing your calculations showing how much variation in buoyancy should be attributed to the variations in air pressure, humidity and other factors that you identified.  You do know how to calculate the value of a buoyant force, don't you?

I don't need to. Your experiment has done it for me. And I don't need to use your buoyant force formula (which is based on your assumptions, and thus a logical fallacy like asking "when you beat your wife, do you make sure she gets medical treatment?" You first dismiss the assumption that you beat your wife, like first I dismiss your mathematics based on faulty ideas). I know that the gnome "weighs" 0.11 g less.

When doing anything resembling a real experiment, we clarify if-then assumptions then look at the results. The results do not rule in favor of gravity, and they have to offer a lame excuse about rocks above the lab pulling them up. I wonder if that climate thing has Snolab? No, they don't. Because this underground lab is probably theoretical in nature. But I can make a guess based on Death Valley.
Precipitation: 0.00" (that's cuz we're in a lab)
Humidity: 40% (different by 1%, it was 41%)
Pressure: 30.01 "Hg (I didn't change anything here)

This would be consistent with an 0.11 g less result.

No.  You have too many falsehoods, contradictions, and unanswered questions concerning your delusions.

 Look in the mirror.

Not going to waste my time repeating about the weights, those are just images, unbalanced forces is something Newton made up as a generalized catch-all (similar to how after being wrong about global warming and about global cooling, the environmental alarmists thought up "climate change" because like the climate average often changes, and any change they can say is bad), by the force of buoyancy, we use hot air to lift balloons not to deep sea dive, you telling why this downward force happens is called a fiat (in other words, not because of what I have obseeved but "because I say so"), and tides go back and forth because it is water drifting into a vacuum of no water  similar to separating water in a fish tank with a large bit of plastic.

:gasp_for_air:

If you had an iota of observation ability, you'd notice that lake, where it curves so yo can't see the other shore, should drip down. I asked Pinocchio the AI, and he said the same. Lakes wouldn't be able to function as sources of water, because they would constantly be bleeding out water. But having been to ponds and lakes, we don't have to worry about this.

Another NASA image... Images are different from photos btw. 

You claiming people are Flat Earthers, when they are probably the same sort of shills as Jeran. Wearing a tee shirt that says Flat Earth doesn't make you one (false flag). I used to have a video showing how over the course of hours, a gyroscope (that you didn't blow $20,000 on) will just sit there. But having looked, and failed to find that video, we'll make the same point with Foucault pendulums.

Basically, the reason it's the same point is that midway through the video he talks about how these pendulums have an electrical power source (among other things) meaning their movement is not about natural motion but supplied (and probably controlled) energy. If you have no energy supplied to a pendulum, you have a plumbline. And a plumbline is a tool for level on houses.


Likewise, no energy in gyroscope means that it will not adjust based on time elapsed but on actual angular momentum. An if you set it on a coffee table, once it levels out... it just sits there. Like a person buying an expensive calculator and not reading about the PEDMAS feature, then entering a n averaging equation that would be better done on a cheap solar calculator, more expensive doesn't equal a more accurate result. I can buy an analog gyroscope for $40, not $20,000 and get a far more accurate result to Earth's real rotation. Nada.

And he we have two layer doctored picture. First we superimpose (whatever that is) instead of using a level or plumbline. Then we use one of GIMP's curve tools to make something straight appear to have a hill. Dishonest.

...Having tackled every point you used to distract from the fact that you're afraid to mention that you really haven't anything, we can go back to perspective of the sun. No? Horribly dishonest. You bring that up just to point out that we are off topic, but you don't actually want to be on topic.

I will get to derpy dangling  object too.

You babbling again to avoid that weight is an actual and proven downward force.


Start with this in your blatant web of lies and propaganda..

No.  You have too many falsehoods, contradictions, and unanswered questions concerning your delusions.

And with your lie concerning gravity used as propaganda when the earth very clearly curves.

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

How do you accelerate a mass?

 The penny is 7.15 grams per cubic centimeter.

Now accelerate the mass of that penny without unbalanced forces.

Just wanna clear something up

That this sad video makes more sense than your babbling?  And how much flat earth is the con at this point. 

Proving The Earth Is Flat!

Flatulence

Weight is not a force.

So.  To keep you from changing the topic..

Where you are desperate to avoid your right out falsehoods and contradictions. 



Any person trying to raise a weight straight overhead knows they have to exert a greater force than the downforce of the object.  Where that downward force is caused by gravity.




To raise this 50 lbs weight above my head, I have to exert an upward force greater than 50 pounds.



But if I try to push the weight straight out.  The downward force is multiplied at my shoulder from my arm working as a lever.  And no matter how much I strain to provide resistance, the weight is pulled against my effort and falls down.

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



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



Funny.  Density did not change.  But reducing the amount of mass reduced the downward force where I could hold out 20 lbs.  But I had to exert real energy and counter force to hold the 20 lbs weight straight out  against the very real downward force called gravity.  Where I could use a more dense 20 lbs weight of lead and have to exert the same amount of force to hold the 20 lbs weight of steel.  It’s not density, but the amount of mass that impacts the downward force of weight caused by gravity.

  And think Bulma, that’s not even going into you ignoring tides! 

Or weight elongates a spring in a hanging spring scale in accordance of Hooke’s law.

Or why the more weight on a bike, the more force and energy you have to exert to peddle that bike up hill.

Or the more weight in a car, the higher the rpms, lower the gear, more fuel used to create more force to get the car up hill.

Quote

The gnome is the control and the tests were repeated all over the world.

That is not how you use a control.

Here's an example of control. Three groups of people have metastatic breast cancer.

How is a medical trial anything at all like weighing a gnome?

As we can see, waterproof doesn't mean nonstick.

What makes you think that the scientists involved would be stupid enough leave the gnome out in the snow?

I know that the gnome "weighs" 0.11 g less.

Yes, but why does it weight 0.11 grams less?

But I can make a guess based on Death Valley.
Precipitation: 0.00" (that's cuz we're in a lab)
Humidity: 40% (different by 1%, it was 41%)
Pressure: 30.01 "Hg (I didn't change anything here)

This would be consistent with an 0.11 g less result.

Would it?  I'd really like to see the math that supports your "guess".

Or lemme put it this way. Waterproof glaze doesn't prevent this from happening.

So you are just saying the participants were complete morons that failed to realise snow on the gnome?

I don't need to. Your experiment has done it for me.

No it hasn't, as they weren't measuring any of those properties.
Nor have you even attempted to plot the data to see the effect.
Instead you just use it as a cheap excuse to reject reality.

And I don't need to use your buoyant force formula (which is based on your assumptions

No, it is based upon a model which actually works.
And even Archimedes recognised it.
Again, he didn't say things magically go up or down because of density, he said an object is buoyed upwards by a force proportional to the WEIGHT of the fluid displaced.

That is how buoyancy actually wroks.

The one using crap based upon assumptions is YOU!
Where you can't defend them at all, so you keep deflecting.

I know that the gnome "weighs" 0.11 g less.

And do you think it has a different mass, or just that it weighs less?

The results do not rule in favor of gravity

They don't rule in favour of your pathetic strawman.

they have to offer a lame excuse about rocks above the lab pulling them up.

You mean they explain reality which you hate and reject and dismiss as a lame excuse.

So lets just get this straight, you think gravity is pure magic which just magically pulls things to the core of Earth; that if you get a tiny ball, water should magically be able to overcome the gravity of Earth and instead stick to the tiny ball, yet a large mass directly above you should have no affect at all?

You are just spouting whatever delusional crap you can think of to pretend gravity doesn't work.
You are not remaining consistent or coherent at all.

Try doing it honestly for once.

But I can make a guess based on Death Valley.
This would be consistent with an 0.11 g less result.

You mean you can make up pure BS, to appeal to a vague result to pretend your BS must work, with no real data or justification.

In order to say it is consistent, you have to have a way to predict what it should weigh.
That means an actual model with formulae.
But because you don't have a working model, you just spout whatever crap you want.

Reality is not consistent with your crap.
A pressure gradient is not consistent with your crap.
That pressure gradient not pushing things up is not consistent with your crap.

Look in the mirror.

We can. We see that there is no contradiction with gravity, with you desperately lying about it and contradicting yourself.
Meanwhile, we see plenty of faults in your BS.

You still refuse to explain the pressure gradient and why it doesn't push things up which still kills your BS.

If you had an iota of observation ability, you'd notice that lake, where it curves so yo can't see the other shore, should drip down.

And if you had an iota of intelligence, honesty and integrity, you would understand that down there is still towards the centre of Earth, so it isn't going to fall off.

I asked Pinocchio the AI

You asked your useless crap, and got a useless response.

You claiming people are Flat Earthers, when they are probably the same sort of shills as Jeran.

Here is the thing about FEers, including yourself:
They frequently spout pure BS. Crap which is so obviously fake it raises the question of if they truly believe it or are just trolling.
So why shouldn't Jeran claim you are a shill or a troll?
Someone made to make FE look stupid.
Someone made to make FEers look like they have no integrity, honesty or intelligence?

The sole reason you have to dismiss him as a shill is that he accepted Earth isn't flat.
So to you, acceptance of reality makes someone a shill.

And you do it to dismiss what they say.

I used to have a video showing how over the course of hours, a gyroscope (that you didn't blow $20,000 on) will just sit there.

Do you mean the one which fails to demonstrate the gyroscope is balanced and fails to demonstrate if they gyroscope is capable of detecting such a small angular drift?
See, mechanical gyroscopes, if not balanced properly, will drift, and you can make it drift in either direction.
Likewise, mechanical gyroscopes, in order to turn, must overcome friction. If the rate of rotation is too small, then it wont be able to overcome the friction.

But having looked, and failed to find that video, we'll make the same point with Foucault pendulums.

So you have a video of a Foucault pendulum showing no rotation?

No, of course not, instead you appeal to your cult leaders dismissal with claims they don't back up.
Yet notice how they don't do the experiment themselves?

If you don't trust it, do it yourself.
And don't worry, you don't need an energy source, you just need a pendulum that can swing for long enough and that is free to move in any direction.

I can buy an analog gyroscope for $40, not $20,000 and get a far more accurate result to Earth's real rotation.

Now try it honestly.
You buy a cheap gyroscope which is much less accurate and much less precise, so it is unable to measure the very slow rotation of Earth.

Having tackled every point you used to distract from the fact that you're afraid to mention that you really haven't anything, we can go back to perspective of the sun.

Lying yet again.
You have still failed to explain the pressure gradient and why it doesn't push things up.
You still repeat the same lies.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 15, 2025, 05:51:16 AM

I know that the gnome "weighs" 0.11 g less.

And do you think it has a different mass, or just that it weighs less?

Perhaps it became less dense.