Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

Quote

Answer this important question which is on topic:

Were wearing A), B), or C) when you typed that post:

A) Your little black dress
B) Your see-through nightie
C) Your bikini and g-string

Considering it's snowing and I know how much of an attention whore you are, my bet is C) and you're parading around your front yard in front of your neighbour's little kids, giving them a lifetime of nightmares.

Wow.

It's funny how the woke globalists make a great pretense at being tolerant and in favor of a free society, but actually when it gets down to it, they just want more bureaucracy to control everybody. They are in fact the worst sorts of bigots, who want to mutilate the bodies of women ("be sure to get regular mammograms (which radiate breast tissue so you later need to remove your breasts)"; "you're not really a woman, you like to wear pants"; "it's your right to choose (and by choose, we mean be pressured into aborting by your boyfriend or your father)"; "Muslim men are feminists (which is why they do FGM in their own countries)..."), who secretly hate Jews (but frame it as defending Muslims from "aggression"), blacks, LGBT, and other minorities.  The liberal rich live in gated communities where no blacks or minorities. They just like to use all of us to win elections.

Try (D) None of the above. What sort of clothing does one typically wear when in a cold climate? I dunno, why don't you ask the "flat Earthers" that visited "Antarctica"? Oh wait, they weren't wearing proper clothing! No gloves, no hat, no jacket. Only a thermal vest.  He went in doors to get gloves for touching snow, when he should have been wearing it the whole time! Then one of the guys gave him a heads up and he put on a cap. Dude wasn't even shivering.

Quote

Yes, because the scales are supporting a different portion of the dog's weight.

Density is about mass over portion of physical space. Once again, "weight" doesn't exist out of touch with how it is spread.

I suppose you'd like me to lose my temper and get mad at you or something with a comment like that. The thing is, I won't and it's not because I'm scared or something about turning the other cheek. It's that you are not even enough to get mad over. The people who matter in my life don't mind.  They don't mind if I go into church wearing stockings. I have told my sister-in-law, both my cousins, my brother, and my sister. People in small town America. Life went on. They aren't freaked out if I go into a bathroom to adjust my makeup. There were no people wanting to hurt me, like Hollywood thinks happens all over the place. You are among the people who don't matter. 

And that's not on topic.

Now what you're done with your pathetic tricks, let's tell you about this. The term pressure gradient is literally some stupid term you made up as far as I'm concerned. Gradient refers to the gradation of something, such as the when the sun sets, there is a color gradient where color moves between blue and shades of orange and red. Pressure referring to air pressure or water pressure or some other gas pressure. When you go up a flight of stairs, from ground floor to the 80th floor of a building 1000 ft up, the air pressure is thinner than when you started. That pressure gradient? Yes, it is harder to walk uphill than downhill, because the higher you move the more you contend with thin air, both from difficulty breathing and the fact that your body is denser than thick air, and even denser than thin air. People climbing Everest complain about how arduous the climb is, because air pressure is actually changing from when you start.

"Well what about the pressure gradient?" you say as you have nothing better to talk about.

Quote

In atmospheric science, the pressure gradient is a physical quantity that describes in which direction and at what rate the pressure increases the most rapidly around a particular location. The pressure gradient is a dimensional quantity expressed in units of pascals per metre. Mathematically, it is the gradient of pressure as a function of position.

Which is not what those words mean separately.  You may as well be speaking French, where terms can be put together and not equal their constituent parts thanks to the many figures of speech. And I don't care. I don't use pascals, I don't measure matter in meters, and I only care about pressure in regard to how it affects other objects. Temperature, wind velocity, and density comparison between objects; if those things aren't relevant to your understanding, there is no point explaining why pressure changes. You don't get it.

And this is why neither you, nor your discussion matters.

Listen. When wind pushes air into other air, the air behind the wind is in a vacuum. The air that the wind pushes into is more dense. So air diffuses. If air is at a different temperature, it has a different density, as air narrows or widens in surface area as it evaporates and condensates. All of this creates real gradient of different pressure systems. Pascals? Dude, Pascal was the same idiot who made that wager.  But you happily use this system and not that. Hint: If God exists, and he is the loving God that Christians say he is, he's not going to send you to hell over not believing in him. Literally nothing about this dude is worth mentioning. There are better ways to model the interaction of air pressure than quantifying units of pressure. This is because describing how much pressure distracts from the fact that the only thing that matters is air density against the density of whatever other gas.



Here,watch this movie wherein there are two plane trips, and calculate the units of pressure (like the box, I'm not giving you any measurements to work with) for while they are on the ground in Chicago versus while they are in the air those two times during the movie.

If you're truly convinced that units of pascals matter, let's make a good old fashion wager.

Either:

• Only object density and surface density matter (and stuff like temperature when discussing mixing pressure systems), and Pascal's pressure gradient is not at all important, it's just not relevant enough for me to care.
• Only object density and surface density matter (and stuff like temperature when discussing mixing pressure systems), and Pascal's pressure gradient is super important, in which case, one of these are not as important as claimed.
• Pressure cannot work without the pressure gradient and gravity stuff, and Pascal's pressure gradient is super important, in which case, hurray you win!
• Pressure cannot work without the pressure gradient and gravity stuff, but Pascal's pressure gradient is not at all important, it's just not relevant enough for me to care.

Yup, a Pascal's wager about the existence of pascals. Since I can indeed visualize a pressure system without fiddling around with Pascal's, and it is actually unhelpful to use them, since in a given area, there might be two different gases moving up and down at the same time (during a hurricane for instance, hot and cold air mix), I can actually cross out the ones where it matters. So it's just not relevant enough for me to care. Like you.

So we're watching a movie today, cuz it's a snow day and everything got canceled.

No. I'm just wondering if there are more cross dressers on this forum, aside from yourself and the Queen of Hearts - jackblack?

But, hey, I'm not judging. You guys can wear whatever stilettos make you comfortable. Just don't try running in those things. Oh, and everybody here wants to hear you two compare cup sizes.

But, keeping on topic,  I would have thought pressure gradient to you, means how much pressure your stockings are applying against your package?

I'm not a woke globalist. I'm a globalist who barracks for Trump, and I dont give a shit about your precious pronouns.

What I do give a shit about, is someone trying to rewrite 2500 years of physics history, and I couldn't care less if your undies you are wearing, are the edible kind.





 

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

Shrugs..

WATCH: Wedding party falls into lake when dock collapses

Then why did about 22 people walk out on this dock in the context of this documented collapse.  Stand and pose.  Only to have the dock finally give out from their weight.  What caused the dock and the people to go from no downward movement, to being accelerated downward, overcoming the resistance of atmosphere.  To overcome the structure and the load bearing properties of that dock. 


You understand how a weight sled works for the competition.  I guess not if you don’t get weight is a real down force.

 is a very clever mechanical device that has the ability to transfer weight from the wheels at the back to the pan at the front. During a pull, the sledge sits on the starting line as a rolling weight, but gradually transforms into a dead-weight, the further down the track it goes.

https://tractorpulling.co.uk/pulling-sledge

During the pull.  The weight box is moved forward to the pan off the wheels.  If weight isn’t a real downforce, why does drag against the ground increase as the weight is transferred off the wheels to the pan to increase friction with the ground.  During the pull, the weight simply moves forward until enough friction is created by increasing the downforce on the pan in contact with the ground.  This alone is usually enough to stop the pulling tractor.  No change in density during the pull.  No change in height for this model of sled during the pull.  No change in surface area of the rig during the pull.  Just the downward force over the pan is increased by moving the weight box ever closer to the pan.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 21, 2025, 05:31:30 AM

This level works because bead's density is compared to that around it. I believe they call this a gyroscope compass as it responds not to magnetism but center of mass. So ummm, over the course of the day, this compass ought to shift because of Earth's rotation. But it never does.

That's not even close to a gyrocompass.  This is:


BTW, the gyroscope that the FE'ers used in their botched experiment was actually a ring laser gyroscope.  Similar principle to a regular gyroscope, but uses lasers instead and is many time more accurate.

Herp derp!

Lasers are cool! Nothing made by a laser could ever be inaccurate!

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 20, 2025, 12:43:02 PM

Quote

Answer this important question which is on topic:

Were wearing A), B), or C) when you typed that post:

A) Your little black dress
B) Your see-through nightie
C) Your bikini and g-string

Considering it's snowing and I know how much of an attention whore you are, my bet is C) and you're parading around your front yard in front of your neighbour's little kids, giving them a lifetime of nightmares.

Wow.

It's funny how the woke globalists make a great pretense at being tolerant and in favor of a free society, but actually when it gets down to it, they just want more bureaucracy to control everybody. They are in fact the worst sorts of bigots, who want to mutilate the bodies of women ("be sure to get regular mammograms (which radiate breast tissue so you later need to remove your breasts)"; "you're not really a woman, you like to wear pants"; "it's your right to choose (and by choose, we mean be pressured into aborting by your boyfriend or your father)"; "Muslim men are feminists (which is why they do FGM in their own countries)..."), who secretly hate Jews (but frame it as defending Muslims from "aggression"), blacks, LGBT, and other minorities.  The liberal rich live in gated communities where no blacks or minorities. They just like to use all of us to win elections.

No. I'm just wondering if there are more cross dressers on this forum, aside from yourself and the Queen of Hearts - jackblack?

But, hey, I'm not judging.

Actually, you kinda are being judgey. If I actually cared about you, you'd likely be reported for making sexist remarks.

But as I don't, I'm just gonna glare at you a little bit.

I'm not a woke globalist. I'm a globalist who barracks for Trump, and I dont give a shit about your precious pronouns.

All globalists are woke. If you can be prejudiced against me, then by all means, I have the right to smear you the same as all those wearing pussy-hats.   

What I do give a shit about, is someone trying to rewrite 2500 years of physics history, and I couldn't care less if your undies you are wearing, are the edible kind.

How are you certain that I did rewrite physics history?

From what I know of history (which comes of being a History Major), I know studying historiography means history is written by those with an axe to grind. Historiography also means logically piecing out oddities. And here's what we know of so-called physics history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

More tersely: buoyant force = weight of displaced fluid.

Keep in mind, this is under Archimedes Principle.

"Well, that proves gravity is involved in buoyancy."
Not so fast. Weight, as defined by Newton, under gravitational principles did not exist. So when Archimedes said "weight" he would have meant either mass or density. Period.

Suppose a rock's weight is measured as 10 newtons when suspended by a string in a vacuum with gravity acting upon it. Suppose that when the rock is lowered into water, it displaces water of weight 3 newtons.

Yes, let us suppose that. And now let us think for even a second about the use of a measure that would not have existed at the time of Archimedes.

Conclusion: Modern buoyancy equations are revisionist history by people who believe in gravity (Newtonian). Archimedes would not have used those words, nor thought of the equation in this way. So the equation must be written in a way that someone coming before Newton would understand it. Because I think density also a later word, we say "load/burden" (φορτίο) and then distribute that over "expanse" (έκταση). Mass measured against volume or area. Gravity is a about fifteen or so centuries late to be told by Archimedes. But he definitely would be discovered that a brick is more dense than a log.

So tell me, who exactly is rewriting history? I'm just using historiography to figure out that this official account of buoyancy theory does not make any sense. And then I'm dismissing any later revisions to see if my best guess of the original theory works. Well before Newton, people were perfectly capable of using boats. In fact, if I remember correctly, Archimedes helped improve ships since he was alive during the Punic Wars.

He added claws to them and other cool gadgets like a heat ray mirror.

 buoyancy

Buoyancy made possible in the atmosphere because gravity is a force that causes air molecules and atoms to bunch up at the earth’s surface, over coming the gas molecules and atoms tendency to equal distance form each other.  Resulting in greater atmospheric pressure and density at the earth’s surface from equalising with the lower pressure and density above. 

Bulma.  You’re just babbling again.

Two examples below that show weight is a real downforce.

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

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

Shrugs..

Quote

WATCH: Wedding party falls into lake when dock collapses

Then why did about 22 people walk out on this dock in the context of this documented collapse.  Stand and pose.  Only to have the dock finally give out from their weight.  What caused the dock and the people to go from no downward movement, to being accelerated downward, overcoming the resistance of atmosphere.  To overcome the structure and the load bearing properties of that dock. 


You understand how a weight sled works for the competition.  I guess not if you don’t get weight is a real down force.

Quote

 is a very clever mechanical device that has the ability to transfer weight from the wheels at the back to the pan at the front. During a pull, the sledge sits on the starting line as a rolling weight, but gradually transforms into a dead-weight, the further down the track it goes.

https://tractorpulling.co.uk/pulling-sledge

During the pull.  The weight box is moved forward to the pan off the wheels.  If weight isn’t a real downforce, why does drag against the ground increase as the weight is transferred off the wheels to the pan to increase friction with the ground.  During the pull, the weight simply moves forward until enough friction is created by increasing the downforce on the pan in contact with the ground.  This alone is usually enough to stop the pulling tractor.  No change in density during the pull.  No change in height for this model of sled during the pull.  No change in surface area of the rig during the pull.  Just the downward force over the pan is increased by moving the weight box ever closer to the pan.

Bulma. Do you understand why the dock collapsed only when there was enough people and weight.

Density is mass divided by volume. 

When each additional person walked on to the dock, the density as in the composition of each person is about the same. 

The average density of a person.  985 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3).

The average volume of a person is about .07 meters cubed. 

The average weight of an adult person is about 70 kg. 

When each additional person walks on to the dock, you don’t keep adding density together.  Density is about the same for each person.

But when each person walks on the dock, about another 70 kg of mass is added that is exerting weight on the dock because of earth’s gravity.


So.  Two people on the dock.  The density is still about 985 kg/m3.  But the weight on the dock is now about 140 kg being pulled down by gravity.


22 people on the dock at collapse.  The density is still about 985 kg/m3. But the weight is now about 22 x 70 kg.  1,540 kg of mass on the dock being pulled down by gravity.  Or about 3395 lbs. 

Herp derp!

That's the most intelligent thing you've said since you've been here.

Lasers are cool! Nothing made by a laser could ever be inaccurate!

And now you're back to saying stupid things.

Quote from: markjo on February 21, 2025, 01:51:34 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 21, 2025, 05:31:30 AM

This level works because bead's density is compared to that around it. I believe they call this a gyroscope compass as it responds not to magnetism but center of mass. So ummm, over the course of the day, this compass ought to shift because of Earth's rotation. But it never does.

That's not even close to a gyrocompass.  This is:


BTW, the gyroscope that the FE'ers used in their botched experiment was actually a ring laser gyroscope.  Similar principle to a regular gyroscope, but uses lasers instead and is many time more accurate.

Herp derp!

Lasers are cool! Nothing made by a laser could ever be inaccurate!

Quote from: Smoke Machine on February 21, 2025, 08:39:26 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 20, 2025, 12:43:02 PM

Quote

Answer this important question which is on topic:

Were wearing A), B), or C) when you typed that post:

A) Your little black dress
B) Your see-through nightie
C) Your bikini and g-string

Considering it's snowing and I know how much of an attention whore you are, my bet is C) and you're parading around your front yard in front of your neighbour's little kids, giving them a lifetime of nightmares.

Wow.

It's funny how the woke globalists make a great pretense at being tolerant and in favor of a free society, but actually when it gets down to it, they just want more bureaucracy to control everybody. They are in fact the worst sorts of bigots, who want to mutilate the bodies of women ("be sure to get regular mammograms (which radiate breast tissue so you later need to remove your breasts)"; "you're not really a woman, you like to wear pants"; "it's your right to choose (and by choose, we mean be pressured into aborting by your boyfriend or your father)"; "Muslim men are feminists (which is why they do FGM in their own countries)..."), who secretly hate Jews (but frame it as defending Muslims from "aggression"), blacks, LGBT, and other minorities.  The liberal rich live in gated communities where no blacks or minorities. They just like to use all of us to win elections.

No. I'm just wondering if there are more cross dressers on this forum, aside from yourself and the Queen of Hearts - jackblack?

But, hey, I'm not judging.

Actually, you kinda are being judgey. If I actually cared about you, you'd likely be reported for making sexist remarks.

But as I don't, I'm just gonna glare at you a little bit.

Quote

I'm not a woke globalist. I'm a globalist who barracks for Trump, and I dont give a shit about your precious pronouns.

All globalists are woke. If you can be prejudiced against me, then by all means, I have the right to smear you the same as all those wearing pussy-hats.   

Quote

What I do give a shit about, is someone trying to rewrite 2500 years of physics history, and I couldn't care less if your undies you are wearing, are the edible kind.

How are you certain that I did rewrite physics history?

From what I know of history (which comes of being a History Major), I know studying historiography means history is written by those with an axe to grind. Historiography also means logically piecing out oddities. And here's what we know of so-called physics history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

Quote

More tersely: buoyant force = weight of displaced fluid.

Keep in mind, this is under Archimedes Principle.

"Well, that proves gravity is involved in buoyancy."
Not so fast. Weight, as defined by Newton, under gravitational principles did not exist. So when Archimedes said "weight" he would have meant either mass or density. Period.

Quote

Suppose a rock's weight is measured as 10 newtons when suspended by a string in a vacuum with gravity acting upon it. Suppose that when the rock is lowered into water, it displaces water of weight 3 newtons.

Yes, let us suppose that. And now let us think for even a second about the use of a measure that would not have existed at the time of Archimedes.

Conclusion: Modern buoyancy equations are revisionist history by people who believe in gravity (Newtonian). Archimedes would not have used those words, nor thought of the equation in this way. So the equation must be written in a way that someone coming before Newton would understand it. Because I think density also a later word, we say "load/burden" (φορτίο) and then distribute that over "expanse" (έκταση). Mass measured against volume or area. Gravity is a about fifteen or so centuries late to be told by Archimedes. But he definitely would be discovered that a brick is more dense than a log.

So tell me, who exactly is rewriting history? I'm just using historiography to figure out that this official account of buoyancy theory does not make any sense. And then I'm dismissing any later revisions to see if my best guess of the original theory works. Well before Newton, people were perfectly capable of using boats. In fact, if I remember correctly, Archimedes helped improve ships since he was alive during the Punic Wars.

He added claws to them and other cool gadgets like a heat ray mirror.

Maybe, if you dont want anyone to mention your preferences, you can refrain from disclosing yours, or the character you're playing's, preferences, to the entire forum? Just a suggestion. Plus, you keep reminding everybody, as if it's something you want discussed here?

I dont understand how you are pushing buoyancy theory and then announce the official buoyancy theory doesn't make any sense?

So, you don't believe buoyancy is a suitable substitute for gravity, now?

Lasers are cool! Nothing made by a laser could ever be inaccurate!

It isn't something made by a laser.
It is something which uses a laser.
And that overcomes lots of the problems.
Firstly, its accuracy is then quite well known. You no longer have issues of it needing to overcome friction.
You no longer have the issue of needing to make sure it is weighted properly.

But of course, because it shows your delusional fantasy is wrong, you reject it; not with any reason, but just with pathetic ridicule; showing just how pathetic you and your position are.

Actually, you kinda are being judgey.

I would say he is more trying be a troll and piss you off.

All globalists are woke.

Pure BS.
Especially not the way you try to pretend "globalist" means anyone who accepts the fact Earth is round.
That doesn't make one woke.

And here's what we know of so-called physics history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

Quote

More tersely: buoyant force = weight of displaced fluid.

Yes, notice the key part?
The buoyant force is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid.
Now apply that to a vacuum, where there is no fluid to displace.
That would result in no buoyant force.

It is also a clear recognition that the buoyant force is upwards.

But your reject all that because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy.
You try to pervert history.

"Well, that proves gravity is involved in buoyancy."
Not so fast. Weight, as defined by Newton, under gravitational principles did not exist.

Forget trying to have gravity in it for a minute.
Just accept the fact that WEIGHT was in it.
That even the ancient Greeks recognised there was a downwards force known as weight, and that buoyancy was an upwards force.

Notice what was entirely absent? Any mention of density.
It is weight, a downwards force which makes things hard to lift, and a separate buoyant force, which is an upwards force.

So when Archimedes said "weight" he would have meant either mass or density. Period.

No, he didn't.
He meant a downwards force trying to make things go down.

The fact you have this weight and buoyant force means they recognise a difference.
They quite clearly knew about weight, and had it as a downwards force.
They just had no explanation for what caused it.

Yes, let us suppose that. And now let us think for even a second about the use of a measure that would not have existed at the time of Archimedes.

And that is just appealing to semantics.
You may as well say because it is written in English it is wrong, and they need to write it in Ancient Greek.

You can apply the same system, just with different words.
Say you have a scale, an ancient one, used in Ancient Greece.
On one side of this scale, you hand a steel ball.
You then balance the scale by placing rocks or anything on the other side of it.
Now you carefully light the ball up, place a jug filled with water under the ball, which once placed you fill up until it overflows out the spout, and then you carefully lower the ball in, catching any water that spill out of the jug into another container.
Ideally, this container would be pre-balanced on another set of scales.
Then you remove rocks from the original scale until it balances again, carefully keeping track of them.
Then you weigh the water, and find out you just need those rocks you removed.

So you have the steel ball which has a weight equal to the rocks, and by displacing a certain amount of rocks worth of weight of water, you decrease the weight of the steel ball by that same amount.

No need for fancy units.
The principle still applies.

Conclusion:
Our modern understanding of gravity and buoyancy are merely providing explanatory layers to what was known by the ancients.
It is 100% consistent with what the ancients claimed about it.
Newtons model of gravity explains weight.
He didn't come up with gravity, he come up with the inverse square law to have it work.

And that, along with understanding how this causes a pressure gradient in a fluid and that acts to push objects up, results in a downwards force proportional to the weight of fluid displaced.
100% consistent.

Conversely, your delusional BS directly contradicts it.
You want to claim that weight and buoyancy are magically the same thing.
That the buoyant force is magically both and up and down, depending on the fluid and the object.

second conclusion:
You are a dishonest, lying coward, that will use whatever dishonest BS you can to avoid admitting reality is right and your delusional BS is wrong.

So tell me, who exactly is rewriting history?

YOU!

More importantly, who really cares what history is?
It being history doesn't make it correct.

The simple fact is the modern understanding provides a coherent explanation of what is observed.
Meanwhile you need to continually flee from the pressure gradient which destroys your delusional BS.

I'm just using historiography to figure out that this official account of buoyancy theory does not make any sense.

Yet you cannot demonstrate a single way in which it does not make sense.


Now again, care to stop with all the childish BS and address the pressure gradient?
Something which trivially destroys your delusional BS?

Actually addressing the actual pressure gradient, instead of your childish BS?

You know, the one where it is a force per unit area, which increases as you down, which would apply an upwards force to object?

Herp derp!

Bulma.  You are contradicting yourself again.

Do things vanish in the distance?

But let's say he wanted to prove the sphere by putting one object closer but way off to the left. Hey ummm, there is horizontal length vanishing point. 

Or can you see them 100 miles away? 

Meanwhile, when cameras were claimed to pick up shots from across the bay in Indiana from Chicago (nearly 100 miles away), the media claimed "That's a mirage."

By the way.  Looking forward to you posting a chart of “Indiana Bay” and its actual location and size on the lake.


Where this is Chicago at 15 miles away. 

Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan
Posted on June 13, 2014 by Matthew Wolf



https://yumyummatt.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/chicago-as-seen-from-around-south-lake-michigan/

And this is Chicago at 40 miles away. 

New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)



https://yumyummatt.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/chicago-as-seen-from-around-south-lake-michigan/

Holly cow Bulma.  You can only see the very top of Chicago’s tallest buildings at 40 miles as predicted by earths curvature. What, three or four at most? 

Shouldn’t you see all the buildings on a flat earth? 

As predicted, you say.

Only you have carefully curated pictures, and nothing is  allowed to deviate.

You're measuring only distance, and not elevation or the straightness of lines (what is known as "line of sight").

Charts will not tell the whole story, therefore.

New Buffalo, Michigan... you barely see the top.

Indiana?
https://brandoneicher.com/blogs/news/the-best-view-of-the-chicago-skyline-is-in-indiana
Once again, you can see the whole skyline.
Miller Beach

That one seems to be 35 miles away.


Dunes Park in Indiana

I think they said Porter Beach. About 50 miles away but south rather than east. Better than your 40 mile picture.

If you compare to the other images, this is the same as 15 mile one. Whereas your 40 mile picture is probably horrible line of sight and bad elevation.

The tallest buildings or the closest buildings. In fact, if were were to answer whether those are the tallest buildings or the closest, and we should have our answer about how objects disappear. You sat they disappear top to bottom, but it's more that they appear to sink into the ground furthest object first.

It also depends on other factors. On a foggy day, 100 yards away isn't an option, much less miles and miles away. The is supposed to be one nearly 100 miles away but I dunno know the location. What I do know is that location in Michigan is completely horrible. Did you pick it for how bad it was?

So why is it so bad? Well let's explain to the uneducated.

I think they said the star was New Buffalo.

The dunes of Indiana are southeast from Chicago (near Gary) which is on the west side of this lake. New Buffalo is across the water from Chicago. You ask, "Shouldn't that be a straighter line?"
 Well, no. There is curvature, but not in the way you think. Longitude lines are straight, latitude lines are curved space. This is true in a flat Earth model but not a sphere.
 
So across the lake from Chicago is actually worse line of sight, thus much worse visibility.

It is going under a curve alright. Latitude. There is no curve of longitude however. Or if you want to think of it this way, youe 40 mile across view is actually the folded space of driving down and around the lake, well more than 40 miles when all is said and done.

As predicted, you say.

As predicted you lied.

The Best View of the Chicago Skyline is in Indiana?



A couple of weeks ago, my wife and I decided to drive down to Indiana Dunes State Park. It was our first visit to the park, and our expectations were admittedly low. More than anything, we wanted to escape Chicago for a few hours. The park just happened to be the destination.

When we arrived at the dunes, we went for a walk along Porter Beach.   Almost immediately, two things became clear. First, Indiana’s dunes are charming, but unremarkable. Second, and perhaps more importantly, we discovered that Indiana Dunes offers breathtaking views of downtown Chicago. From Porter Beach, you can see the entire Chicago skyline, including the Sears Tower and the Hancock Building.

https://brandoneicher.com/blogs/news/the-best-view-of-the-chicago-skyline-is-in-indiana

Bulma.  The source is an overview of Indiana beaches where many beaches are very close.  You article doesn’t say the picture was from Indiana Dunes 53 miles away from Indiana Dunes at Warren Dunes. 

Which “Dunes Park”?

If it’s Porter Park, line of sight view of Chicago is about 34 miles as the crow flies.  See posts below. 



Bulma.  How far is Chicago from the Dunes.  It’s not 100 miles.  It’s not even 60 miles.  You’re using lies. 

As predicted, you say.

As predicted. You lied.

Miller beach?

Which is about 26 miles to Chicago over the water.


Notice you don’t see the Chicago sea walls and trees.  If the earth was flat.  You should.

Chicago Yacht Club
The sea wall

https://www.iiseagrant.org/chicagowaterwalk/cww5_rtlm_cyc_seawall.html

Nothing to do with you claim of 100 miles.

You understand drive times and distances are different than straight line of sight over the water.  Right?

I think they said Porter Beach. About 50 miles away but south rather than east. Better than your 40 mile picture.

Do you understand that building don’t look this way?




You understand this is part of a mirage?

Do you understand if the earth was flat, you should see the Chicago sea walls and trees.  Even your own pictures show less and less of Chicago with distance.

Do you understand drive distance around the lake, vs straight line of sight over the lake.



Porter Beach is more like 34 miles to Chicago over the water.

This is 52 miles away from Chicago.



  Bulma. No where near the 100 miles you claimed. 

As predicted, you say.

You claimed 100 miles away.

How about you address my actual post. Instead of spamming the thread with false claims of distances? 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 23, 2025, 02:19:29 PM

"Oh that? That's a mirage."

Meanwhile, when cameras were claimed to pick up shots from across the bay in Indiana from Chicago (nearly 100 miles away),

Ok.  Have an actual link and location to your picture your using that looks like a picture a lot closer than 100 miles.  Taken at shore level. 

Funny.  Only the tops of the builds are seen. Flat earth.  The actual city should be seen.


Now.  How about you do some research.  And give the honest conditions the pictures are taken from.

This is actually the picture concerning the mirage.

Quote

Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage






al Sunday
A year ago, I showed this amazing picture on air and online. The story has been one of the most viewed stories on our website, ever. Most clicked because of its rarity, and also because there are skyline skeptics that say my explanation is a cover-up.  A cover-up to their belief that this picture is proof the earth is flat.


Joshua Nowicki captured it through a lens. He’s an amateur turned semi-pro photographer

“I moved to southwest Michigan about 4 years ago and fell in love living along the lake and photography just kinda took off from there," Nowicki said.

Some photos he takes for himself, some he sells, but most he snaps just because he loves it. He snapped the now infamous photo last April.

Was it a mirage? Or is this proof to some the earth is indeed flat? We climbed the dunes to find out.

Due to the curvature of the earth, it’s not possible to see the Chicago skyline in such clarity and detail, at least under normal atmospheric conditions. 

How far away is the horizon?

This can be figured out with middle school math, remember the Pythagorean Theorem? Or you can just use this web based calculator, to try for yourself.


The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon. That’s still not far enough to see Chicago, at least at ground level. The Willis (Sears) Tower is 1,450 feet to the top. Doing the same calculations you could see it from up to 65 miles away on Tower Hill.

That day on the shores of Lake Michigan at Warren Dunes State Park, just 50 some miles to the west, Chicago was hard to see on the slightly overcast day. Looking towards the south less than 20 miles away you can see Michigan City, the power plant and Blue Chip Casino.

“It depends on where you are. Here at Warren dunes you have a better chance at seeing Chicago, up at St. Joe every once in awhile,” Nowicki said. 
“Earlier this year there was a good opportunity, It looked like 40 or 50 buildings which is the most I've ever had the chance to see."

Quote

The views along the lake are always changing, along with the weather.
“I do go out and take a lot of photos of Chicago along the lake. I go to different locations on different nights. I like to compare the photos as to what's changed. Are the buildings wider, taller, shorter are there more of them? Less of them? It's always different, it's so unpredictable, I want to catch as many different views of it as I can," Nowicki said.

To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

Bulma.  53 miles is not 100 miles.  250 feet above the lake from a hill isn’t being right on the shore.

 

I think they said Porter Beach. About 50 miles away but south rather than east. Better than your 40 mile picture.

Is it?






Your mirage photo ..

Vs

New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)




Where Porter beach is 35 miles away as the crow flies?




Vs New Buffalo is 45 miles away.






I would say New Buffalo at 45 miles across the lake from Chicago is a good deal farther away than Porter Beach at 35 miles. 

  With neither being even close to your stupid 100 mile claim.  Bulma, you are a hack. 

😂😂😂😂😂😂

You claimed 100 miles away.

Yeah, but I don't know the name of the location. We dealing with places instead that I do know the name of the location. Please try to keep up.

First, Miller Beach. I said 35 miles away, which is as good or better than your pictures 6 and 8 miles away. Yes, it's taken by a camera with telescopic lens. Deal with it.


Survey says...


Now, the line of sight over the water is shorter, but I'm talking about the real distance it would take car owners rather than pulling a tape measure across bodies of water. You can see at various distances, but since we can't fly overland like birds a straight line across the water isn't always accurate. As I believe I said previous post. Learn to read.

Which “Dunes Park”?

Lurn2Reed

"The whole shoreline is part of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore."
Had you bothered to examine what I was saying, I wouldn't need to repeat so much.

The next two pictures are somewhere along the whole shoreline. They don't really elaborate. I don't really care either.

The third is mentioned as Porter Beach. I said around 50 miles. Survey says...

49 miles (close enough)

Meanwhile, you say 40 miles away...

but the distance on the map is...

71 miles. And then you later draw a line around 53 miles, and try to skew actual driving distance that I quoted to call me a liar, when your distances are far more all over the place.

This can be figured out with middle school math, remember the Pythagorean Theorem? Or you can just use this web based calculator, to try for yourself.

The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon. That’s still not far enough to see Chicago, at least at ground level. The Willis (Sears) Tower is 1,450 feet to the top. Doing the same calculations you could see it from up to 65 miles away on Tower Hill.

So basically, when the distance is not "as predicted" (for instance, you should not be able to see a damned thing 40 miles away as you said at first, then 53 miles, and turns out to be 71 miles as a drivers travels) you tell me to do the Pythagorean Theorem and when what you see doesn't square with what the numbers tell you, you call me a liar and claim this is all just a mirage.

No, sorry, you can see one or two buildings as far away in circular distance (latitude is folded space, or the great circle flight path wouldn't work) as 71 miles. And as far in a line of sight as 53 miles. 

Here's what it says about curvature calculation.
For 1 mile, there should be 8 inches of curve per miles, meaning over about 10 miles is around 7 ft lost.  But this is not accurate to the calculator. 
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature
If a building is 1,451 ft (as is the Willis tower in Chicago), if we were just chopping off the bottom 8 in per mile due to curvature, it would take 2000 miles for the building to completely disappear beyond curvature at a rate of 8 in per mile.  But we definitely don't see that.

So using the calculatior (as the 8in/mile model is bogus), at ground level, at 49 miles away, the buildings should have 1411 ft of the 1451 ft building obscured by the curvature. But we don't see that either!
In fact, whether Miller Beach is 25.91 or 35.5 miles away (directly across, or actually driving), the view from the seashore should obscure anywhere from 350 ft to 704 ft of skyline. I am afraid that does not work.

So we're back to this.

"From Bear Mountain in Harriman State Park situated 60 miles away (51 miles when driving), one can easily see the New York City skyline.  According to the curvature of the Earth with an 8000 mile diameter, the skyline should be hidden from view by 174 ft of curvature when observed from Bear Mountain summit which stands at 1283 ft"
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature
Bear Mountain has a highest point of 1,289 ft and we're gonna add 6 ft cuz our viewer. I wound up with this.   

Close enough.

His next proof measured a point in the state park that was 59 miles away (Grand Mere State Park). This should be obscured by curvature taller than the tallest building (over 2000 ft). But you know what?

They call it a "mirage from rising spring temperatures." 

This railgun blast must be a mirage too.

There's your 100 miles.
 

Only you have carefully curated pictures, and nothing is  allowed to deviate.

No, we do. We just have a coherent system which actually works to explain things.

Here are 2 simple questions for you:
Why can't the buildings normally be seen?
Why can't wee see the bottom of the buildings?

We have a coherent model which actually works to explain both.
You have nothing.
You can't explain either.

The tallest buildings or the closest buildings. In fact, if were were to answer whether those are the tallest buildings or the closest, and we should have our answer about how objects disappear.

We don't need that.
The fact the we can see the top of them and not the bottom already tells us.

If it was the closer buildings are visible, we would see the entire building, all the way to the ground.
But we don't.

If it was the taller buildings, we would see the tops and not the bottoms, and we would be able to see buildings behind other buildings where the view isn't directly blocked by those buildings.

And what happens?

We see what is expected for things disappearing based on curvature.
We can see the tops and not the bottoms, and we can see buildings behind other buildings where the view isn't directly blocked by those buildings.

but it's more that they appear to sink into the ground furthest object first.

Which is just saying that as the distance increases it appears to sink into the ground, disappearing from the bottom up.
Just like you expect for a RE and nothing like what is expected for a RE.

It also depends on other factors. On a foggy day

And if you go inside the wall blocks your view.
Other things obscuring your view in a fundamentally different manner does nothing to negate the existence of curvature.

When fog blocks your view, you aren't seeing buildings disappear from the bottom up.
Instead you see the light getting scattered by the fog, making things fade to a blur.

So why is it so bad? Well let's explain to the uneducated.

So you are explaining to yourself?
And in your typical fashion you do it in a completely incoherent manner?

Or if you want to think of it this way, youe 40 mile across view is actually the folded space of driving down and around the lake, well more than 40 miles when all is said and done.

And how would that magical curve which should literally just be lines on a map which are completely irrelevant to physical reality, magically cause the buildings to disappear from the bottom up?

Yet again you provide pure nonsense. Nothing more than incoherent garbage which makes no sense at all.
Meanwhile, the RE continues to remain a coherent model which can explain what is observed.

So why should anyone accept your delusional garbage?

First, Miller Beach. I said 35 miles away, which is as good or better than your pictures 6 and 8 miles away.

Yes, you LIED about the distance.
Because that is one of the main things you can do to pretend your delusional BS is correct, lie to everyone.
If you don't know the distance or don't trust the distance over the water, then don't use it.

But importantly, notice something missing from that picture?
THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDINGS!
Something you cannot explain at all.

Now, the line of sight over the water is shorter, but I'm talking about the real distance it would take car owners

Which has nothing at all to do with the line of sight distance.

You may as well find a river which is 10 m wide and appeal to a distance of 1000 miles because there is no bridge until a point 500 miles away.
Your number is pure BS, and it is incredibly dishonest for you to use it.

The third is mentioned as Porter Beach. I said around 50 miles. Survey says...

That you are still a lying POS using invalid distance measurements to lie to everyone.
Again, if you don't want to use the known distances, leave them as unknown. Don't just make up numbers to pretend it is further away.
All doing that does is show you are a lying POS, and that you know you cannot honestly defend your delusional fantasy.

Meanwhile, you say 40 miles away...

Which is roughly correct.

but the distance on the map is...

You're a lying POS, just making up numbers.

So basically, when the distance is not "as predicted"

No, when you dishonest pretend someone's head is at sea level, when it is not you get called out for your dishonest BS.

You need to figure out the distance to the horizon, and then the distance from the horizon to the object.

Here's what it says about curvature calculation.
For 1 mile, there should be 8 inches of curve per miles, meaning over about 10 miles is around 7 ft lost.  But this is not accurate to the calculator.

No, this is what YOU say, where you continually spout the same refuted garbage again and again with no concern for how many times your dishonest BS is called out as the dishonest BS it is.

It is NOT 8 inches per mile.
Do you know what 8 inches per mile is? A STRAIGHT LINE!
A child can understand that. Why do you insist on continually playing dumb?
Again, you demonstrate you are either a complete imbecile, or a dishonest, lying POS with absolutely no concern for the truth.

If you want to discuss the curvature, you need to have something that curves.
The simple approximation is h=d^2/2R.
That gives you 8 inches per mile SQUARED!!!
So 1 mile is 8 inches. 2 miles is 8*2*2 = 32.

Again, this has been explained to you countless times.

So using the calculatior (as the 8in/mile model is bogus), at ground level, at 49 miles away, the buildings should have 1411 ft of the 1451 ft building obscured by the curvature. But we don't see that either!

No, with your EYES 6 ft above the level of the water obscuring your view.
For most people that would mean they are standing at the water.
Most people are not standing in the water.
Instead, they are standing on something above the water, sometimes with a decent elevation, meaning they can see further.

So we're back to this.

Your lying cult leader who continually lies to everyone with no concern for the truth at all?

Bear Mountain has a highest point of 1,289 ft and we're gonna add 6 ft cuz our viewer. I wound up with this.
...
Close enough.

i.e. no problem for the RE model, and just demonstrating your cult leader is lying to everyone
While the FEers still can't explain what is hiding the bottom of the buildings and why they appear to sink.

His next proof measured a point in the state park that was 59 miles away (Grand Mere State Park). This should be obscured by curvature taller than the tallest building (over 2000 ft). But you know what?

You give no calculation at all, and especially you don't provide the elevation.

This railgun blast must be a mirage too.

Why?
It isn't light, it doesn't travel in a straight line.
It follows a ballistic trajectory, curving downwards.


So we are still at the same point.
The RE model provides a coherent explanation for what is observed.
The FE model cannot and instead deflects, providing clear evidence that Earth isn't flat by virtue of the bottoms of building being missing from view as if the buildings have sunk and trying to claim some amount of curvature is missing.

How about instead of continually attacking the RE with your dishonest BS, you try coming up with an explanation for why these cities appear to be sinking.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 23, 2025, 05:24:16 PM

Herp derp!

Bulma.  You are contradicting yourself again.

Is there a particular reason you decided to quote a completely different thread?
Completely derailing the topic in the process?

Now, the line of sight over the water is shorter, but I'm talking about the real distance it would take car

If you are referring to line of sight distance to Chicago, you must post in reference to the actual distance straight across the water.  I can drive a loop over a 100 miles to get to my neighbours house, then claim I can see my house 100 miles away using your stupid logic.  Your logic is stupid.  Makes no sense.

So address this post.

I think they said Porter Beach. About 50 miles away but south rather than east. Better than your 40 mile picture.

Is it?






Your mirage photo ..

Vs

New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)




Where Porter beach is 35 miles away as the crow flies?




Vs New Buffalo is 45 miles away.






I would say New Buffalo at 45 miles across the lake from Chicago is a good deal farther away than Porter Beach at 35 miles. 

  With neither being even close to your stupid 100 mile claim.  Bulma, you are a hack. 

😂😂😂😂😂😂

The picture you provided of Porter Beach line of sight distance is around 34 miles.




  Which is clearly a mirage. 

Grand Mere State Park Line of sight distance is about 56 miles. 


  While you ignore this view cannot be captured any time of the day.  Only under specific conditions.  .

Vs
New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline). With conditions not conclusive to a super mirage.



Your own pictures shows and proves mirage. Especially when you can see there is a difference how much of the upper part of the tallest being you can see between the three pictures. 

 Like Michigan level averages 579 feet above sea level.  Grand Mere State Park has a dune with a hill around 722 feet above sea level. You ignore pictures can be taken 140 feet above the surface of Lake Michigan.  Chicago also sits higher than the surface of Lake Michigan at 587 feet.

Where if the earth was flat. You sound also see the sea walls and tree around Chicago. 

Chicago Yacht Club
The sea wall

https://www.iiseagrant.org/chicagowaterwalk/cww5_rtlm_cyc_seawall.html

Not just the uppermost of a few buildings. 

No, we do. We just have a coherent system which actually works to explain things.

No you have a system straight out of Centaurworld.

I correctly say that you are living in a dome surrounded by your own assumptions. And if you try to leave your safe little dome, you are slapped and knocked over.

We don't need that.
The fact the we can see the top of them and not the bottom already tells us.

We don't use numbers, not really. We just bring numbers and formulas up to intimidate ppl. And when they call on us to analyze such things, well, suddenly all those (imaginary) formulas are gone. Amazing!

Today, my mom talked about how it's "obvious" that the pool is leaking. Or, as my dad said, water could be evaporating. Is there water at the base? No, not necessarily. But to those who are trapped in their own assumptions, seeing the bottom gone and not the top is all we need to know. And that Porter Beach should all be but buried under 1411 ft of curvature?
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature

Nah, we don't need to deal with pesky numbers. We can see how only the top is visible!

Go back into your dome, Jack Black. It's safer there. Because...

Here are 2 simple questions for you:
Why can't the buildings normally be seen?
Why can't wee see the bottom of the buildings?

Because they blend into the vanishing point, and they come out of the vanishing point. When vision is lengthened as due to elevation or a tool like a telescope or zoom camera, the overall effect is that objects that couldn't be seen come into view. But there are limits.  Mainly, the further light is overhead, the more light and shadow, and the longer it creates visible perspective. And light in turn scatters gradually over distance.

Quote

No, we do. We just have a coherent system which actually works to explain things.

No you have a system straight out of Centaurworld.

I correctly say that you are living in a dome surrounded by your own assumptions. And if you try to leave your safe little dome, you are slapped and knocked over.

Quote

We don't need that.
The fact the we can see the top of them and not the bottom already tells us.

We don't use numbers, not really. We just bring numbers and formulas up to intimidate ppl. And when they call on us to analyze such things, well, suddenly all those (imaginary) formulas are gone. Amazing!

Today, my mom talked about how it's "obvious" that the pool is leaking. Or, as my dad said, water could be evaporating. Is there water at the base? No, not necessarily. But to those who are trapped in their own assumptions, seeing the bottom gone and not the top is all we need to know. And that Porter Beach should all be but buried under 1411 ft of curvature?
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature

Nah, we don't need to deal with pesky numbers. We can see how only the top is visible!

Go back into your dome, Jack Black. It's safer there. Because...

Quote

Here are 2 simple questions for you:
Why can't the buildings normally be seen?
Why can't wee see the bottom of the buildings?

Because they blend into the vanishing point, and they come out of the vanishing point. When vision is lengthened as due to elevation or a tool like a telescope or zoom camera, the overall effect is that objects that couldn't be seen come into view. But there are limits.  Mainly, the further light is overhead, the more light and shadow, and the longer it creates visible perspective. And light in turn scatters gradually over distance.

Is anything real to you?

Every map you get your grubby little hands on, has to be wrong, according to you, because it is factored to Earth being a sphere. Yet, you continue to rely on maps! One of those maps you rely on, is straight off Google Earth, which when you zoom out far enough, you are looking at globe earth in space!

Also, you have a pair of eyes you can easily use to test vanishing points with, and prove to yourself what you believe is wrong.

No you have a system straight out of Centaurworld.

Do you understand how you contradict yourself.

First. You. Its vanishing point makes things disappear.  Which doesn’t explain how boats going out to sea are blocked increasingly bottom to top with distance where zoom cannot bring the blocked portion in view.

The bottom of the ship isn’t magically some distance where it can’t be discerned while the top of the ship at the same distance can still be discerned.    The bottom of the ship is physically blocked from view by the earh’s curvature. 

Then Bulma, you throw vanishing point aside and claim you can see Chicago 100 miles away.  Where you have not provided such a picture.

You provide a few pictures acting like the line of sight distance was the drive distance around the lake to lie how far away the pictures were taken from.  You have to use line of sight distance.  Using the longer drive distances is a lie.

Then you ignore mirage.  While providing a picture of Chicago that is under the influence of mirage.

Do you understand that building don’t look this way?



Then you try to use one of Joshua Nowicki’s photo’s who is known to take mirage photos. 

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

“I do go out and take a lot of photos of Chicago along the lake. I go to different locations on different nights. I like to compare the photos as to what's changed. Are the buildings wider, taller, shorter are there more of them? Less of them? It's always different, it's so unpredictable, I want to catch as many different views of it as I can," Nowicki said.

To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.

Bulma, Joshua Nowicki’s hobby is to take photos of the Chicago Skyline that aren’t possible day to day.  Possible because of mirage.  You are just digging your hole deeper Bulma.

So this is the picture you’re using with no credit to Joshua Nowicki’s.  Ignoring the photo isn’t the normal day to day view of Chicago.  And why Nowicki takes these photos.

Joshua Nowicki took this photo of the Chicago skyline from Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville, Michigan on April 28. (Source: Joshua Nowicki/@StartVisiting)

https://www.kfvs12.com/story/28942718/mirage-from-dozens-of-miles-away-shows-chicago-skyline/

And Bulma.  You still haven’t explained if the earth is flat.  Why in your pictures you can’t see the sea walls and tress of Chicago.  Only the upper most parts of the tallest building. 

Now why at any given time are there less visible buildings around 40 miles line of sight from Chicago than the super mirage photos? 

New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)



https://yumyummatt.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/chicago-as-seen-from-around-south-lake-michigan/

Today, my mom talked

Are you done flacking and spamming to avoid that gravity is a real downforce?

 buoyancy

Buoyancy made possible in the atmosphere because gravity is a force that causes air molecules and atoms to bunch up at the earth’s surface, over coming the gas molecules and atoms tendency to equal distance form each other.  Resulting in greater atmospheric pressure and density at the earth’s surface from equalising with the lower pressure and density above. 

Bulma.  You’re just babbling again.

Two examples below that show weight is a real downforce.

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

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

Shrugs..

Quote

WATCH: Wedding party falls into lake when dock collapses

Then why did about 22 people walk out on this dock in the context of this documented collapse.  Stand and pose.  Only to have the dock finally give out from their weight.  What caused the dock and the people to go from no downward movement, to being accelerated downward, overcoming the resistance of atmosphere.  To overcome the structure and the load bearing properties of that dock. 


You understand how a weight sled works for the competition.  I guess not if you don’t get weight is a real down force.

Quote

 is a very clever mechanical device that has the ability to transfer weight from the wheels at the back to the pan at the front. During a pull, the sledge sits on the starting line as a rolling weight, but gradually transforms into a dead-weight, the further down the track it goes.

https://tractorpulling.co.uk/pulling-sledge

During the pull.  The weight box is moved forward to the pan off the wheels.  If weight isn’t a real downforce, why does drag against the ground increase as the weight is transferred off the wheels to the pan to increase friction with the ground.  During the pull, the weight simply moves forward until enough friction is created by increasing the downforce on the pan in contact with the ground.  This alone is usually enough to stop the pulling tractor.  No change in density during the pull.  No change in height for this model of sled during the pull.  No change in surface area of the rig during the pull.  Just the downward force over the pan is increased by moving the weight box ever closer to the pan.

Bulma. Do you understand why the dock collapsed only when there was enough people and weight.

Density is mass divided by volume. 

When each additional person walked on to the dock, the density as in the composition of each person is about the same. 

The average density of a person.  985 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3).

The average volume of a person is about .07 meters cubed. 

The average weight of an adult person is about 70 kg. 

When each additional person walks on to the dock, you don’t keep adding density together.  Density is about the same for each person.

But when each person walks on the dock, about another 70 kg of mass is added that is exerting weight on the dock because of earth’s gravity.


So.  Two people on the dock.  The density is still about 985 kg/m3.  But the weight on the dock is now about 140 kg being pulled down by gravity.


22 people on the dock at collapse.  The density is still about 985 kg/m3. But the weight is now about 22 x 70 kg.  1,540 kg of mass on the dock being pulled down by gravity.  Or about 3395 lbs. 

Where if the earth was flat. You should also see the sea walls and tree around Chicago. 

And mountains too? You want a view of Chicago, then a tree, and the ice walls? Okay, I'll make it.



In a realistic Flat Earth, not your crazy fake one, perspective is a real thing. Notice that when you try to make something that is fake, it looks fake.



Like this. Space is fake.

Perspective means you can't see infinitely.

Then you try to use one of Joshua Nowicki’s photo’s who is known to take mirage photos.

So basically, you randomly call a photographer who I don't know a "mirage photo" artist.

I imagine if one of the insane hordes of RE ppl finally did me in, and someone found my pictures, "And you use bulmabriefs's parabola model. What a fake!"


Dude, this is fucking cool. Fuck you for hating on this guy.

https://swmichigan.org/blog/15-fall-photography-tips
"15 Fall Photography Tips from Nationally Renowned Photographer Joshua Nowicki"

So Southwest Michigan calls this man "nationally renowned". He's not known as an international fraud.
You're perfectly happy to appeal to authority when it's Professor Dave or Neil deGrasse Tyson. But when it's a "nationally renowned" photographer (that I've never heard of), you frame it around that. But I literally just typed in something like "indiana dunes to chicago skyline."


USA Today has one of their "fact checks" about how the claim is false. But I bet I could go to Indiana and see exactly that. This is what RE is.

An attempt to tell you that what you can see and hear isn't real. To trust what teachers and media and "scientists" say, not what you can perceive yourself. Nothing about that skyline looks unreal. It's just how things work.

My dad talked about how once, he saw some farm buildings and thought he could walk to them, but found out there was a swamp and some fencing in the way, and after walking, it was farther than they thought. It's not a mirage.

Do you really believe these mountains are barren? Or that there is nothing (no trees, rocks, etc) between the closest mountain and the second closest mountain?



The total area is the dock. Just as the total area in the elevator is the inside of the elevator. A group of people spread around and elevator might need to equal 1700 lb before giving the elevator trouble. But I suspect that if one person (siumo wrestler) weighing 800 lb got on (all that mass for one person), I suspect the elevator would lurch significantly. If a 250 lb man got on his back, and tried to put him in a headlock, I don't think the elevator would take all the movement and mass in one place.

Also, from my experience, things like docks or pool decks don't collapse all at once. You have a portion that is weak, and too much mass in one place and it cracks. Or with very little mass but alot of density and a bit of momentum, you slam something metal against the wood, and you get a hole.  As we've done deliberately to replace old boards.

Your emphasis on "weight" only is completely blind to any serious study of science. An orange with the rind on clearly weighs more, yet it floats while the de-rinded orange sinks. A passenger plane weighs significantly more than all those people you mentioned
https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/how-far-can-plane-go-no-engines.htm
can glide 100 miles without fuel at 30,000 ft.

No you have a system straight out of Centaurworld.

Yet you cannot justify your claim at all, you cannot demonstrate a single problem with it, and need to repeatedly lie about it.

I correctly say that you are living in a dome surrounded by your own assumptions.

No, you incorrectly say that.
Because you can't accept reality.

We don't use numbers, not really.

Notice that I didn't in that case?
Instead, I appealed to the simple fact that in these photos you are appealing to, we can see buildings at different distances away, yet the bottom is missing.
This is showing the buildings are disappearing from the bottom up, just like we would expect for a RE, and nothing like expected for a FE.
This is NOT the buildings getting too far away to be seen.
This is the curvature of Earth blocking the view.

And when they call on us to analyze such things

Those numbers are still there showing you are wrong.
But importantly, you need to consider uncertainty.
Again, it is well known that refraction causes light to bend downwards.
It is also well known that the amount it does so varies.

So you can happily calculate for what it should be if there was no atmosphere. But that wont tell you how much should be hidden with an atmosphere.
You can make a simple correction for "standard refraction", but that still doesn't tell you what it will be every day.

But to those who are trapped in their own assumptions

Like yourself?

And that Porter Beach should all be but buried under 1411 ft of curvature?

Do you mean the view from Porter Beach?

And is that 1411 ft based upon your BS distance numbers?

Because quickly checking on Google, depending on where you are going to in Chicago it can be as low as 25 miles or as high as 40 miles.
But even using those 40 miles, you only get 1066 ft for an observer AT SEA LEVEL.

Because they blend into the vanishing point, and they come out of the vanishing point.

PURE BS!
Things don't blend into the vanishing point by disappearing from the bottom up.
They appear smaller until they are unresolvable.
And if that was the case, the conditions should not matter.
It should be a simple case of geometry.

So I'll ask again:
Why can't the buildings normally be seen?
Why can't wee see the bottom of the buildings?

And mountains too? You want a view of Chicago, then a tree, and the ice walls? Okay, I'll make it.

No, we want you to try to honestly defend your BS or admit you can't.

In a realistic Flat Earth, not your crazy fake one, perspective is a real thing.

And this real thing doesn't magically hide things from the bottom up.

Like this. Space is fake.

No, space is quite real.
Even in your fantasy, you have space.

Perspective means you can't see infinitely.

No, perspective means things get smaller as they get further away.
Yet here we have the bottom magically hidden, as if by the curve of Earth.

Dude, this is fucking cool. Fuck you for hating on this guy.

No one is hating on them.
Just pointing out they are known for taking mirages.
That isn't saying the photo is fake.

USA Today has one of their "fact checks" about how the claim is false.

Yet you provide no reference for this.

An attempt to tell you that what you can see and hear isn't real.

No an honest attempt to explain how your senses can fool you.
And that is quite well known, with plenty of illusions.

Do you really believe these mountains are barren? Or that there is nothing (no trees, rocks, etc) between the closest mountain and the second closest mountain?

No. I can see greenery on the mountains.

But I suspect that if one person (siumo wrestler) weighing 800 lb got on

As if weight is a problem, not density.

You have a portion that is weak, and too much mass in one place and it cracks.

You mean too great a force in one place and it cracks.
As if it is base upon forces, not your pure magic.

Your emphasis on "weight" only is completely blind to any serious study of science.

No, it isn't.
Your attempts to exclude it at all costs and ignore the implications of it, demonstrates how blind you are.

An orange with the rind on clearly weighs more

And occupies a greater volume resulting in a greater upwards force from the pressure gradient.
Remember, that thing you can't explain and need to flee from at all costs.

A passenger plane weighs significantly more than all those people you mentioned

And would crush the dock.

Quote

Where if the earth was flat. You should also see the sea walls and tree around Chicago. 

You’re the one making the claim you can see Chicago 100 miles away and haven’t produced the picture.

Notice how you have to ignore how a ship disappears bottom up. 

Notice you didn’t address the actual context of the post.

You provide a few pictures acting like the line of sight distance was the drive distance around the lake to lie how far away the pictures were taken from.  You have to use line of sight distance.  Using the longer drive distances is a lie.

Then you ignore mirage.  While providing a picture of Chicago that is under the influence of mirage.

Do you understand that building don’t look this way?



Then you try to use one of Joshua Nowicki’s photo’s who is known to take mirage photos. 

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

“I do go out and take a lot of photos of Chicago along the lake. I go to different locations on different nights. I like to compare the photos as to what's changed. Are the buildings wider, taller, shorter are there more of them? Less of them? It's always different, it's so unpredictable, I want to catch as many different views of it as I can," Nowicki said.

To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.

Bulma, Joshua Nowicki’s hobby is to take photos of the Chicago Skyline that aren’t possible day to day.  Possible because of mirage.  You are just digging your hole deeper Bulma.

So this is the picture you’re using with no credit to Joshua Nowicki’s.  Ignoring the photo isn’t the normal day to day view of Chicago.  And why Nowicki takes these photos.

Joshua Nowicki took this photo of the Chicago skyline from Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville, Michigan on April 28. (Source: Joshua Nowicki/@StartVisiting)

https://www.kfvs12.com/story/28942718/mirage-from-dozens-of-miles-away-shows-chicago-skyline/

And Bulma.  You still haven’t explained if the earth is flat.  Why in your pictures you can’t see the sea walls and tress of Chicago.  Only the upper most parts of the tallest building. 

Now why at any given time are there less visible buildings around 40 miles line of sight from Chicago than the super mirage photos? 

New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)



https://yumyummatt.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/chicago-as-seen-from-around-south-lake-michigan/

  if the earth was flat, you should see all of Chicago.  Not less and less of it with greater distance.  When you use Joshua Nowicki photos with no regards to Nowicki, and you ignore the individual is dedicated to photographing Chicago under mirage conditions.  But Bulm, you would rather give a big F you to Nowicki any totally ignore his methods that produces his photos because you have to live your best lie. 

 But I suspect that if one person (siumo wrestler) weighing 800 lb

WATCH: Wedding party falls into lake when dock collapses

But it didn’t collapse under 800 lbs as persons walked on the dock did it.  It took around 1700 lbs. 

The density of lead.  11.34 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3).

If I had one five pound lead weight on a scale and added another 5 pound weight of lead, the weight doubles to 10 lbs.  The density doesn’t double to 22.68 g/cm3.  The density stays 11.34 g/cm3.

Where you are ignoring the context of the weight sled for tractor pulls. The friction with the ground from the pan is increases by increasing the downforce on the pan by slowly moving the weights off the wheels to ever closer directly over the pan. 

Dude, this is fucking cool. Fuck you for hating on this guy.

What are you babbling about.  You totally gave no credit to Niwwicki.  Then you get called out, you try to transfer blame while you totally ignore his own words, and totally ignore his methodology, and how he himself strives to capture different stages of refraction and mirage.

His own words.  Based on his methodology, experience, his documented photos, and use of mirage and refraction.

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

“I do go out and take a lot of photos of Chicago along the lake. I go to different locations on different nights. I like to compare the photos as to what's changed. Are the buildings wider, taller, shorter are there more of them? Less of them? It's always different, it's so unpredictable, I want to catch as many different views of it as I can," Nowicki said.

To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.

Bulma, Joshua Nowicki’s hobby is to take photos of the Chicago Skyline that aren’t possible day to day. 

Do you understand this Bulma.

If you doubt his methodology to use mirage and refraction, do you literally think buildings grew between his different shots? 

No, I think that humidity and fog does in fact make objects appear less clear and more distant.



Sans fog, the golf cart would likely appear bigger. It's not that far away.

And we can see a hill in the distance, in the fog, but it appears that much more distant because of fog.

"It's a mirage though!"

Mmmm hmmm. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

The more visibility, the better long distance vision is. I would expect that if I was sitting on a mountain and looking at a distant tower, and some mist flew past, to have temporary distortion of vision.

Compare the skyscraper heights please.

But if we want to talk about sketchy shots, what is with the shadows here?


In his video about the Antarctica videos, Eric talks about how a local light source and a far away light source have different shadows. Specifically, a distant light source has shorter shadows, while a nearby one has long shadows.

There's also the matter of how the shadows converge. He also mentions how it changes direction.


Also, doesn't the light in the first picture appear unnaturally dim in comparison to the second one? I was just pushing pause and PrintScreen, but I'm looking at this, and it's like they adjusted the sun.

No,

You’re changing the subject.  This is the actual post.
 

Dude, this is fucking cool. Fuck you for hating on this guy.

What are you babbling about.  You totally gave no credit to Niwwicki.  Then you get called out, you try to transfer blame while you totally ignore his own words, and totally ignore his methodology, and how he himself strives to capture different stages of refraction and mirage.

His own words.  Based on his methodology, experience, his documented photos, and use of mirage and refraction.

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

“I do go out and take a lot of photos of Chicago along the lake. I go to different locations on different nights. I like to compare the photos as to what's changed. Are the buildings wider, taller, shorter are there more of them? Less of them? It's always different, it's so unpredictable, I want to catch as many different views of it as I can," Nowicki said.

To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.

Bulma, Joshua Nowicki’s hobby is to take photos of the Chicago Skyline that aren’t possible day to day. 

Do you understand this Bulma.

If you doubt his methodology to use mirage and refraction, do you literally think buildings grew between his different shots? 






  Bulma.  Why are you running from addressing the methodology and statements by Niwwicki concerning his work.  Especially “To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.”