Do birds really push air to the ground to fly?

Posters cannot search their own post history.

They most certainly can.
If you want to search posts you go to the search button up the top, and put in the username you want to search for posts by.
If you want to see all your posts, you click your name on a thread and then slick Show Posts.
Not hard at all.

But I am certain I have indeed said something of the sort.

I am certain you have not.
If you think you have, then it should be trivial for you to provide the answers again.

because from a logical standpoint, the person who actually cares about the answer ought to do the work and not pass the buck.

From a debate standpoint, the one who is claiming to have already answered, yet suspiciously refuses to provide the answer, is the one who has to do the work.

You are doing the classic tactic of trying to bury your opponent in mountains of BS, and if I were to go through all your posts and then say I can't find it, you will just turn around and say you have already answered.

So no, YOU ought to do the work to defend your claims rather than demanding others do it for you.

Surely I must have said something.

No, surely because you can't defend your pathetic BS and need to continually deflect you mustn't have said anything that actually answers the questions.
Surely if you had, it would be trivial for you to do so again.

For example, I have told you how it works with gravity, so I can trivially do it again.

Consider a fluid of density pf (should be rho_f, but can't be bothered getting the greek letter).
It is in a gravitational field of strength g (for this purpose, approximated as constant, we will get to the more complex example later), and is supported at the bottom.
If we now consider a column of this fluid, of area A and height h.
We can then see at the top of this column, there is some pressure pushing down. We will call that Ptop.
The fluid needs to transfer this pressure to the bottom, so this Ptop will also be pushing down at the bottom.
But as well as that you also have the weight of the fluid pushing down. That weight is given by F=m*g.
The mass is given by pf*V.
V is given by A*h.
That gives us F=g*pf*A*h.
We want to convert this into a pressure. Pressure is defined as P=F/A.
So this additional pressure is dP = g*pf*h
And that gives us Pbottom = Ptop + g*pf*h.

(Strictly speaking, dP is actually the integral of g(h)*p(h)*dh, from the top to the bottom, which allows you to take g and p as a function of h. But near Earth's surface, for liquids, it doesn't change significantly.)


Now consider what happens when you place an object inside that?
For simplicity, we will consider a simple column of area A and height h.
Because the fluid is hydrostatic, the pressure is equal in all directions, so we can consider the pressure gradient over a surrounding column of water.
This tells us the pressure on the object from the fluid at the top pushing down will be Ptop, and at the bottom pushing up it will be Pbottom.
So the force at the top will be Ptop*A, and the force at the bottom will be Pbottom*A.
So the net upwards force will be A*(Pbottom - Ptop) = A*((Ptop + g*pf*h) - Ptop) = A*g*pf*h = g*pf*V.
i.e. the net upwards force is equal in magnitude to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object.

See how easy that is?
See how I don't need to pathetically assert that I have already said it and you need to search my posts?

Now its your turn.
You are still yet to defend your claim that 1 m^3 = 10dm^3, or admit your claim was pure BS.

You are still yet to tell us what the RE is standing on in your strawman of it, or admit your strawman is crap.
You are still yet to tell us ultimately what your FE is sitting on. I know you got to the lake, and something below that, but you haven't told us what that is on.

You are still yet to show any fault or inconsistency with gravity at all.
You are yet to deal with the clear evidence provided especially by the Cavendish experiment.

And you are yet to explain how your buoyancy BS could ever work.
You can't explain why things fall.
You can't explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
You can't explain why that rate varies over Earth.
You can't explain why or how this makes a pressure gradient.
You can't explain why that pressure gradient doesn't push objects up.

Can you address these, or just deflect?

I'm pretty sure I already answered this. Again. Why don't you look at previous posts, get your answer, and stop wasting my time? Thank you.

Probably on page 5 or 7.

I'm pretty sure I already answered this. Again. Why don't you look at previous posts, get your answer, and stop wasting my time? Thank you.

Again, I know you haven't.
So stop wasting everyone's time and either provide the answer, or admit you have none.
Again, if you had answered it would be trivial for you to provide the answer again.

The only reason to not provide it and appeal to this pathetic BS you are doing, is because you know you cannot answer, so you are hoping to wasting everyone's time by directing them to look through your pile of crap to find nothing.

Again:
You are still yet to defend your claim that 1 m^3 = 10dm^3, or admit your claim was pure BS.

You are still yet to tell us what the RE is standing on in your strawman of it, or admit your strawman is crap.
You are still yet to tell us ultimately what your FE is sitting on. I know you got to the lake, and something below that, but you haven't told us what that is on.

You are still yet to show any fault or inconsistency with gravity at all.
You are yet to deal with the clear evidence provided especially by the Cavendish experiment.

And you are yet to explain how your buoyancy BS could ever work.
You can't explain why things fall.
You can't explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
You can't explain why that rate varies over Earth.
You can't explain why or how this makes a pressure gradient.
You can't explain why that pressure gradient doesn't push objects up.

Can you address these, or just deflect?

I can do this all day, you know.

Stop asking already-answered questions. Find the answer to your own question.

---

No? Too lazy?

And you are yet to explain how your buoyancy BS could ever work.
You can't explain why things fall.
You can't explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
You can't explain why that rate varies over Earth.
You can't explain why or how this makes a pressure gradient.
You can't explain why that pressure gradient doesn't push objects up.

Buoyancy has been shown to work for thousands of years before brain-damaged idiot Newton (got hit on the head a bit too hard, I think) came up with gravity.


Things fall, because they sink. They sink because they are denser than their surroundings .

They do not. There is no constant rate for an object's sinking. The 9.6 m/s thing is a meme. In actual fact, if I drop a feather and an apple individually, and record their times, the feather takes significantly longer to reach the ground. The rate of sinking is determined by difference in density, with substantially different objects, sinking at a faster rate than those only slightly more dense than their surface.
However, if I drop a brick and a feather together, the brick will suction air (creating a vacuum) as it sinks. This, and not any universal constant, determines similar falls. Dropped separately, the rate is not the same.

You did some experiment with gnomes. I recall mentioning that moisture and air pressure is different in those locations. "Gravity" is not the cause. The gnomes are collecting added moisture. High altitude has  a tendency toward lower air pressure. So if we have gnomes at a high up altitude, that also has high moisture (such as Mount Everest), the gnome is likely to weigh more. It's contrast vs air pressure.

Atoms have different masses so when they bond as an aggregate (as per salt water, or the nitrogen-oxygen-other mix we call air), molecules form a sort of web of substances of similar pressure. I personally think pressure gradient is a buzzword, and can't be bothered to find out whst you mean by that. But what I do know is that air pressure tends to organize between less dense to more dense. This is because when more dense objects try to rise in a less dense surrounding, they can't, in the same way as a man trying to walk across a swamp instesd find themselves pulled down.

Asked and answered by the previous question. Lemme explain it again, so you don't accuse me of not answering. Again, I don't know what the hell you mean by pressure gradient, but let's assume there is enough water pressure for a log to float at the very top of the water. What stops a log from behaving like a helium balloon and continuing to rise? Well, the log (or more specifically, its density) is sandwiched between higher pressure water and lower pressure air.

---

You do not accept this answer. So you will ask again later. And you will pretend I didn't answer. So I'm gonna link this to signature, so you have no excuse. I also have a fucking video that you can watch. You are incredibly lazy, and ask questions where the answer is legit right front of you.

I’m not asking for you to explain how buoyancy works.  I’m asking for your formula to calculate the buoyant force of an object placed in a fluid. 

I can do this all day, you know.
Stop asking already-answered questions. Find the answer to your own question.

I know you are a lying subhuman POS that can do this pathetic BS all day.
But again, the one who needs to find the answers is you!

I have found the answers to my question in reality, a big part of that answer is gravity, something you insist doesn't exist.

Meanwhile, you have NEVER answered these questions.
Instead you just provide crap non-answers.

Buoyancy has been shown to work for thousands of years before brain-damaged idiot Newton (got hit on the head a bit too hard, I think) came up with gravity.

I didn't ask you to show how buoyancy works.
Again, I know how it works, based upon gravity and the pressure gradient.
Even before Newton, it was known that buoyancy is purely an UPWARDS force, even with Archimedes, noting that an object is buoyed UPWARDS by a force equal to the WEIGHT of the fluid displaced.

They had weight purely as a downwards force. That weight is from gravity, even though they didn't know it.

I specifically asked you to show how your BS buoyancy works.
Something you have never done.

Things fall, because they sink. They sink because they are denser than their surroundings .

This explains NOTHING.
The first is just a tautology.
The second has no explanation at all.
Why should they sink because they are denser than their surroundings?

There is no constant rate for an object's sinking. The 9.6 m/s thing is a meme.

No, it is a BS number you made up with no connection to reality.

If you drop an object in a vacuum, it accelerates at roughly 9.8 m/s^2.
This doesn't matter what its density is.

If you drop it in air, as long as it is aerodynamic enough and dense enough, then it falls at basically that same rate. Regardless of if it is aluminium or steel or osmium, even though their densities are dramatically different.
Again, you cannot explain this.

A feather falls slowly due to air resistance.

You did some experiment with gnomes.

And this is something you can repeat yourself.
But that is only one example.
You can also get a gravimeter and do it far more precisely.

I recall mentioning that moisture and air pressure is different in those locations.

Yes, you made up pathetic excuses, without being able to explain how this would cause the effects observed.
You also provided pure BS to try to support those claims, which was refuted.
If you want to appeal to air pressure and moisture, you will need more than just a pathetic assertion, and one which also works on gravimeters which have a falling object inside a sealed system, where moisture can't get in to affect it.

So gravity and the rotation of Earth remains the most viable explanation. And you have provided no alternative explanation.

Atoms have different masses so when they bond as an aggregate (as per salt water, or the nitrogen-oxygen-other mix we call air), molecules form a sort of web of substances of similar pressure. I personally think pressure gradient is a buzzword, and can't be bothered to find out whst you mean by that. But what I do know is that air pressure tends to organize between less dense to more dense.

I have explained this to you repeatedly.
As you go down, the pressure increases. This occurs at a rate proportional to the density of the fluid.
The pressure gradient in air is quite small, but is still used by planes to determine their altitude.
The pressure gradient in water is far more significant, where you can take a weak water bottle which has been emptied and sealed at the surface, and take it down to depth and watch it get crushed. This is also how divers measure their depth.


And it doesn't just happen to air, but happens to all fluids.
We can take water, and place it in different shaped containers, i.e. the exact same water, and see the pressure at the top (and more specifically the difference between the pressure at the top and bottom) varies depending on the height of the column of water, not what water makes it up.
So it clearly isn't the specific molecules forming a magic web of pressure to be the pressure they want to be, but the environment causing it.

Likewise, your attempted appeal to the relationship between air pressure and density doesn't help you either.
Pressuring air makes it denser, it doesn't magically exist at that pressure and remain there and settle to whatever density layer that pressure should be at.
If that was the case, we would never be able to use an air compressor to compress it further.

Again, it is the environment causing that pressure, not the molecules in question.

If your nonsense was true, wind wouldn't exist.
We wouldn't be able to use pneumatic or hydraulic systems.
We wouldn't be able to compress air for tires.

So again, this doesn't answer anything.

And what makes this attempt even more absolutely pathetic, if you don't know what the pressure gradient is, then you can't possibly address it.
That is effectively an admission that you have never answered it and are not able to.

Asked and answered by the previous question.

No, not at all.

Again, I don't know what the hell you mean by pressure gradient

Again, not hard to understand, especially I have explained it many times.

let's assume there is enough water pressure for a log to float at the very top of the water.

No. Lets focus on an object immersed in water, of equal density to the water. We could even do something sitting slightly propped up near the bottom of the water which is denser.
The pressure gradient means the water below it is at a higher pressure than the water above.
Why doesn't this push it up?

the log (or more specifically, its density) is sandwiched between higher pressure water and lower pressure air.

This again doesn't explain anything.
That high pressure water should be pushing it up.
Appealing to its density explains nothing.

You do not accept this answer.

Because it intentionally dodging to a interface rather than an object inside the fluid, and even then still doesn't explain what magic is resisting the pressure gradient.
Saying it is sandwiched between water and air doesn't explain why the high pressure water is not pushing it up.

Again, if you do this honestly, what you end up with is the pressure gradient trying to push the object up (i.e. what buoyancy actually is), and your magic buoyancy BS ends up being nothing more than a downwards force proportional to mass.

So you will ask again later. And you will pretend I didn't answer. So I'm gonna link this to signature, so you have no excuse.

I will ask again, in fact right at the end of this post.
I will not pretend. Instead I will honestly state that you have not addressed the issues, that you have non-answered the questions.
Your pathetic BS is a complete non-answer. So no, I don't need any excuses. YOU DO!
You are the incredibly dishonest subhuman scum that will continue to lie to everyone to pretend your fantasy is true, while fleeing from simple issues at all costs.

You are incredibly lazy, and ask questions where the answer is legit right front of you.

The legit answer is right in front of me, but it relies upon gravity which you claim is fake.
An answer from your delusional fantasy still doesn't exist.
And again, if you tried to answer them honestly (I know, something that seems impossible for you), then you find out the pressure gradient causes the upwards force known as buoyancy and what you are left with is a downwards force proportional to mass, which varies over Earth.

Again:
You are still yet to defend your claim that 1 m^3 = 10dm^3, or admit your claim was pure BS.

You are still yet to tell us what the RE is standing on in your strawman of it, or admit your strawman is crap.
You are still yet to tell us ultimately what your FE is sitting on. I know you got to the lake, and something below that, but you haven't told us what that is on.

You are still yet to show any fault or inconsistency with gravity at all.
You are yet to deal with the clear evidence provided especially by the Cavendish experiment.

And you are yet to explain how your buoyancy BS could ever work.
You can't explain why things fall.
You can't explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
You can't explain why that rate varies over Earth.
You can't explain why or how this makes a pressure gradient.
You can't explain why that pressure gradient doesn't push objects up.

Can you address these, or just deflect?

See? Your solution is to pretend the answer didn't happen, by sweeping it aside by some flimsy excuses, then re-ask.

I'm sorry if you don't accept my answer, but this is how things are.

Just as I don't accept your answers for gravity.

---

I’m not asking for you to explain how buoyancy works.  I’m asking for your formula to calculate the buoyant force of an object placed in a fluid.

And I have no interest in such a calculation.

It is enough for me to know that buoyancy works and not fiddle with Newton's revision of Archimedes's genius.

But if you're interested, subtract the density of an object from the density of a surface surrounding it. If it's negative (negative buoyancy), the difference represents the rate and which the object sinks. If it's positive (positive buoyancy), the difference represents the rate at which in object rises. Typically, objects are sandwiched between layers (neutral buoyancy), so an object sits at a layer.

See? Your solution is to pretend the answer didn't happen

No, my "solution", is to point out why you haven't actually answered.

It isn't that I am not accepting your answer, it is that you haven't answered.
The crap you provided does not answer the question at all.

The simplest example of this is the pressure gradient.
If you are saying you have no idea what it is then it is impossible for you to answer a question about it.

Yet here you are, wilfully lying to everyone by falsely claiming to have answered.

It is enough for me to know that buoyancy works and not fiddle with Newton's revision of Archimedes's genius.

Instead, you want to throw that genius out the window and appeal to complete and utter crap instead.

As a reminder, Archimedes understood that buoyancy is an UPWARDS force, that an object is buoyed UPWARDS by a force equal to the WEIGHT of the fluid displaced.

This is nothing like your delusional BS.

But if you're interested, subtract the density of an object from the density of a surface surrounding it. If it's negative (negative buoyancy), the difference represents the rate and which the object sinks. If it's positive (positive buoyancy), the difference represents the rate at which in object rises.

Except that doesn't work at all.
The density of steel is around 9000 - 10000 kg/m^3.
The density of aluminium is around 3000 kg/m^3.
The density of air is around 1.2 kg/m^3.

So if I take steel or aluminium in air, the contribution from air is negligible.
So this means steel should fall at roughly 3 times the rate, but it doesn't.

So yet again, you spout complete and utter BS which doesn't match reality at all.

Again:
You are still yet to defend your claim that 1 m^3 = 10dm^3, or admit your claim was pure BS.

You are still yet to tell us what the RE is standing on in your strawman of it, or admit your strawman is crap.
You are still yet to tell us ultimately what your FE is sitting on. I know you got to the lake, and something below that, but you haven't told us what that is on.

You are still yet to show any fault or inconsistency with gravity at all.
You are yet to deal with the clear evidence provided especially by the Cavendish experiment.

And you are yet to explain how your buoyancy BS could ever work.
You can't explain why things fall.
You can't explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
You can't explain why that rate varies over Earth.
You can't explain why or how this makes a pressure gradient.
You can't explain why that pressure gradient doesn't push objects up.

Can you address these, or just deflect?

Quote

I’m not asking for you to explain how buoyancy works.  I’m asking for your formula to calculate the buoyant force of an object placed in a fluid.

And I have no interest in such a calculation.

Then you can't conclusively say whether or not gravity is necessary for such a calculation.

But if you're interested, subtract the density of an object from the density of a surface surrounding it. If it's negative (negative buoyancy), the difference represents the rate and which the object sinks. If it's positive (positive buoyancy), the difference represents the rate at which in object rises. Typically, objects are sandwiched between layers (neutral buoyancy), so an object sits at a layer.

Hmmm...  Tell you what, if I have a 1 cubic foot block of aluminum (169 lb).  How many cubic feet of styrofoam (let's say 2.5 lb/ft^3) do I need to make the aluminum neutrally buoyant?

The buoyant force of water is approximately 62.4 pounds per cubic foot

So you would need to build a raft to I assume spread that 169 lb of aluminum over several cubic ft so that it is less than 62.4 lb per cub ft of the water it sits on, am I correct in saying this?

Btw, styrofoam weighs about 3.1 lb per cubic foot, not 2.5 lb, so it is heavier than your estimate.

To build a raft of styrofoam that can support a 169 lb block of aluminum, you need to calculate the volume of styrofoam required. Since one cubic foot of styrofoam can support about 55 to 60 pounds, you would need approximately 3 cubic feet of styrofoam to safely support the weight.

Make sure to arrange the styrofoam in a way that distributes the weight evenly.

They then give three sample rafts.

Dimension (ft) ||  Volume (cubic feet)  ||  Total Weight Supported (lbs)
3 x 3 x 1         ||   9                           ||   495
4 x 2 x 1         ||   8                           ||      480
2 x 2 x 2         ||   8                           ||   480

Personally, I wouldn't have known without research that one cubit ft of styrofoam holds 55 to 60 pounds, and that would have been necessary info. But once you do have it, it's kinda just plugging in the volume.

---

Oh, you were wanting me to just naturally know that by virtue of being a FE person? 

Sure. Tell me the average speed a 1943 steely penny will fall in the gravity of Saturn while several Cassowary feathers are tied to it, by placing the penny in a bronze tea strainer with a hook.

All they had was stainless steel. Imagine one made from bronze. Like so.


Surely, as a RE person, you will naturally know (without looking up!) the gravity of other planets, the weight of all possible objects in existence, and random conditions on said planet that might change conditions of falling such as wind speed, air pressure, or the effect of its rotation.

What's that? You will have to look it up?

Don't worry, that question was rhetorical. Just to prove a point that yes, I don't naturally know these things. Stop trying to test my aptitude. Our family motto was "When you don't know, find it out," and over the years, I have researched a great many things. We mere mortals don't remotely pretend to know how the universe works, we give it our best guess, and we do research, and we check that research vs logic. If that isn't enough for arrogant twits who "know" the Earth is round and that gravity exists, I dunno what to tell you.
You seem to think because I disagree with you, that I am arrogant, equating it to a student questioning authority. But it's precisely because I was a pretty good student, and then learned the limits of what I was taught, that I now question it. When you are constantly looking up things because you don't know, and you compare the information, occasionally, you find contradictions. Foolish people stick with the idea that if we question that the emperor is wearing clothes, we must be dangerous, arrogant, or stupid.  But people who know their own limits just look and say, "Uhhhh, someone ought to tell him."

Tell you what, if I have a 1 cubic foot block of aluminum (169 lb).  How many cubic feet of styrofoam (let's say 2.5 lb/ft^3) do I need to make the aluminum neutrally buoyant?

Just what are you hoping to achieve with this question?
To try to get it to fail at basic math again?
All it needs to do is some simple math:
rho=M/V
62.5 = (169 lb + 2.5*x)/(1+x)
62.5+62.5x=169+2.5x
60x=106.5
x=1.775

i.e. you need roughly 1.775 cubic feet of styrofoam to make 1 cubit foot of aluminium neutrally buoyant.

How does this in any way help show if it is gravity or its magic BS?

Btw, styrofoam weighs about 3.1 lb per cubic foot, not 2.5 lb, so it is heavier than your estimate.

No, it varies depending on how it is made.
The main component of it (by weight) is polystyrene, with a density of roughly 1 kg/dm^3, i.e. roughly the same as water.

But by volume, the main component of styrofoam, or more generically expanded polystyrene foam, is air, with a bunch of air bubbles trapped inside the polystyrene plastic.
Depending on the ratio of air to plastic, the density can vary dramatically.
Going almost as low as air for very weak styrofoam containing mostly air, all the way up to the density of polystyrene itself.

"When you don't know, find it out," and over the years

You have decided to just make up crap, and reject reality.

We mere mortals don't remotely pretend to know how the universe works, we give it our best guess, and we do research, and we check that research vs logic.

That is what honest people do.
So not you.
You have repeatedly shown this.

Again, just look at what you claimed previously:

subtract the density of an object from the density of a surface surrounding it. If it's negative (negative buoyancy), the difference represents the rate and which the object sinks.

Yet that isn't even close.

As I have explained to you repeatedly, if you had actually done your research and used logic, you would have realised your claims are pure BS.
You would have realised that buoyancy is an UPWARDS force, from the pressure gradient you want to claim you are too stupid to understand, and that in addition to that, there is a downwards force proportional to mass known as weight.

You seem to think because I disagree with you, that I am arrogant

No, it is because you spout complete and utter BS and entirely ignore the refutation of that.
e.g. here:

See? Your solution is to pretend the answer didn't happen, by sweeping it aside by some flimsy excuses, then re-ask.

Where you act so arrogant you don't even consider the possibility that you could be wrong.
You instead act like what you have said MUST answer the question without any doubt.

Even when you say this:

I personally think pressure gradient is a buzzword, and can't be bothered to find out whst you mean by that.
...
Again, I don't know what the hell you mean by pressure gradient

Again, you admit you don't know what it means, and in your arrogance you dismiss it as if it is nothing.

If you actually cared about researching and finding out the truth, you would investigate and find out what that pressure gradient is and what implications it has for your broken model.
But because you are arrogant, lying, subhuman scum, you don't care and just dismiss things that are inconvenient to you.

So no, we aren't saying you are arrogant because you are like a student that is questioning.
Instead, you are more like a student that has no idea what you are talking about (as you admit), rejecting what the teacher says, even though you can show no fault in it nor provide a viable alternative, and spouting complete crap and ignoring the challenge to that crap which shows it is wrong.

occasionally, you find contradictions.

Yet you can't provide a single contradiction in the mainstream model.
Instead, you desperately lie about it, and get those lies refuted.

Meanwhile, we can show plenty of contradictions with your crap.

Foolish people stick with the idea that if we question that the emperor is wearing clothes

And the one running around naked while arrogantly claiming they are wearing clothes, is YOU!

You are the one who can't answer basic questions.
You are the one who admits you don't know what something is, yet still arrogantly claims to answer it.

Again:
You are still yet to defend your claim that 1 m^3 = 10dm^3, or admit your claim was pure BS.

You are still yet to tell us what the RE is standing on in your strawman of it, or admit your strawman is crap.
You are still yet to tell us ultimately what your FE is sitting on. I know you got to the lake, and something below that, but you haven't told us what that is on.

You are still yet to show any fault or inconsistency with gravity at all.
You are yet to deal with the clear evidence provided especially by the Cavendish experiment.

And you are yet to explain how your buoyancy BS could ever work.
You can't explain why things fall.
You can't explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
You can't explain why that rate varies over Earth.
You can't explain why or how this makes a pressure gradient.
You can't explain why that pressure gradient doesn't push objects up.

Can you address these, and I mean actually ADDRESS them, not just spout more pathetic crap or dismiss them; or can you just deflect?

Oh, you were wanting me to just naturally know that by virtue of being a FE person? 

No, I wanted you to provide a formula (like I've been asking) to calculate the buoyant force to see if it could be done without including gravity.  However, since you keep talking about weight, then gravity was included because weight = mass x gravity.

BTW, not that it really matters, but styrofoam can be made with a range of densities from 1lb or so to around 8lb per ft^3.

I persistently use weight as mass, because mass is like one of those metric terms.

Weight in lb, as opposed to mass and they wonder why you aren't using kilograms like everyone else. Mass also carries connotations of size, such as "his engorged eggplant was truly massive." We're talking about its size, not its weight. 

If gravity doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter what word I use because we're effectively assuming gravity is like multiplying by one (that is, no effect at all).  So weight = mass x (1) is simply weight = mass.

BTW, not that it really matters, but styrofoam can be made with a range of densities from 1lb or so to around 8lb per ft^3.

I suppose you're right. However the weight they gave was for styrofoam at 3.1 lb so I suppose this is significant to its load bearing.

I persistently use weight as mass, because mass is like one of those metric terms.

Mass is more of a scientific term that can use metric or imperial units.

Weight in lb, as opposed to mass and they wonder why you aren't using kilograms like everyone else. Mass also carries connotations of size, such as "his engorged eggplant was truly massive." We're talking about its size, not its weight.

If gravity doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter what word I use because we're effectively assuming gravity is like multiplying by one (that is, no effect at all).  So weight = mass x (1) is simply weight = mass.

Words can have any number of different meaning depending on context.  Sure, in common, everyday usage, weight is most commonly used because mass under standard 1g acceleration and weight are the same value.  However, as you may or may not have realized by now, we are not necessarily having common, everyday discussions here and the distinction between weight and mass becomes more important.  For example, it's often said that fighter pilots, race car drivers and others who undergo significant acceleration are pulling g's (multiples of earth's gravitation acceleration).  A fighter pilot with 200lb of mass (yes, a pound can be a unit of mass) pulling 5g's weighs 1000lb during that maneuver.  So no, mass and weight are not the same thing.

It's a scientific term. And the scientists definitely favor the metric system.

Weight is a layman's term. Outside of science, where they auto-assume you mean gravity is included, you ask a regular person whether they meant gravity was included "probably not."

---

However, as you may or may not have realized by now, we are not necessarily having common, everyday discussions here and the distinction between weight and mass becomes more important.  For example, it's often said that fighter pilots, race car drivers and others who undergo significant acceleration are pulling g's (multiples of earth's gravitation acceleration).  A fighter pilot with 200lb of mass (yes, a pound can be a unit of mass) pulling 5g's weighs 1000lb during that maneuver.  So no, mass and weight are not the same thing.

That's an assumption that this is not just hyperbole.  Do we have any real means to measure this? I mean, we put a scale  in that cockpit, it will more than likely not register nothing remotely like this supposed "g-force". It measures real mass laying on top of it. So it's the pilot saying "Geez it feels like 1000 lb are pressing against me!"

But what about machines that claim to measure g-force? Well, let's review the devices.
https://blog.truegeometry.com/tutorials/education/70101ad670bc76013b08ab58774dd4f1/JSON_TO_ARTCL_Measuring_G_force_using_various_instruments_in_context_of_g_force_.html
1. Accelerometers: which measure motion, not gravitation.
2. Inertial Measurement Units: combines accelerometer with gyroscopes. Gyroscopes measure spin (and motion), not gravitation.
3. Strain Gauges: measures mechanical stress, not gravitation
4. Piezoelectric Sensors: measures electrical impulses from machines under stress, not gravitation.

All of these devices, without exception, are not able to sense gravity. They can only sense the sudden lurch of a turn up, down, to the side, or spinning out in a roll.  They are measuring the "equal and opposite reaction" or recoil from acceleration. In fact, in high school, they had a science field trip to King's Dominion. One of the rides had an elevator, and we were using one of these to "measure gravitational force." But as an adult, I now see through this. The force in question is actually among several forces of motion, and if it seemed like it was measuring gravity, it was actually just measuring motion, and its backlash on the human body. 

If I dropped or threw 1000 lb at you, what do you think would happen?

A 1,000-pound object falling from a height would likely cause severe injury or death to a person underneath it, typically resulting in around 6d6 bludgeoning damage if they fail a Dexterity saving throw. The impact would be catastrophic, as such a heavy object can crush a person completely.

Ahahahahahaha, thanks for that, AI! You conflated a role-playing game with reality.

Anyway, claiming that a plane managed 5g and having them look a bit sore is crap. Just as you

This is what's known as Garbage In, Garbage Out. The sensors receive five times the force of motion they typically have at regular speed, not in fact 1000 lb of force. In fact, when the elevator went 1.5g or 2g in King's Dominion, I suppose I'd equate it to maybe 10 to 15 lb pushing back at me.  Not double my body weight. As an adult I rode it again; weighing more, I felt it even less. This "gravitation" is actually just the recoil.

I persistently use weight as mass, because mass is like one of those metric terms.

No, it isn't.
In the archaic "GOD SAVE THE KING" system, mass is in lb, and weight is in lb-force.

Mass also carries connotations of size

By people too stupid to understand?

If gravity doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter what word I use

Yes, it does.
Because there is a big difference between the pathetic BS you are trying to pedal as "buoyancy" vs what buoyancy actually is.

It also matters a lot in terms of engineering, especially for dynamic loads. This is because it is a force that causes things to break.
But if you are too stupid, you can use lbforce or kgforce, and just be more stupid and call it kg or lb.

And the scientists definitely favor the metric system.

Yes, because it is better.

Weight is a layman's term.

Yes, and even to the layman, it is a downwards force, it makes things go down.

Do we have any real means to measure this?

Yes. For example, you can put the entire seat on a load cell to measure the force needed to hold the person and seat up.
And see how it goes up.

1. Accelerometers: which measure motion, not gravitation.
2. Inertial Measurement Units: combines accelerometer with gyroscopes. Gyroscopes measure spin (and motion), not gravitation.
3. Strain Gauges: measures mechanical stress, not gravitation
4. Piezoelectric Sensors: measures electrical impulses from machines under stress, not gravitation.

And do you know how any of these actually work?
i.e. do you know how an accelerometer works?
The vast majority of them are a strain gauge of some form.
e.g. they are a microelectromechanical system, which has a weight suspended by a microscopic load cell, and when the sensor accelerates, a force is needed to accelerate the weight which is transferred through that load cell which produces the measurement.
The distinction between a load cell itself, and the accelerometer is that the accelerometer has a weight attached and is calibrated for that weight to produce an acceleration reading rather than a force reading.
A strain gauge is a load cell.
Yes, it measures mechanical force, including the force required to hold an object up against gravity. So yes, it can be used to measure gravity, just like an accelerometer can.
And the piezoelectric device is just a type of loadcell.

So what you really have there is a single device, a load cell, which measures a FORCE, e.g. weight. It doesn't measure mass, it measures a force.

If I dropped or threw 1000 lb at you, what do you think would happen?

That depends. And is entirely distinct to the actual example.
Even notice what your pathetic AI says, "falling from a height".

What if instead of falling from a height, it was carefully placed over your entire body?

Or even just placed on your shoulders.

People make human towers quite often.
e.g.:

And what happens in them?
The people might be a bit sore, but they can support that weight.
But if you instead took those people up high and dropped them on the base of the tower, they wouldn't be able to support it.

And this is another reason why you need to understand the difference between weight and mass.
It is not a simple case of 1000 lb, but 1000 lb at a high speed requiring a rapid deceleration so you have to support many times that "weight".
A table being able support 100 kg doesn't mean you can drop 100 kg on it from the top of a 10 storey building and expect it to be fine.

This is what's known as Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Or in your case, just garbage out, because that is all you can do, regardless of what goes in.

The sensors receive five times the force of motion they typically have at regular speed

And if at regular speed that is "200 lb", then that equates to "1000 lb".
Not hard to understand.

I suppose

You suppose lots of delusional BS. That doesn't make it true.


Again:
You are still yet to defend your claim that 1 m^3 = 10dm^3, or admit your claim was pure BS.

You are still yet to tell us what the RE is standing on in your strawman of it, or admit your strawman is crap.
You are still yet to tell us ultimately what your FE is sitting on. I know you got to the lake, and something below that, but you haven't told us what that is on.

You are still yet to show any fault or inconsistency with gravity at all.
You are yet to deal with the clear evidence provided especially by the Cavendish experiment.

And you are yet to explain how your buoyancy BS could ever work.
You can't explain why things fall.
You can't explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
You can't explain why that rate varies over Earth.
You can't explain why or how this makes a pressure gradient.
You can't explain why that pressure gradient doesn't push objects up.

Can you address these, and I mean actually ADDRESS them, not just spout more pathetic crap or dismiss them; or can you just deflect?

I was talking to someone who can sorta hold a civil conversation.

As for this:


In what way is this supposed to be proof of anything? It seems to be fairly strong proof that gravity is not a thing.

I was talking to someone who can sorta hold a civil conversation.

You mean someone who will bring up points that are trivial for you to respond to so you will latch onto them to pretend to not be so completely wrong.

A civil conversation requires 2 willing parties.
Completely ignoring what I am saying or just saying you don't care makes it impossible to have a civil conversation with you.

i.e. you just entirely ignoring the pressure gradient, saying you don't know what it means, while claiming to have answered the question, shows you have no interest in a civil conversation.
Likewise, you continually lying and entirely ignoring the refutation of that lie to just repeat the same already refuted BS is not having a civil conversation.

So if you want a civil conversation, start addressing the points raised rather than continually fleeing or providing non-answers.

In what way is this supposed to be proof of anything?

How much weight do you think is on the lower people, who is holding up all the people above them?
And this is going on their shoulders and to their feet, rather than throughout their body to their butt.

So yes, people can withstand 1000 lb, as long as it is placed on them appropriately rather than dropped.



Again:
You are still yet to defend your claim that 1 m^3 = 10dm^3, or admit your claim was pure BS.

You are still yet to tell us what the RE is standing on in your strawman of it, or admit your strawman is crap.
You are still yet to tell us ultimately what your FE is sitting on. I know you got to the lake, and something below that, but you haven't told us what that is on.

You are still yet to show any fault or inconsistency with gravity at all.
You are yet to deal with the clear evidence provided especially by the Cavendish experiment.

And you are yet to explain how your buoyancy BS could ever work.
You can't explain why things fall.
You can't explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
You can't explain why that rate varies over Earth.
You can't explain why or how this makes a pressure gradient.
You can't explain why that pressure gradient doesn't push objects up.

Can you address these, and I mean actually ADDRESS them, not just spout more pathetic crap or dismiss them; or can you just deflect?

Civil, as in, not behaving like a barbarian at the gate.

Picture this. You're talking with your friend, when suddenly a sea lion shows up. This third 'person' suddenly is like "Pardon me, but I couldn't help but overhear..." Nuhhh, nobody asked you.


I was having a back and forth with another person. Then you showed up.

How much weight do you think is on the lower people, who is holding up all the people above them?
And this is going on their shoulders and to their feet, rather than throughout their body to their butt.

So yes, people can withstand 1000 lb, as long as it is placed on them appropriately rather than dropped.

Not 1000 lb. Even remotely.

There are multiple people, but there is a difference between me weighing 170 lb, and me pushing 170 lb. Football players train to be able to push with most of their weight, because for the average person, only a fraction of body weight goes into your hands. If three 300 lb people were to push at me, I wouldn't immediately assume 900 lb. And no, it doesn't matter how many people there are. They are balancing him, not trying to crush.

But might I draw your attention upward?
As for the people above him: 200ish + 150ish + 120ish +80 lb = 550ish not 1000! And that weight is distributed along significant volume (6ft + 5 ft + 4.5ft + 3ft = over 18 ft of weight distribution).

1st has people balancing him, and is supporting four other people.
2nd person is supported by people below him. And is supporting three other people.
3rd person is supported by 2nd person. And is supporting two other people.
4th person is supported by people below, and is supporting the 5th kid.
5th kid is held up in midair. But for balance, you gravity says he should fall.



The girl in the middle  should have 360 lb on her back (assuming those girls are about 120 each). Is she secretly a man? A female bodybuilder with rare ultralean muscle genes? Nah, it's all weight dispersion. And by weight I mean what I as a child meant by weight, not the gravity-loaded definition that so-called scientists used to brainwash me all through adolescence. Also, get different hair!

Nuhhh, nobody asked you.

You are not having a private conversation with your friend.
You are on a public forum inviting discussion.

I was having a back and forth with another person. Then you showed up.

There you go lying yet again.
In this thread, my first response was reply#9. Yours was #11.
You didn't directly quote anyone, but did say what appeared to be directed towards Data.
But then respond to markjo, and to me.

So no, you weren't having a back and forth between 1 person and then I showed up.

Not 1000 lb. Even remotely.

Because that is all on their shoulder.
Now try it placed over a much large area.

There are multiple people, but there is a difference between me weighing 170 lb, and me pushing 170 lb.

You mean you are spouting more irrelevant BS.

If three 300 lb people were to push at me
[/quote]
And what if they were standing on you instead?

And that weight is distributed along significant volume

No, it is over the very small volume of his shoulders.
And don't forget his weight as well that he is supporting.

Having people above him doesn't magically take the weight off him.
That still goes to him.

you gravity says he should fall.

No, your pathetic BS says that.

The girl in the middle  should have 360 lb on her back (assuming those girls are about 120 each).

And ore failure from you.
The weight is being distributed to the three at the bottom.
But don't worry, you can go much higher and get a lot more weight.

Is she secretly a man?

No, it is about what part of your body it goes on, and what you are trying to do with it.
Again, it is much harder to lift than to merely support.
Having a large amount of weight on your shoulders is a lot easier than trying to lift that same weight up.

No, it is over the very small volume of his shoulders.

It's the volume of his whole body, actually.

When I was working for Amazon Fulfillment (keep in mind that Amazon proper is a tech company, the thing that people think of as Amazon is actually usually their temp agency), they told us about holding boxes close to the body.  This is because the body when reaching holds less weight than contracted.

If three 300 lb men pile drived on me, that's 900 lb right there. I'd get crushed if I weren't a football player myself.  If they were doing a pyramid or something? Maybe not.

In this thread, my first response was reply#9. Yours was #11.

First post? I'm talking to markjo #240 to #245, you interrupt, then #247 to #253 (NotSoSkeptical is fine here), you interrupt again, get back into rhythm at about #266, more interruptions, then #282 to #285

It's the volume of his whole body, actually.

No, it is pressing onto his shoulders.
Having more body below him doesn't magically allow that weight to magically pass his shoulders and push down on the rest.
It goes to his shoulders, and then it has to transfer.

they told us about holding boxes close to the body.  This is because the body when reaching holds less weight than contracted.

So you are either a complete and utter moron that yet again fails to understand such basic ideas, or you are wilfully lying to everyone.
This is about torque.
If you are holding something in your hands, then your shoulder needs to support it.
If you hold it roughly directly below your shoulders, then there is no significant torque.
If instead, you hold it out so it is roughly level with your shoulders, as far away as possible, then there is a significant torque, because the downwards force acting on the object is not aligned with the supports (your shoulders).
You can even try this on a weight bench.
If you are laying down, you can easily hold a weight directly above you, but it is much harder to hold it with your arms roughly horizontal so the weight is just above your body.

Notice how it is the opposite to your BS there?

If three 300 lb men pile drived on me

You would be appealing to a strawman yet again.
What if those 900 lb was gently placed upon you, spread out over your entire body.

First post? I'm talking to markjo #240 to #245

So you just ignore the context.
Reply #235, you were responding to ME, calling me "fucking stupid", for so trivially pointing out that you were lying to everyone yet again.
I again refuted your pathetic BS, and instead of responding to the refutation of your BS you take the easy road of responding to markjo with much easier points.

Then I go off and do other things, and you and markjo respond quickly to each other, then several hours pass, and I respond.

Again, this is a public forum, stop throwing a tantrum when people point out your pathetic BS. If you don't like it, stop spouting such utter garbage.

Again:
You are still yet to defend your claim that 1 m^3 = 10dm^3, or admit your claim was pure BS.

You are still yet to tell us what the RE is standing on in your strawman of it, or admit your strawman is crap.
You are still yet to tell us ultimately what your FE is sitting on. I know you got to the lake, and something below that, but you haven't told us what that is on.

You are still yet to show any fault or inconsistency with gravity at all.
You are yet to deal with the clear evidence provided especially by the Cavendish experiment.

And you are yet to explain how your buoyancy BS could ever work.
You can't explain why things fall.
You can't explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
You can't explain why that rate varies over Earth.
You can't explain why or how this makes a pressure gradient.
You can't explain why that pressure gradient doesn't push objects up.

Can you address these, and I mean actually ADDRESS them, not just spout more pathetic crap or dismiss them; or can you just deflect?

Quote

In this thread, my first response was reply#9. Yours was #11.

First post? I'm talking to markjo #240 to #245, you interrupt, then #247 to #253 (NotSoSkeptical is fine here), you interrupt again, get back into rhythm at about #266, more interruptions, then #282 to #285

Hey there dingus.  You're posting on an open forum.  There are no such things as interruptions.  As long as they have an account, they can reply to anyone of your posts whenever they choose. If you don't like that, don't post in forums.

Quote

No, it is over the very small volume of his shoulders.

It's the volume of his whole body, actually.

When I was working for Amazon Fulfillment (keep in mind that Amazon proper is a tech company, the thing that people think of as Amazon is actually usually their temp agency), they told us about holding boxes close to the body.  This is because the body when reaching holds less weight than contracted.

If three 300 lb men pile drived on me, that's 900 lb right there. I'd get crushed if I weren't a football player myself.  If they were doing a pyramid or something? Maybe not.

You clearly have a flawed understanding of weight distribution and weight transfer.

In the human tower, the weight is placed on the shoulders and transferred down through the body.  The weight isn't distributing through the whole body, but only through the points of support.  The person carrying the most weight is not the man at the bottom but the man where the load from above is not distributed.

The force exerted on the human body during a standard crash test can exceed 2 tons (that's with a seatbelt).  So yes, the human body can take the weight of 1000lbs that is statically applied.

But I was under the impression that I could have a pleasant conversation with nobody else being involved.  It's a terrible thing when people called Jack Black show up.



Or his estranged daughter.

The force exerted on the human body during a standard crash test can exceed 2 tons (that's with a seatbelt).  So yes, the human body can take the weight of 1000lbs that is statically applied.

Crashes at speeds of 60 mph or more often result in fatal injuries, and even at 40 mph, the survival rate drops significantly, with severe trauma likely. Therefore, every mile per hour can greatly impact the likelihood of survival in a crash.

If you hold your child while riding in a vehicle, you could crush the child during a crash. In a 30 mph crash, a 100 pound adult becomes a 3,000 pound force against the child

But I was under the impression that I could have a pleasant conversation with nobody else being involved.

That's what the private message system is for.

Quote

The force exerted on the human body during a standard crash test can exceed 2 tons (that's with a seatbelt).  So yes, the human body can take the weight of 1000lbs that is statically applied.

Quote

Crashes at speeds of 60 mph or more often result in fatal injuries, and even at 40 mph, the survival rate drops significantly, with severe trauma likely. Therefore, every mile per hour can greatly impact the likelihood of survival in a crash.

Quote

If you hold your child while riding in a vehicle, you could crush the child during a crash. In a 30 mph crash, a 100 pound adult becomes a 3,000 pound force against the child

It's common practice to cite your quotes using the "author=" with a link to your source so that we have some idea of WTF you're talking about.  Also, resizing pictures to a reasonable size is just common courtesy.

But I was under the impression that I could have a pleasant conversation with nobody else being involved.  It's a terrible thing when people called Jack Black show up.



Or his estranged daughter.

Quote

The force exerted on the human body during a standard crash test can exceed 2 tons (that's with a seatbelt).  So yes, the human body can take the weight of 1000lbs that is statically applied.

Quote

Crashes at speeds of 60 mph or more often result in fatal injuries, and even at 40 mph, the survival rate drops significantly, with severe trauma likely. Therefore, every mile per hour can greatly impact the likelihood of survival in a crash.

Quote

If you hold your child while riding in a vehicle, you could crush the child during a crash. In a 30 mph crash, a 100 pound adult becomes a 3,000 pound force against the child

The standard crash test is done at ~35mph and is completely survivable if wearing a seatbelt.  The point being that 1000lbs on the human body is not impossible per your claims.  A child is a child, not an adult.   Your human tower doesn't have an adult standing on a child's shoulder.

It has four people, ranging from a child to an adult of nearly the same age. All standing on shoulder, which you claim is the weakest part.

It's common practice to cite your quotes using the "author=" with a link to your source so that we have some idea of WTF you're talking about.  Also, resizing pictures to a reasonable size is just common courtesy.

Yes, yes, and I should squeeze out sponges when I'm done with them.

But I've never seen this so called common practice on the former (it's spelled "H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y") and on the latter, I generally only do it if I feel like it.  If it bothers you, you can do that.  In my experience, when I start doing as people ask, they always ask.

It has four people, ranging from a child to an adult of nearly the same age. All standing on shoulder, which you claim is the weakest part.

Yes, the strength of a child is generally weaker than that of an adult.   You wouldn't have an adult stand on a child's shoulders. And yes, as you go up the human tower, smaller and smaller humans would be preferential.

The strongest person in a human tower isn't necessarily the bottom, and isn't for the image you provided. The strongest person is the man that everyone else is helping to support.  He is holding the most weight individually.  His weight and the weight of 4 people (man, woman, and 2 children) are supported and distributed through the dozens of others below and beside him.