It's funny that people (badecker) who believe in 1 crazy shit (god) also usually believe in other crazy shit. Notbatman believes the earth is flat but that's not his only conspiracy theory, he also believes that giants lived here and other crazy shit.
Since you want to set yourself up as god by claiming (without proof) that God doesn't exist, the question is whether you were vaccinated with thymus materials designed to make you anti-yourself (anti-god).  My god protects me from diseases, I don't have to be vaccinated. Go ahead and never take any medicine ever again, badecker, see how long you last alive. |
|
|
|
You guys are twisting my assertions, my claims are that Dufour & Prunier's replication on the Sagnac effect took the non-rotating framework of special relativity into account and proved empirically that the results were not consistent with it. But hey thanks for strawmaning my argument by omitting D&P then knocking over Sagnac with the special relativity argument. Your random link to some bullshit about GPS doesn't change the results D&P obtained. You keep saying the same shit over and over again, your random links also don't change anything, keep believing fairy tales |
|
|
|
@af_newbie
You're just being a fucking idiot now, the air pressure caused by an object displacing it is not measurable as an increase in the air pressure surrounding that object; the force is on the object.
Do you see how retarded your argument is, you're trying to measure a drop in the ocean by analyzing the sea level rise it causes.
I'm by no means an expert in this but I'm fairly sure he said ''Why one is heavier than the other?'' Not to measure the air pressure surrounding the objects. |
|
|
|
@af_newbie
Push a large piece of Styrofoam into the ocean, hold it down. You can feel the water pressure pushing it up!
Now get a water pressure meter and take a reading below the piece of submerged Styrofoam and measure the pressure. Do you see how obscene this logic and argument is trying to disprove my claim? I claim displaced air is pushing objects down and you tell me go take an air pressure reading above the object to prove it. Well it's the same deal as with trying to measure the pressure pushing the submerged Styrofoam up by putting a pressure meter below it; it doesn't work that way.
You literally have no argument.
You are conveniently forgetting that buoyancy is only observable when gravity is present. The pressure difference between the top of the object and the bottom is due to gravity. That pressure difference is the cause of the buoyancy upward force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuoyancyYou think the cause of the pressure is the electric field not the gravity, I have shown you that it cannot possibly be the electric field. You are twisting scientific principles, using them incorrectly because you do not understand the fundamentals. You have shown nothing and twisted my assertions. I on the other hand have used experiments already on the books to prove empirically that a) special relativity is not consistent with experiment [Sagnac: Dufour & Prunier] b), that experiment is consistent with an aether [Sagnac] and c), that the Earth is motionless [Michelson & Morley]. My assertions are testable, repeatable and well documented [see above] while yours uses faulty logic [i.e. pressure readings with a meter next to an object], theory that isn't supported by experimental evidence [i.e. special relativity] and claims backed by special relativity [i.e. no aether and field lines that aren't "real"]. Gravity as an unproven theory after all these years exists solely to support heliocentrism and a spinning globe. I can show that the Earth is motionless with experiments already on the books, such as M&M and these results are confirmed by Airy's failure to detect any motion. All arguments that invoke special relativity i.e. no aether and stellar aberration are put to rest by Dufour & Prunier. The electric field of the Earth is a testable and measurable thing and, it supports the idea of a flat and motionless Earth as well as an alternative and expanded mechanism for buoyancy that, accounts for motion in two directions; it's now also in compliance with Newton's (may he rot in hell) 3rd Law when applied to the displacement by denser than air objects. Atmospheric electric field intensity can be 5 times lower during sunrise, objects would be flying off to space every morning. During thunderstorms objects would weigh 10 to 20 times more, you would see major damage, all animals and people would die wherever there is a thunderstorm. You really need to start measuring the E field before you open your mouth on this subject. E field is not the only problem in your fantasy. The charges on the dome and the ground would have to gradually decrease as you move away from the center of your disk. Otherwise the same object would weigh less in Canada than in New Zealand. What magic would keep the nonuniform, slowly descreasing charge distribution? Again any lightning would increase the charges locally, and some other magic would have to fix the charge distribution for the dome model to predict the correct weights. Now to the fun part, can you show me your math how did you derive how much you weigh using your model based on 100 V/m E field and your directional air pressure? Show your math or be quiet forever. You arguments twist my assertions; I don't claim that the electric field is pushing objects down directly. I claim that the electric field is polarizing the atmosphere and that the atmosphere is pushing things down. It becomes clear that you're fielding a dishonest argument when you describe my model in an attempt to goad me into doing a lot of useless work that would just be ignored for the most part. All the experiments already on the books that I've listed i.e. M&M, Sagnac, D&P, Airy etc.. are all described mathematically, see for yourself. You don't have any rational arguments here, you're just trying to win an argument truth be damned; this isn't science. Ok, so you are flipping again. You've been going back and forth between the air pressure and the E field. Now that we've got you committed (pun intended) to the atmospheric air pressure as the cause of the force objects exert on the ground, we can drill further into your fantasy. Put two objects on the ground, let's say two blocks of different wood but identical in size, say oak and pine. Why one is heavier than the other? The air pressure is all the same around them.Show your math to show that the oak block is heavier than the pine block, or be quiet when adults are talking. Hey calm down, you are going to scare him away. Watch him change the subject entirely and completely ignoring this point just like many others. The guy doesn't even understand that buoyancy cannot exist without gravity. |
|
|
|
Well technically The Holy Bible doesn't say when, so we don't know if it will be today, tomorrow, or in 100 years from now.
Or never is more likely. The Holy Bible says that Earth is flat, was created 6000 years ago, and all fauna and flora was destroyed 4000 years are in a global flood. If I were you, I would not worry about what the Holy Bible doesn't say, I would worry about what it does say. No religious believer has ever been able to tell me why an infinite being has to ''wait'' to comeback and ''save us'' if he can do it any time he pleases and he already knows the future. |
|
|
|
The evidence is entropy and complexity. The science of these 3 things proves it evidently. No complexity in the magnitude within the universe without intelligence. Entropy shows that ultimately, there is always less complexity. Something far greater in intelligence started this whole thing. That's the only evidence that exists. What's the evidence that complexity requires intelligent design? ''Something far greater in intelligence started this whole thing. That's the only evidence that exists.'' Even if that was the case, it doesn't mean it's an omnipotent all knowing god, something more intelligent than what btw? The evidence is the examples in nature, especially those of human beings. If there was any great amount of evidence opposing these examples, there might be cause to think that complexity could arise on its own. But there isn't. In other words, when we examine and correlate the intelligence behind the great numbers machines of intelligent man, plus the few simple machines of a few slightly intelligent animals, we see that intelligence makes machines, right? And the greater the intelligence, the greater the machines, right? Which of the structures of any of the natural things on earth is not made up of machines? None of it. Even the complexities of subatomic particles reacting with each other is leverages upon leverages reacting with other leverages, both in material ways and in energy ways. This is what machines are! All, 100% of nature, is machines upon machines combined in a gigantic machine universe. And all, 100%, of our machines uses the examples of machinery found in nature, and the machines of nature themselves, one way or another in their design and operation. Machines have makers. So, why would anyone think that the great machinery of nature, which has tremendously intelligent design to it, not have an Intelligent Designer behind it? We have no example of any intelligently designed "thing" that doesn't have an intelligent designer behind it. The closest we can come is to say that we don't know who the designer is. ''we see that intelligence makes machines, right? And the greater the intelligence, the greater the machines, right?'' No we don't. If we examine nature we can see, plants for example, they grow and become complex but we don't see any intelligent being making them, same thing with a lot of natural occurrences like a mountain forming or a thunder. |
|
|
|
@af_newbie
Push a large piece of Styrofoam into the ocean, hold it down. You can feel the water pressure pushing it up!
Now get a water pressure meter and take a reading below the piece of submerged Styrofoam and measure the pressure. Do you see how obscene this logic and argument is trying to disprove my claim? I claim displaced air is pushing objects down and you tell me go take an air pressure reading above the object to prove it. Well it's the same deal as with trying to measure the pressure pushing the submerged Styrofoam up by putting a pressure meter below it; it doesn't work that way.
You literally have no argument.
You are conveniently forgetting that buoyancy is only observable when gravity is present. The pressure difference between the top of the object and the bottom is due to gravity. That pressure difference is the cause of the buoyancy upward force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuoyancyYou think the cause of the pressure is the electric field not the gravity, I have shown you that it cannot possibly be the electric field. You are twisting scientific principles, using them incorrectly because you do not understand the fundamentals. You have shown nothing and twisted my assertions. I on the other hand have used experiments already on the books to prove empirically that a) special relativity is not consistent with experiment [Sagnac: Dufour & Prunier] b), that experiment is consistent with an aether [Sagnac] and c), that the Earth is motionless [Michelson & Morley]. My assertions are testable, repeatable and well documented [see above] while yours uses faulty logic [i.e. pressure readings with a meter next to an object], theory that isn't supported by experimental evidence [i.e. special relativity] and claims backed by special relativity [i.e. no aether and field lines that aren't "real"]. Gravity as an unproven theory after all these years exists solely to support heliocentrism and a spinning globe. I can show that the Earth is motionless with experiments already on the books, such as M&M and these results are confirmed by Airy's failure to detect any motion. All arguments that invoke special relativity i.e. no aether and stellar aberration are put to rest by Dufour & Prunier. The electric field of the Earth is a testable and measurable thing and, it supports the idea of a flat and motionless Earth as well as an alternative and expanded mechanism for buoyancy that, accounts for motion in two directions; it's now also in compliance with Newton's (may he rot in hell) 3rd Law when applied to the displacement by denser than air objects. Atmospheric electric field intensity can be 5 times lower during sunrise, objects would be flying off to space every morning. During thunderstorms objects would weigh 10 to 20 times more, you would see major damage, all animals and people would die wherever there is a thunderstorm. You really need to start measuring the E field before you open your mouth on this subject. E field is not the only problem in your fantasy. The charges on the dome and the ground would have to gradually decrease as you move away from the center of your disk. Otherwise the same object would weigh less in Canada than in New Zealand. What magic would keep the nonuniform, slowly descreasing charge distribution? Again any lightning would increase the charges locally, and some other magic would have to fix the charge distribution for the dome model to predict the correct weights. Now to the fun part, can you show me your math how did you derive how much you weigh using your model based on 100 V/m E field and your directional air pressure? Show your math or be quiet forever. You arguments twist my assertions; I don't claim that the electric field is pushing objects down directly. I claim that the electric field is polarizing the atmosphere and that the atmosphere is pushing things down. It becomes clear that you're fielding a dishonest argument when you describe my model in an attempt to goad me into doing a lot of useless work that would just be ignored for the most part. All the experiments already on the books that I've listed i.e. M&M, Sagnac, D&P, Airy etc.. are all described mathematically, see for yourself. You don't have any rational arguments here, you're just trying to win an argument truth be damned; this isn't science. Sagnac doesn't prove relativity is wrong. All the others also don't prove anything that you are claiming. |
|
|
|
|
It's funny that people (badecker) who believe in 1 crazy shit (god) also usually believe in other crazy shit. Notbatman believes the earth is flat but that's not his only conspiracy theory, he also believes that giants lived here and other crazy shit.
|
|
|
|
^^^ You claim no aether and no "real" field lines à la special relativity and I provide documented and witnessed empirical proof à la Dufour & Prunier that special relativity is not consistent with experimental evidence à la The Sagnac Effect.
It's an organized madness.
How is it not consistent with the sagnac experiment exactly? https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184734/why-doesn-t-the-sagnac-effect-disprove-relativityYou also never answered this: ''PS. Did you figure out why you are not 10 times heavier during lightning or 5 times lighter during sunrise? The fact that the atmospheric electric field changes based on the atmospheric conditions should be enough proof for you to invalidate your own theory.'' 1. The argument was that due to a rotating system the Sagnac effect couldn't be applied to Special Relativity and that the results were therefore inconclusive. However Dufour & Prunier's replication of Sagnac's experiment took the SR linear framework into account and the measurements taken were not consistent with its predictions. 2. That's because the question is posing a strawman argument, I believe I lodged a complaint about strawmaning my arguments in the other thread and firmly reinstated that it's pressure from the atmosphere pushing you down; sunrise doesn't effect the amount of air on top of your head. The electric field between the dome and the ground is the reason why the direction you're pushed is up or down depending on density relative to the atmosphere and the pressure is not evenly distributed. To make an analogy here, if I push on a rotating gyroscope vs. a non-rotating gyroscope they will respond very differently; one gyroscope is polarized while one is not. The atmosphere in comparison is polarized by the dome's electric field and that causes how it responds to being displaced to change in a similar manner. 2. Isn't the dome at the edges closer to you from a side than the top or equally further away? Considering it's a dome, the center would be the furthest and close to the edges the closest, is there a difference in how you are pushed down if you are at the center of the earth than if you are close to an edge? |
|
|
|
Personally I will be going to Mars where hopefully we have no religion.
You'll be dead long before you get there... and more than likely even off the ground. We will get there in 10-20 years, not thanks to god, thanks to science because as you can see science works, religion doesn't. |
|
|
|
^^^ One day nothing exploded for no particular reason and the shit from the explosion condensed into a ball due to the magic of gravity. The ball of shit then formed life for no particular reason that then evolved into monkeys who birthed humans.
This is the official atheist narrative and anybody who belives it is a gullible fool.
You realize that your narrative is far crazier right? Your narrative is that a supernatural being magically created everything from nothing and now observes us. |
|
|
|
^^^ You claim no aether and no "real" field lines à la special relativity and I provide documented and witnessed empirical proof à la Dufour & Prunier that special relativity is not consistent with experimental evidence à la The Sagnac Effect.
It's an organized madness.
How is it not consistent with the sagnac experiment exactly? https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184734/why-doesn-t-the-sagnac-effect-disprove-relativityYou also never answered this: ''PS. Did you figure out why you are not 10 times heavier during lightning or 5 times lighter during sunrise? The fact that the atmospheric electric field changes based on the atmospheric conditions should be enough proof for you to invalidate your own theory.'' |
|
|
|
Atheism is a conspiracy, liars who hate God because they're criminals convincing gullible and weak minds that nothing exploded one day and created everything. They hate being judged for their crimes so they hate any group that has any kind of moral code. This hate gets instilled in the Atheist by the liar who hates God for being judged.
Being critical of the atheist doesn't get at the root of the problem, the liar who hates God and who is waging a war on God needs to be dealt with.
Mate, you realize that 99.99% of religious people also know the earth is not flat? This is not a matter of belief or not and while I agree that most religious people are quite gullible, they are not this gullible. |
|
|
|
UN has been consistently wrong about this. It is not my estimate. It is math. Global population growth rate oscillates between 1-2%. Look up "doubling time" or "rule 72". The rough formula for doubling time is: 70 divided by the growth rate. If the global population growth rate stays at 1% the population will double in 70 years no matter what anybody thinks. If the rate goes back up to 2%, the population will double in 35 years. There is nothing to argue. The only thing you can do is to try to estimate the growth rate.Moving less educated people from less educated countries (Africa, Middle-East, Latin America where the average IQ is around 85 or lower) to more affluent countries will increase the global growth rate not decrease it. I think the global growth rate will stay above 1% for some time. Unless some major diseases kick in and increase the death rates. In one doubling time, there will be 1 person per 10,000 square meters. In five doubling times, there will be 1 person per 625 square meters (~6700 sq ft) LOL. You think humanity will survive five doubling times here on Earth? PS. It looks like we are going to reach 8 billion in 2022-2023. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/I think human life on earth could survive three doubling times. Not sure about five. I have been to India. The population density there is 382 per square kilometer. It is pretty crowded there already though they get by. Total population density of the world right now is about 55 per square kilometer (excluding Antarctica because that not really habitable with current technology). Three population doublings would take the population to about 60 billion and make the global population density about 440 per square kilometer 15% higher then that of India today. That would be pretty crowded but I suspect technology, technological advances and human ingenuity could handle that much provided we cooperate and don't do anything too stupid. Even using your not so accurate projection of a population growth of 1% a year that is 210 year of technological progress to handle the growth. Also your guess is likely to be wildly inaccurate. Population growth is likely to be far less than 1%. I am not an expert on the data but my understanding is that the UN estimates tend to error on the side of overestimating growth rates. Also worldwide fertility is plummeting and looks set to grow at far less than 1%.  Fertility of 2.1 is effectively 0% population growth due to accidental deaths. I fully expect the global fertility will continue to drop maybe even below 2.1. The primary driver of human reproduction the link between human reproductive activity and human procreation has been severed by contraceptive technology. The necessity of modern education increasingly consumes our prime reproductive years and this demand will only grow in the future. Children are no longer an economic boon but a great cost for parents so increasingly only those very interested in them will have them. Automated robots and learning algorithms will increasingly consume low level jobs so even those wanting large families may be unable to find the work to support them. See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4359289.0I am doubtful that we will see even a single population doubling from our current level. I think there no point arguing about estimates. We might get a nuclear war in 15 years or a global Islamic caliphate and all estimates will be blown in either direction. Religiosity also is a factor. Ultra religious groups have substantially higher birth rates and there still millions if not billions of very religious people. I am hoping sex education in high growth zones will reduce the global growth rate. We will have to wait and see who's estimates will be closer to the real number. Personally I will be going to Mars where hopefully we have no religion. |
|
|
|
^^^ Your questions here just serve to muddy the waters; you're strawmaning my explanations.
1. The air is displaced by objects and it reacts by pushing the objects up or down depending on the objects density relative to the air. A PSI meter adjacent to an object can't measure the force created by the displacement; there's no correlation. Think about a helium balloon, what's pushing it up if not pressure from displaced air?
2. Trick question; weight is calculated using gravity. The force pushing your mother down could be converted to lbs but your intent to goad me into affirming gravity is clear.
3. See answer #1.
4. How does a helium balloon (let's pretend it's rectangular the size of the other bricks) know to go up? For the same reason the other bricks have different amounts of pressure on them; it's their density. The more dense a material is the higher the density of field lines entering its surface is.
1. Please report the measured PSI above the objects with different densities. 2. You don't have to use gravity, you can use a spring to hang heavy objects and record their weight using your scale and units. Why more dense objects exert more force on the ground? Why the air pressure is pushing denser objects more than less denser objects? What causes air to detect heavier objects? 3. You did not answered the question. You said that the table down will be pushed by the air pressure, but air pressure will also exert force on the table bottom, so unless there is a pressure differential between table top and table bottom, the weight (the force exerted by the table on the floor) will be zero. But in reality there are no tables with zero weight. 4. What field are you talking about now? You said the air pressure pushes objects down to the ground. Be careful what you say next. You said air is causing the force exerted on the ground, now you are saying the density is the cause. 1. You fail to understand the concept of force vectors, you're asking for a scalar quantity. This means you have no clue what you're asking or arguing about. 2. a) If we don't have to use gravity then what then where's argument? Gravity is literally an unproven theory required for the heliocentric model, the globe and ultimately atheism. b) I've answered the density question, it's the density of field lines entering the surface of the object. 3. I did, you're asking the wrong question; you need to check your assumptions. 4. OMG dude, the fucking electric field that's polarizing the air. I'm sorry but you're either being dishonest or your cognitive abilities are too weak to tackle this issue. I suspect dissonance is at play here. I'm trying to explain (carefully) something that requires basic knowledge of calculus and vectors at the very least, you need to understand that some things have multiple qualities and causes. A basic vector for example has two quantities; magnitude and direction. You're asking for an explanation on running and jumping without an understanding of how walking works. ...
Uhh, no more complex answers, huh? Did your source run out of bullshit answers? Seems to me like you are giving up now. As you can see above there seems to be an issue with the more complex answers... Electric field has nothing to do with density of the object. If you are saying that the force on the object is due to the electric field, we can stop right there. Electric field would have no effect on the brick made out of plastic, and yet the object does have weight and is exerting force on the ground. Your argument that the density of the object is influencing air pressure to act on the object is just not true. Air pressure is the same around a heavy object and a lighter one. Same pressure is all around us. It is measurable. What is responsible for the force the object exerts on the ground? Air pressure or the electric field between the dome and the ground?BTW, if the electric field is responsible for all the forces heavy objects exert on the ground, you would have to have extreme electric field strength and that field would have to be stronger around heavy objects and go to almost to zero around an ant walking on the ground. Actually, ants would not be able to walk, as everything else would be under extreme forces of attraction. Do you even understand what you are proposing? All objects would have to be positively charged to be under any force due to the electric field you describe. At the ground level they would be very heavy according to Coulomb's law. You would be simply ripped apart. Never mind that all the electronics and the computer on which you write your nonsense would simply not work. If only air is positively charged, then air molecules would be attracted to the ground and you would not see a penny dropped in a glass of water drop to the bottom of it. Again walking around on such a planet would be impossible, never mind breathing or pumping blood to your organs. PS. I'm just being entertained. I feel like I am talking to a small child, but I'm being sincere to point out the fallacies in you logic to lead you out of your madness. I tried to do the same thing with CoinCube and BADecker with a limited success. You gonna have less success with notbatman, if you thought badecker has a wild imagination wait for notbatman to tell you all about his conspiracies about giants and how space is fake, he could be a science fiction writer for sure. |
|
|
|
I was a Christian and I always thought the rules in the bible were shit and stupid for the most part. ''Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19''
''Ye shall not round the corners of your heads. Leviticus 19:27'
''"I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent." Timothy 2:11''
Divinely inspired LOL
A Christian is a believer. You were never a Christian. I know it bothers you really hard but I was, when I was a kid I truly believed, why wouldn't I. When I needed proof god didn't give it to me so here we are. However the rules of the bible are still idiotic, examples above. You simply didn't wait for God to show you, in His way. Faith in God is accepting Him even when He does His convincing in ways that you might not understand immediately. Perhaps, unlike most kids, you were of weak faith right from the beginning. Or else you were distracted by your own ideals, or something else. Or I realized that the bible is full of shit like the passages quoted above. All the rituals and laws in the bible are extremely outdated and you wonder why would god even allow them ever. They were bad, cruel and immoral. An all knowing god needs you to sacrifice something for him? No he doesn't and he already knows what you think or what you are going to do all the time. |
|
|
|
They prove God in the way they exist, scientifically. You can't have cause and effect, with complexity as it is, without a beginning as shown by entropy, all without God. The science of these three things prove it. No, ''The science of these three things prove it.'' The science of those things prove they exist, science has never said those 3 things combined prove god. ''all without God'' How do you know, what's the evidence? The evidence is entropy and complexity. The science of these 3 things proves it evidently. No complexity in the magnitude within the universe without intelligence. Entropy shows that ultimately, there is always less complexity. Something far greater in intelligence started this whole thing. That's the only evidence that exists. What's the evidence that complexity requires intelligent design? ''Something far greater in intelligence started this whole thing. That's the only evidence that exists.'' Even if that was the case, it doesn't mean it's an omnipotent all knowing god, something more intelligent than what btw? |
|
|
|
BTW, 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems, Earth is an open system.
The universe is a closed system. And here we go, showing again that you don't understand that the earth is an open system and it doesn't matter if the universe is not. It's relevant because it shows you don't understand science most of the times. Like that time you linked an article of answers in genesis where it said not to use that argument against evolution and you did LOL. |
|
|
|
^^^ You're so full of crap, you make assumptions like heliocentrism, pretend evolution is a fact and make ludicrous claims about the age of the earth. Your god gravity has to be taken on faith as its unproven, without it geology and thus evolution is just not possible.
Dr. Kevorkian can help you with that sick feeling you've got.
How much do you weigh? Less than your mother. I asked you a serious question. How much do you think you weigh in lbs? And why do you think you weigh anything at all? I don't care what your actual weight is. The question was to start you thinking why you have weight at all. Why does your body exert a force on Earth? (i.e. a person) that's more dense than the medium (the atmosphere) it's displacing gets pushed down, alternatively an object that's less dense (a helium balloon for e.g.) will get pushed up. Ok, lets follow your logic, when you are standing on the ground what causes the air to push you down? There's an electric field between the dome and the ground that acts on the atmosphere, this field also defines up and down. So the forces of the electric field between the dome and the ground are pushing on you to keep you at the ground level? Wait, before you divert, let's focus on the example I gave you: You are standing on the ground, you are not moving. Is the force of the electric field acting on you or on the air? What is the polarity of the dome and the ground?
The domes surface is polarized with a positive charge (+, electric holes) this polarization induces a negative charge (-, electrons) in the ground. So all the objects on the ground are pushed down by the positively charged air?
It's correct to say the air is polarized by the electric field with the exception being the ionosphere that's in close proximity to the dome where the air becomes ionized i.e. a charged plasma state. Objects on the ground are pushed down by the pressure of all the polarized air they've displaced. We are almost there, bear with me. So it is not the force of the electric field that acts on air molecules to exert force on the object on the ground? If it the electric force, let me know, and I'll give you a checkmate. But let's continue with your air pressure idea. A couple more questions: 1. What is the air pressure around you? 2. How much do you weigh? 3. Put a table in your room, inside your house. The "pressure of all polarized air" would be exerting force on all surfaces of the table, or just the top of the table? How would the table stay on the floor? Air pressure would be acting on the table from all directions so it would float. Not stay on the floor. What happens if you lift the table 1" and release it. Why does it drop to the floor? Does the "air pressure" increase when you lift the table 1"? 4. If you have two bricks on the ground next to each other and they are of the same size but one made out of gold the other made out of steel, the force of the "pressure of all polarized air that they have displaced" will be the same because they are of the same size, right? But when we weigh them, their weight (force they exert on Earth) is different. Gold brick exerts stronger force on the ground. Why? The air pressure is the same around them. If the air pressure is not the same, then you'll need different pressures around different objects, you'll be crashed to the ground if you walk by a heavy delivery truck or some other heavy object. Try it to walk by a heavy object see if your weight changes. ^^^ Gravity is a prerequisite for atheism and I can show there's better more rational explanations with science that can be measured and tested. Gravity relies on laughable proofs like heavy balls in a shed to prop itself up, it's an unproven theory created to explain the motions of celestial objects in the preposterous heliocentric theory. We're drifting a bit off topic here, my point is we're inside an engineered structure, we are also engineered creations. Atheism is a way of attacking the creator and his creation through the use of information warfare. To answer your questions: 1. Your question is unclear, do you want an answer in PSI? 2. Already answered; less than your mother. 3. The table is being pushed down. 4. The gold brick is more dense. Uhh, no more complex answers, huh? Did your source run out of bullshit answers? Seems to me like you are giving up now. |
|
|
|
^^^ Density & buoyancy models it quite nicely.
No it doesn't at all. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69081.0Anyone who actually understands buoyancy in the most basic sense of the word, knows that you can't have buoyancy without gravity, because there was never a force to exert the pressure in the first place |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
