FE claim in response to weight “layer and diffuse based on their chemical bonds”

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 18, 2026, 02:19:35 PM

Quote

You mean things with mass have weight because of gravity.  lol.

Where gravity causes N2, O2, and CO2 molecules to over come their natural tendency to equal distance themselves and bunch up at earth’s surface.  lol..

It's called the ability of objects to layer and diffuse based on their chemical bonds.

And yet gravity just can’t just be a property of mass where masses has an attraction for one another.

Where magnetism is ok?

Where adhesion and cohesion is ok?


Where hydrogen bonds are ok?

But somehow gravity being an attraction of mass to mass is an abomination?  And weight supposedly can’t be simply the earth’s greater mass exerting a force on something considerably less massive like a bus? 

lol. 
 

It's an abomination because it steals thunder from another scientific theory (buoyancy) and claims everything falls in violation of what actually happens. Then it shoehorns itself into the buoyancy theory, even though it adds nothing to the process.

Kinda like how you have a perfectly reasonable explanation of how pets behave, then some woke professor convinces everyone pets do not have feelings, only to "discover" years later through inhumane tests that pets are thinking and feeling creatures.

Scientific abominations are reinventions of the wheel, setting up rebrandings of ideas just to get your name on them, and eventually proclaiming the exact thing you replaced.

There is need for adhesion and cohesion, magnetism, hydrogen bonds.

But gravity is like Einstein at the patent office.

Perfectly good theory without it, but knocked out and replaced with gravity.

It's an abomination because it steals thunder from another scientific theory (buoyancy) and claims everything falls in violation of what actually happens.

Really.  Where FE uses density as a force.  And can’t explain in a useful way why air molecules that want to equal distance themselves bunch up at earth’s surface.  Where if there was a dome and no gravity the earth’s atmosphere wouldn’t have a pressure gradient.  lol.

You used to say it was momentum or some BS…

How do you accelerate a mass without a force. 

How do you decelerate a ball thrown straight up faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  Why does that ball slow to a stop.  What force changes that ball’s direction of travel 180 degrees.  Why does the ball accelerate down.  Why not keep moving from the higher pressure and resistance of the lower atmosphere and get pushed up into the higher atmosphere into lower pressure and density.


Why can I push a car in neutral around all day long on a good garage floor, but can’t push it up hill.

Why does may car got to work harder, burn more full, the miles per gallon go down when going up steep hills from the higher pressure and resistance of the lower atmosphere and not get pushed up into the higher atmosphere into lower pressure and density.


Take a scale.  Put 5 pounds of lead on the scale.  Then take another 5 pound thing of lead and add it to the scale.  The weight and force on the scale doubled.  The density of the lead stayed the same. 

Why does the force that forces liquids to separate out by density go away in free fall. 

Why does a punctured bucket full of liquid stop leaking in free fall.

For pulling competitions using a weight sled, why does the friction with the ground increase as the weights move from over the rear wheels towards the skids dragging the ground.

What force causes the steel spring in a hanging spring scale to extend in accordance with Hooke’s law when a ten pound of block of less dense styrofoam is hung from the scale. 

 (buoyancy)

Where’s your buoyancy in a scuba tank of trimix where the helium doesn’t separate out?

Where is your buoyancy in free fall where liquids stop separating out by density? 


Or a normally floating ball sinks in free fall?

Air pressure, water pressure, chemical bonds.

Air pressure or water pressure can for stuff together inside a container.

If not, substances bond with other materials. But since helium is a noble gas, it tends not to do that, so... I'm thinking it's just trapped inside the container.

Why can I push a car in neutral around all day long on a good garage floor, but can’t push it up hill.

I've pushed cars uphill with friends. Maybe you're just weak?

To push a car uphill, ensure the vehicle is in neutral and gather enough people to help push. Position yourselves at the rear of the car, lean into it, and push steadily while maintaining control to avoid rolling back.

Air pressure, water pressure, chemical bonds.

Nope.

What force causes the steel spring in a hanging spring scale to extend in accordance with Hooke’s law when a ten pound of block of less dense styrofoam is hung from the scale.

I've pushed cars uphill with friends. Maybe you're just weak?

I never claimed I couldn’t do it with more man power.

Why didn’t you push the car up hill by yourself. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 20, 2026, 08:14:00 AM

Air pressure, water pressure, chemical bonds.

Nope.

What force causes the steel spring in a hanging spring scale to extend in accordance with Hooke’s law when a ten pound of block of less dense styrofoam is hung from the scale.

If you already have the answer in your mind, why ask me?

Meanwhile, does Hooke's law have an answer for why helium behaves as it does inside a balloon that is a mix of gases? Eric Dubay has a balloon that he apparently pumped full with a half and half mixture, and neither sinks nor rises. Wait, nope, Hooke's law only deals in the effect of these, specifically dealing with springs.   

Why didn’t you push the car up hill by yourself.

Because I don't care?

Meanwhile, you seem to care deeply about the fact. If it truly is a force and not your ineptitude, then no amount of friends would be able to accomplish it.  Maybe spend more time at the gym? When you can lift 600 kg, you should be able to push a typical car uphill at a 5% slope. At a 2% slope, as long as you can bench 255 kg, you're fine. Get to lifting if that's a thing that bothers you.

You need to understand that according to the laws of physics, a hill is a wall and a valley is a pit. So you are not pushing a car forward, as you would on a flat surface. You are lifting it out of a shallow pit. My dad and I pushed a car uphill (not stalled, too steep a hill for it to drive forward because it lacked 4WD), so yeah, I know what is involved. You never try this with less than two people.

If you already have the answer in your mind, why ask me?

You say a person is weak for not being able to push a car up hill by themselves.  You admit to having to use friends.  Why do you need friends to push a car up hill that I could push all day long in neutral on a good garage floor? 

Meanwhile, does Hooke's

So.  You can’t answer the below without gravity.


What force causes the steel spring in a hanging spring scale to extend in accordance with Hooke’s law when a ten pound of block of less dense styrofoam is hung from the scale.

Maybe spend more time at the gym?

Me?   I literally don’t see you even able to lift a finger to prove your BS.

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 14, 2025, 09:06:21 PM

A tiny bird can easily defeat gravity, but not beat out a thread attached to its little leg!

Why does the bird need to generate lift greater than its weight.

Why does the birds have weight in the first place.

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 14, 2025, 09:06:21 PM

Your made up force is just a little weaker high in air, .

Again..

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 14, 2025, 06:58:48 PM

They had to make up two ‘forces’ for this.

No.  Gravity is what gives weight to objects of mass.



Gravity is what my arm and strength strains against to lift the 50 lbs weight above my head. 

Gravity is a real force acting on my arm as a lever multiplying the strain at my shoulder where I can’t raise the same 50 lbs straight out arms length.

Gravity is the reason I can’t push a car in neutral up hill where I can push the same car in neutral all day  long over a garage floor.

Gravity is the reason cars have to exert my force by downshifting and burning more fuel as attested to by RPMs and fuel mileage to get up steep hills.

Gravity is the reason you have to strain and exert more force to peddle a bicycle up hill.

Gravity is the reason falling water can drive a water wheel overcoming the friction of grindstones to turn a mill.

 Eric Dubay has a balloon that he apparently pumped full with a half and half mixture, and neither sinks nor rises.

Maybe you should have answered the below first a few months ago. lol.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 02, 2026, 07:41:25 AM

 idiot,

Lol


From the person that wants to use buoyancy for everything but can’t explain what force causes the atmospheric pressure gradient where air molecules that want to equal distance end up bunching up at the earth’s surface to make buoyancy possible in the first place.  Where a party balloon filled with helium can only rise until its density is equal to the less dense air above.

Where you still have no explanation what force is trying to accelerate a car downward as the car travels up a hill resulting in the car burning more fuel, requiring more engine rpms, the transmission downshifting to just try to stay at the same speed.

And why do you ignore the helium in a scuba tank of trimix doesn’t separate out. 

 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 25, 2025, 05:26:46 PM

Quote

Wrong again.
Diffusion makes it mix.

Sometimes.

Which has nothing to do with a mix of diatomic oxygen and helium in a tank used for breathing air doesn’t separate out.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 25, 2025, 05:26:46 PM

It's sloppy scientists who assume that because diffusion can and often does lead to a mix, that means it always does.

No.  Breathing air mixes with gases of very different densities like diatomic oxygen and helium required for deep sea diving are reliably and accurately mixed to specific concentrations that don’t separate out by density.

Quoted for you a time ago.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on February 04, 2025, 07:23:15 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 04, 2025, 06:45:25 AM

I tell them

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

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 30, 2025, 12:57:12 PM

But in a hermetically sealed room with oxygen and helium

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

Quote

Trimix is a breathing gas consisting of oxygen, helium, and nitrogen. It is used in deep commercial diving, during the deep phase of dives carried out using technical diving techniques,[1][2] and in advanced recreational diving.[3][4]

Quote

Heliox is a breathing gas mixture of helium (He) and oxygen (O2). It is used as a medical treatment for patients with difficulty breathing because this mixture generates less resistance than atmospheric air when passing through the airways of the lungs, and thus requires less effort by a patient to breathe in and out of the lungs. It is also used as a breathing gas for deep ambient pressure diving as it is not narcotic at high pressure, and for its low work of breathing.

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

Where the helium stays in a mixed concentration?  I don’t think the breathing mixtures would be effective if the helium layered out from the oxygen.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 25, 2025, 05:26:46 PM

Displacement is not a force, no m

Your idiotic babbling in no way addresses what was actually posted.

You wanted to post in context of hot air balloons.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 25, 2025, 10:27:35 AM

 
but is pushed upward by the heated air inside the balloon,

The less dense air bubble in the balloon is pushed up by air molecules bunched up at earth’s surface by gravity.  Air molecules that would otherwise equalize with the less dense and pressure of the atmosphere above if it wasn’t for gravity.  Gravity explains the pressure gradient. Explains how the air molecules can bunch up to support the hot air ballon.  And why air molecules are bunched up to the degree and density found at earth’s surface. 

By the way.  The atmospheric pressure and density decreases with altitude.  The hot air ballon will only rise until the average density of atmosphere inside the ballon and the weight in the basket matches the outside density of the atmosphere.  Something you forget to post.

If you don’t think weight is a real downward force.  Why do you need to counter weight with the force of lift to fly? Why does the upward force of lift have to be greater than the downward force of weight. Why can I add enough weight to any given hot air ballon size so it will not lift off no matter how hot the atmosphere inside the ballon is made.

Well, because the individual force multiplies with slope, and divides with slope in the opposite direction. This isn't gravity, it's simple angular physics. If you individually think that you can push 600 kg (roughly 1300 lb), go at it. I don't know of any who can bench that, even mothers with adrenaline.

You aren't pushing the car, so much as the hill.

If gravity is a thing, Hooke's law only goes one way.  But if a balloon can push the spring upward?

Buoyancy. Buoyancy is a force. You may call it a reaction or impulse or whatever the hell bullshit excuse you want, but it's not only a force, but the fundamental force that works instead of gravity (well, actually that's not right; buoyancy works as a result of diffusion, I believe, the governing force of molecular motion).
Denser objects fall, less dense objects rise, that is the true summary of buoyancy, not "it floats."


Why does a brick or an apple, or an anvil fall? Buoyancy. Why does a helium balloon float? Buoyancy. How can a person be on a raft in the middle of the ocean? Buoyancy. How can a person be in a hot air balloon crossing the ocean? Buoyancy, and also thermal reactions.

Consistent behavior.

Gravity? No, somehow gravity is involved in several different types of motion: spinning, pushing, pulling, etc. And is extremely inconsistent about when it should apply, not applying when a thing flies, or when I need to gravitate towards a mountain instead of falling towards the air, which exerts no force toward me.

In fact, back to the car, gravity says the ground is right there and more massive, but buoyancy says the car is denser than air and less dense than the entire hill, and will roll backwards towards empty space. The car rolls down the hill, consistent with buoyancy. The mass of the hill has zero pull on the car to make it cling where it is. That's right, a car doesn't roll towards earth, it rolls away from earth, in the direction of empty space.

Well, because the individual force multiplies with slope, and divides with slope in the opposite direction. This

Bulma. Gas molecules have kinetic energy from heat from the environment and bounce around to evenly fill a container.  Or keep going from high pressure to low pressure to equalize potential of the system they are in. That’s known physics.  If they didn’t have the energy to move around as gas molecules and have the property of gas molecules, they would be a liquid or solid. 

Gas molecules want to mix and equal distance as seen in a scuba bottle of Trimix where the helium doesn’t separate out.  Where the pressure in the bottle is uniform. 

There is a very severe pressure gradient in earth’s atmosphere.  At sea level the pressure is 14.7 psi absolute.  At 25,000 feet, the level is less than 6 psia.  That’s over 8 psi differential.

The reason the gas molecules are bunched up at earth’s surface and not equal distancing, not equalizing potential from high pressure to low pressure, is because of gravity.  The reason a party balloon filled with helium raises to a certain height is because gravity is pulling and bunching up heavier gas molecules squeezing up the less dense balloon of helium until it rises and matches the less dense atmosphere above. 

This has been explained to you countless times.  And you try to change the physics to create some BS argument based on lies where you just butcher what is repeatedly explained to you.

Your model has to work with all that is witnessed.

Really.  Where FE uses density as a force.  And can’t explain in a useful way why air molecules that want to equal distance themselves bunch up at earth’s surface.  Where if there was a dome and no gravity the earth’s atmosphere wouldn’t have a pressure gradient.  lol.

You used to say it was momentum or some BS…

How do you accelerate a mass without a force.

How do you decelerate a ball thrown straight up faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  Why does that ball slow to a stop.  What force changes that ball’s direction of travel 180 degrees.  Why does the ball accelerate down.  Why not keep moving from the higher pressure and resistance of the lower atmosphere and get pushed up into the higher atmosphere into lower pressure and density.


Why can I push a car in neutral around all day long on a good garage floor, but can’t push it up hill.

Why does may car got to work harder, burn more full, the miles per gallon go down when going up steep hills from the higher pressure and resistance of the lower atmosphere and not get pushed up into the higher atmosphere into lower pressure and density.


Take a scale.  Put 5 pounds of lead on the scale.  Then take another 5 pound thing of lead and add it to the scale.  The weight and force on the scale doubled.  The density of the lead stayed the same.

Why does the force that forces liquids to separate out by density go away in free fall.

Why does a punctured bucket full of liquid stop leaking in free fall.

For pulling competitions using a weight sled, why does the friction with the ground increase as the weights move from over the rear wheels towards the skids dragging the ground.

What force causes the steel spring in a hanging spring scale to extend in accordance with Hooke’s law when a ten pound of block of less dense styrofoam is hung from the scale.

 but buoyancy says the car is denser than air

Then how does a leaf blower move rocks? (In fact, the rubber of a party balloon itself is more dense than air.)  The air is less dense than the rocks. Buoyancy is still working on the car to try and lift it up.  There is still a pressure gradient of the lower atmosphere having more pressure and density than above.  It’s just the weight of the car from earth acting on the mass is magnitudes stronger than the force from the atmosphere.

There is a reason why things weigh more if placed in a chamber and the atmosphere is pumped out.

Really.  Where FE uses density as a force.  And can’t explain in a useful way why air molecules that want to equal distance themselves bunch up at earth’s surface.  Where if there was a dome and no gravity the earth’s atmosphere wouldn’t have a pressure gradient.  lol.

You used to say it was momentum or some BS…

Actually, what I used to say (and still kinda do) is that momentum is a thing that is finite. You cannot fire an arrow or bullet and expect it to continue indefinitely. When the energy that is inputted into a process, when it runs out, buoyancy takes over.

This means that under ideal circumstances (the arrow does not fragment, become waterlogged, or trap air), after the arrow reaches its limit, it will appear to "fall" upwards towards the surface.

---

How do you accelerate a mass without a force.

There are all kinds of forces that you could realistically use (even when it seems no forces are involved, inertia is an option). Instead, you use an imaginary catch-all "force" that is basically a substitute for "I don't know that many scientific forces. If I were religious, I'd say G as in God, but instead I'll say G as in Gravity. Why does something happen? It must be because Gravity made it do that." That's it, isn't it? You worship gravity, so whenever you have something that you can't explain, you just default to that.

I don't know all that many forces either, but I don't need to, because buoyancy has a mechanism.

It should really be Ds vs Do, because positive buoyancy is what makes objects float, and thicker surfaces generally create more positive buoyancy (unless they are like molasses, then you are screwed).

"But what force makes buoyancy work?"

Do you even understand what a fundamental force is?

Non-derivability: cannot be fully derived from more basic forces

It's the basic. We can use math to describe how it works, but not another force to push it. It is the force that pulls or pushes things.

The shoehorning of gravity into buoyancy formula (which it NEVER was, prior to Newton) is an attempt to replace gravity into the fundamental forces, when actually it is so weak that it cannot be proven. That honor originally went to diffusion (the tendency of matter and energy to travel from greatest to least) which in turn has buoyancy as a subset (objects of greater density falls in lesser density, objects of lesser density rises from greater density). Both diffusion and buoyancy are in stark contrast to the claim of gravity, that "objects of greater mass pull objects of lesser mass towards them." When water molecules are thick in a cloud, they cool and fall towards where they are thinner. They are more dense than the air around them, so they fall. When it falls, it splatters on asphalt (more dense surface) but sinks into soft soil (less denser surface).   

Actually, what I used to say (and still kinda do) is that momentum is a thing that is finite. You cannot fire an arrow or bullet and expect it to continue indefinitely.

When gas molecules like O2 run out of “energy” it changes states and turns into a liquid.

While O2 remains is a gaseous state it is being fed energy from the environment.  So at room temperature, the heat of the environment is going to supply the oxygen molecules energy to have enough kinetic energy to maintain a gaseous state and the molecules are going to keep flying around bouncing off things.  Why a balloon filled with gas keeps its shape. 

Now that it’s been demonstrated once again your arguments are based out of you pure ignorance, or willfully butchering physics to create a false argument.


Bulma. Gas molecules have kinetic energy from heat from the environment and bounce around to evenly fill a container.  Or keep going from high pressure to low pressure to equalize potential of the system they are in. That’s known physics.  If they didn’t have the energy to move around as gas molecules and have the property of gas molecules, they would be a liquid or solid.

Gas molecules want to mix and equal distance as seen in a scuba bottle of Trimix where the helium doesn’t separate out.  Where the pressure in the bottle is uniform.

There is a very severe pressure gradient in earth’s atmosphere.  At sea level the pressure is 14.7 psi absolute.  At 25,000 feet, the level is less than 6 psia.  That’s over 8 psi differential.

The reason the gas molecules are bunched up at earth’s surface and not equal distancing, not equalizing potential from high pressure to low pressure, is because of gravity.  The reason a party balloon filled with helium raises to a certain height is because gravity is pulling and bunching up heavier gas molecules squeezing up the less dense balloon of helium until it rises and matches the less dense atmosphere above.

This has been explained to you countless times.  And you try to change the physics to create some BS argument based on lies where you just butcher what is repeatedly explained to you.
 

Yes! Denser,

The air trapped in the cylinder is not denser than the aluminium of the plunger.  There is zero evidence.

The air supports the plunder because it’s trapped.

Address what was actually posted.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 07, 2025, 05:17:57 AM

You say, "The metal is more is more dense than the air." But that is only true before it's compressed.

The less dense air in the cylinder is trapped and forced to support the metal plunger.

Bulma.

Added what was actually posted.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 24, 2022, 11:13:37 PM

When an object stops, it falls or rises based on being heavier or lighter than the medium.

Then why isn’t this plunger falling?

Are you saying the air in the cylinder is heavier than the metal plunger?

From this video..




A hand plunger being supported by a column of air.



The plunger is more dense than the air it’s being supported on. 

Now.  What force is causing the air molecules to bunch up to support a hot air balloon like the air in the trapped cylinder supporting the plunger. 



 A balloon filled with helium ever once in awhile ends up at the house.  For a day or two, it’s bouncing off the ceiling.  Then after a while it loses enough helium the balloon floats a few feet under the ceiling, but doesn’t fall to the floor.  What force causes the air molecules to bunch up and support the balloon like the air molecules supporting the weight of the plunger in the example.   If you don’t think weight is a real downward force, why does just adding weight to the plunger make it go down more into the cylinder.  Then removing the weight causes the plunger to rise.

Actually, what I used to say (and still kinda do) is that momentum is a thing that is finite. You cannot fire an arrow or bullet and expect it to continue indefinitely. When the energy that is inputted into a process, when it runs out, buoyancy takes over.

If there is no external force like friction or obstruction in the way to oppose the motion of the bullet, then why should it not keep going forever?

Reading comprehension. It's that important.

Actually, what I used to say (and still kinda do) is that momentum is a thing that is finite. You cannot fire an arrow or bullet and expect it to continue indefinitely. When the energy that is inputted into a process, when it runs out, buoyancy takes over.

Momentum is finite. In order for a bullet to keep going it needs more propulsion. It's that simple. It isn't a force causing it to fall, it's a absence that a force (buoyancy) is taking over because the energy involved in pushing it is running out. That is, "gravity" isn't pulling bullets down like the umbral hands in FMA,

the bullet is running out of kinetic energy and momentum, and it starts toward the ground because it is heavier than the air.

If you were in diving armor deep underwater, getting air pumped from the surface, and you shot a pistol straight up, the bullet would go towards the surface, and depending on range, either wound the guy on the boat (and he'd shut off the pump) or stop moving and sink back down. It's heavier than water.

Reading comprehension. It's that important.

Almost as important as scientific literacy.

Momentum is finite.

It's also conserved.  You may want to look into that.
https://www.britannica.com/science/conservation-of-momentum

Momentum is indeed conserved, in that a consistent amount of kinetic energy output has a consistent momentum under a specific condition, and if one object bonks another at even speed, they knock each other in opposite directions.



Here's the thing. Energy routinely does change form, to the point where it is effectively converted back into potential energy or heat or sound.



This double pendulum is not a perpetual motion engine. While each strike bonks the other away, each swing also slightly loses energy through transference each time, until both pendulums come to a rest. At this point, it is kinetic energy, and you can restart the process by swinging one or both pendulums. Conservation of momentum does not mean infinite momentum.

In a collision of two particles, the sum of the two momenta before collision is equal to their sum after collision. What momentum one particle loses, the other gains.

What this means is momentum is conserved by transference. Which is to say, not really conserved at all for practical application. You can't get your gun or bow and arrow to fire an infinite distance without have an infinite amount of propellant for propulsion.

What this means is momentum is conserved by transference. Which is to say, not really conserved at all for practical application. You can't get your gun or bow and arrow to fire an infinite distance without have an infinite amount of propellant for propulsion.

Where is the bullet transferring its momentum?  Where is a satellite transferring its momentum in the near perfect vacuum of space?

When an object is in motion, energy is expended, usually to push molecules in its path aside.

For example, I fire off a cue ball on a pool table. That ball (ideally) hits another ball, say the eight ball, which I wasn't supposed to hit because some of my balls are still on the table. What you don't see is the kinetic energy of the ball bashing aside particles of air, as it gradually loses speed. Air resistance. The eight ball sinks into the pocket, and I lose.

But you may say that without air resistance, such as in an Action Labs vacuum chamber (seriously, that guy has too much money or something), that ball should continue to bounce back and forth infinitely. Except other limiters always exist. Sometimes it's the surface of the pool table generating friction, heat loss, or some other factor.

That’s more or less correct on earth, but what about in space?  Where does that expended energy go?

 that ball should continue to bounce back and forth infinitely.

Every time the ball hits an object from walls to molecules, there is an energy transfer.

And a fired bullet drops at the same rate as a bullet that is dropped due to gravity. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 11, 2025, 12:35:49 PM

As for you guys who said all falling objects fall at the same rate...

Quote

Feather and Coin in a Vacuum (A8) [1C20.10]

For earth. Or like a dropped bullet falls at the same rate as a bullet fired from a muzzle.

Bullet Fired vs Bullet Dropped - Mythbusters for the Impatient

Energy transfer is indeed a thing.

But in a given kinetic energy reaction, there is finite amount of energy!

Suppose I make a pool table resemble ice (which I am told cannot be done through smooth and polished diamonds, because solid to solid contact will always generate friction, but a ceramic or diamond like carbon with hydrogenated solids will do something similar. The thing is motion even on synthetic "ice" is not permanent. On of two things happens. (1) Substance turns to liquid and skidding stops, or (2) there is just enough friction that it slows down despite being low friction. This happens precisely because there is transfer of motion. What do you think friction is? Motion is transferred into the air and ground.

Energy transfer is indeed a thing.

But in a given kinetic energy reaction, there is finite amount of energy!

Someone asked you a question..

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 21, 2026, 07:19:04 PM

What this means is momentum is conserved by transference. Which is to say, not really conserved at all for practical application. You can't get your gun or bow and arrow to fire an infinite distance without have an infinite amount of propellant for propulsion.

Where is the bullet transferring its momentum?  Where is a satellite transferring its momentum in the near perfect vacuum of space?

That’s more or less correct on earth, but what about in space?  Where does that expended energy go?

Energy transfer is indeed a thing.

But in a given kinetic energy reaction, there is finite amount of energy!

Suppose I make a pool table resemble ice...

Suppose you try this experiment in the vacuum of space like I asked.

And I answered. Did you not pay attention?

Okay, here goes.

Let's say it's an arrow rather than a bullet. NASA space delusion has the arrow continue infinitely (and they shut off the camera and make a few more frames to make it look like that). But in the absence of nearby air to heat up, you have to ask where the heat goes to.

Well, two places actually. The arrow itself slightly melts (losing kinetic energy to thermal energy) and the arrow radiates (releasing thermal energy). This heat gradually does diminish by the inverse square law (which is dependent on laws of kinetic energy and thermodynamics).  In other words, when kinetic energy radiates as heat, this heat as well has kinetic energy, and loses steam over distance.

---

So when Action Labs makes a pendulum in a vacuum and it stops, and they say "Maybe I didn't design it right, because it should swing forever," I say, "You couldn't design it right."

In a vacuum, the pendulum's kinetic energy still becomes heat, and that heat goes into whatever the pendulum and its supports touch or radiate to.

• Contact (friction and deformation): Energy dissipated at the pivot, wire, or attachment points becomes internal energy (microscopic vibrations) of the metal/wire and any parts in contact (including the pendulum bob). That raises their temperature (often imperceptibly).
• Internal damping (material hysteresis): Flexing of the wire or bob converts mechanical energy into heat inside those solids.
• Thermal conduction through contacts: Heat produced in the wire or pivot conducts into attached structures (stand, mount, glass container) so the wire and mount and glass share the energy.
• Thermal radiation: Warmed parts emit electromagnetic radiation (infrared) into the vacuum. That radiated energy can be absorbed by the glass walls, other parts, or escape if the enclosure is transparent to IR.
• Electrical losses (if electromagnetic damping used): currents produce Joule heating in conductors.

Bottom line, no matter how good the object, the laws of physics will not allow it to move indefinitely in a vacuum. So these "space" videos where a ship keeps going without an engine blasting massive amounts of fuel are just as much a fraud as I say. Air resistance is gone, but heat transference and radiation still happen, and these stresses make it so even vacuums cannot show that "objects in motion remain in motion." They don't. And he wouldn't have been able to show they do. He used that idea to prop up gravity.  But the reality is:
1. Objects at rest tend to remain at rest until energy is applied.
2. Objects at motion tend to remain at motion until energy is converted.

Markjo, one of your number has already done the experiment. Action Labs leans Round Earther, but their experiments usually give people like me more information than them, because their biases do not let them learn anything.




See, this idiot believes in frictionless momentum, and his biases in such mean he can't understand why it stops.



I believe in finite momentum, and that energy is lost through transference. And every one of his videos that fails shows exactly that as why. Heat is gained (through conduction) or heat is lost (through radiation). Kinetic energy is not conserved absolutely.

Well, two places actually. The arrow itself slightly melts (losing kinetic energy to thermal energy)...

Why is the arrow melting? 

...and the arrow radiates (releasing thermal energy).

Thermal energy is not kinetic energy.

This heat gradually does diminish by the inverse square law (which is dependent on laws of kinetic energy and thermodynamics).  In other words, when kinetic energy radiates as heat, this heat as well has kinetic energy, and loses steam over distance.

Kinetic energy does not radiate as heat. 

So when Action Labs makes a pendulum in a vacuum and it stops...

A pendulum is not an arrow or bullet.  In fact, a pendulum requires gravity to work at all.

Bottom line, no matter how good the object, the laws of physics will not allow it to move indefinitely in a vacuum. So these "space" videos where a ship keeps going without an engine blasting massive amounts of fuel are just as much a fraud as I say. Air resistance is gone...

Air resistance is mostly gone, but a tiny bit still remains.  That's why the ISS requires an occasional boost in its orbit.

...but heat transference and radiation still happen...

In some cases, heat radiation is necessary to keep the electronics and people inside from overheating.

...and these stresses make it so even vacuums cannot show that "objects in motion remain in motion."

I wasn't asking about objects staying in motion forever in a vacuum.  I was asking about where the kinetic energy goes.

They don't. And he wouldn't have been able to show they do. He used that idea to prop up gravity.  But the reality is:
1. Objects at rest tend to remain at rest until energy is applied.
2. Objects at motion tend to remain at motion until energy is converted.

Okay, so now you admit that inertia is a thing.  Looks like we may be making a tiny bit of progress.

Markjo, one of your number has already done the experiment. Action Labs leans Round Earther, but their experiments usually give people like me more information than them, because their biases do not let them learn anything.

Which of those experiments were done in space?

In what way is a vacuum different from space?

Watched a video yesterday where this ugly trans woman had basically everyone tell her (and roughly half of them were trans!) that trans females are stronger in athletics than biological females. She asked them "Do you have the statistics" and when the question was thrown back at her, and she admitted she didn't have the statistics either  and then called them awful nonsense.

The people just told her, "You can see it happen." And so also I tell you. You can look at how matter behaves in a vacuum. You can decide for yourself. Or you can say something lame like "Unless you do it in space (which would be millions of bucks outside my price range), I don't have to believe you."

---

Why is the arrow melting? 

Kinetic energy is turning into thermal energy. An extreme case here.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QSux5u_bakk
Now typically, the kinetic energy will not start a fire, but it will do a good job of blasting through stuff.

---

Thermal energy is not kinetic energy.

When a swing moves back and forth, movement becomes heat, light, or sound (usually heat and sound, with mostly the latter). The conversion of energy is how energy escapes an object in motion.

---

Kinetic energy does not radiate as heat.

I feel like you failed basic science.
https://sciencenotes.org/heat-transfer-conduction-convection-radiation/

---

A pendulum is not an arrow or bullet.  In fact, a pendulum requires gravity to work at all.

Your gravity doesn't put a pendulum to work. In fact, if we are to believe the narrative about it, it causes the pendulum to fall until it comes to rest. Once the pendulum is held still with both hands, and stops the last of its motion, only the introduction of energy (e.g. flicking it) to convert it from potential to kinetic will get it to move.

Without potential energy being converted into kinetic (as in pushing it) would a pendulum move at all just through gravity?
A pendulum will not move at all without an initial push or displacement; it requires potential energy to be converted into kinetic energy to start swinging. Once it is displaced, gravity will then cause it to oscillate back and forth.

Now, I do not believe in gravity, but the point here is "gravity" as a "force" cannot push a single object without displacement. Gravity cannot therefore be a force, because forces create motion. So a pendulum is identical to a bullet or arrow in that it needs propulsion of some sort in order for there to be motion.

---

Air resistance is mostly gone, but a tiny bit still remains.  That's why the ISS requires an occasional boost in its orbit.

Contradiction. You say satellites can easily keep geostaionary orbit despite be repeatedly telling you they get left behind by the two speed issue. You the Earth easily keeps pace with the sun and the moon keeps pace with the Earth forever while all are in motion.

But now you say like a swing, ISS just needs a bit of a push.

---

In some cases, heat radiation is necessary to keep the electronics and people inside from overheating.

This is about the only thing you've said thus far that might be correct. Radiated heat indeed helps electronic components from overheating. I myself have a computer that the cushion underneath had to be hollowed out, because it tended to run hot (radiation + conduction is alot of heat going back and forth). Even that only helped so much because hot air rises (seriously why are laptop vents on the bottom?!?)

---

I wasn't asking about objects staying in motion forever in a vacuum.  I was asking about where the kinetic energy goes.

And I told you.

If energy were retained, this poor guy would die.

But it isn't.

So energy is "lost" through conversion.

---

Okay, so now you admit that inertia is a thing.  Looks like we may be making a tiny bit of progress.

Inertia is not as The Idiot defined it (the real Idiot, not Trump). It's as I define it. So whether it exists or not is irrelevant because it is not some magical force that allows motion to retain. It is a force that falls apart for the most part due to the actual laws of the universe.

A cookie is just a cookie, but Newton is fruity as a cake.

 

In what way is a vacuum different from space?

Who said it was.

Why is the pressure more at earth’s surface than at 25,000 feet.  And why isn’t the pressure equalizing.  What is keeping the gas molecules bunched up at earth’s surface to over come gas molecules tendency to equal distance and equalize to areas of lower pressure.  It’s doesn’t even have to be a “vacuum”.  Where gas molecules have the property of a gas that by their constant motion from energy from their environment and bouncing off boundaries take the shape of their container. In either model to match reality.  Where helium in a scuba tank of Trimix doesn’t separate out by density.