Electric field doesnt make much sense.

Do you mean magnetic field ?

Depend on the charge of the objects ? ..

If it's a stone, not much happen.

Downward motion = gravity.

Upward motion = Archimedes ( pressure diffetential ).

It work upward if the density of the object is inferior to the fluid. Otherwise it still work upward, but not enough to counter gravity.

The sum of forces of all faces cancels each other, except with the pressure differential there is still non zero force upward.

If this upward force due to pressure differential is stronger than gravity it floats.

Otherwise it sinks.

Either it's in the atmosphere or water or any fluid it's the same principle.

It's not magic it science.

Electric field could only explain force on charged objects / particules. Not on wood, stone, or non ionized objects.

It's cruel for monkey to say this no ?

It depends the context, who did this, against whom, for which reason etc.

Without context those numbers are meaningless.

The thing of floating object is Archimedes law.

Archimedes' principle states that the upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces and acts in the upward direction at the center of mass of the displaced fluid. Archimedes' principle is a law of physics fundamental to fluid mechanics. It was formulated by Archimedes of Syracuse.


This is the principle explaining the motion of an object immersed in a fluid.

But it only explain upward motion.



Basically if the weight of the volume of fluid equivalent to the volume of the immersed object is superior to the weight of the object, the object will float.

Aka it floats if the upward force equivalent to the weight of the volume of fluid occupied by the object is greater than gravity force pulling it downward.

If not it will sink due to gravity.

The density difference only explain upward motion. And even the upward motion is related to the notion of pressure differential , which wouldnt happen without gravity.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_principle#Formula


Consider a cube immersed in a fluid, with its sides parallel to the direction of gravity. The fluid will exert a normal force on each face, and therefore only the forces on the top and bottom faces will contribute to buoyancy. The pressure difference between the bottom and the top face is directly proportional to the height (difference in depth). Multiplying the pressure difference by the area of a face gives the net force on the cube – the buoyancy, or the weight of the fluid displaced. By extending this reasoning to irregular shapes, we can see that, whatever the shape of the submerged body, the buoyant force is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced.

The weight of the displaced fluid is directly proportional to the volume of the displaced fluid (if the surrounding fluid is of uniform density). The weight of the object in the fluid is reduced, because of the force acting on it, which is called upthrust. In simple terms, the principle states that the buoyant force on an object is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object, or the density of the fluid multiplied by the submerged volume times the gravitational constant, g. Thus, among completely submerged objects with equal masses, objects with greater volume have greater buoyancy.



Without gravity, there is no pressure, no weight, no density, no upthrust force, no Archimedes, all stay in place.

I just inform about manipulation of numbers, statstics, faux news, usa or british paid jihadis, usa paid militairies who kill more than jihadis to make more jihadis to make more usa militairies etc.

If the grammar is too complex, try reading again.

Need to see a bit the context and reason, history etc for it to make more sense.

But I guess making sense is not really the point here.

Just spilling raw numbers, no context, no explanation.

Muslim can kill assholes too. Or anyone can be brainwashed by cia or mi6 to shoot allawakba before to blow someone who is on an oil reserve that is wanted by British or usa.

Does it count Kurds against erdogan ?

Rebels against assad ?

Etc ...

The usa dont have the monoly of mass murder for freedom.


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/civilians-killed-led-strikes-isil-170603090729252.html


'484 civilians killed' in US-led attacks against ISIL
US military reports 484 civilian deaths by US-led coalition attacks, but outside monitors put the number much higher.



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

Kunduz hospital airstrike
On 3 October 2015, a United States Air Force AC-130U gunship attacked the Kunduz Trauma Centre operated by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), or Doctors Without Borders in the city of Kunduz, in the province of the same name in northern Afghanistan. It has been reported that at least 42 people were killed and over 30 were injured.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

Médecins Sans Frontières condemned the incident, saying all warring parties had been notified of the hospital's location ahead of time, and that the airstrike was deliberate, a breach of international humanitarian law and MSF is working on the presumption of a war crime



Without counting approximative drones strikes, bombing and all that jazz ..



ISIS is the lower iq range of wahabism. . With them it's hopeless lol

Well I will try to make it simple.

Density = weight /  volume.

Weight is product of gravity.

No gravity = no weight = no density = no Archimedes.




Is it clear and simple enough ?

Or need the long version ?

Yeah it's more elaborate than reteurs, muslim are suicide bombers, need to bombs the Muslim, Islam is hate, violence war and oil.

Sorry if it's bit too complex for your feeble mind educated by Reuters faux news and terminator.

If there is a word you dont understand, you can try to open a dictionary, it will change you from facebook.

It would end like Israel, British are good at this game of partitioning and get the cash  

But at least it would be more clear on the ideology behind.


Maybe they should grant usa citizenship to jihadis and wahabites while on the roll.

Religion & gun & oil we know which culture it come from lol

It's just about downing masks and clearing ambiguity. .

Alawakba my ass ..

A unproven vomit theory that is still required to explain your own unproven vomit theory of density and Archimedes.

Adding flowered adjective wont change much to the reality.

Gravity has more will power than your mother ..

Saudi & Qatar are artificial Islam aka wahabism backed by usa.

Usa is at war with everyone, using extremists/fundamentalists groups or famillies as proxy for their imperialism.

Who put the Rohingyas muslim there to begin with ?


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



According to the Rohingyas and some scholars, they are indigenous to Rakhine State, while other historians claim that the group represents a mixture of precolonial and colonial immigrations. The official stance of the Myanmar government, however, has been that the Rohingyas are mainly illegal immigrants who migrated into Arakan following Burmese independence in 1948 or after the Bangladesh liberation war in 1971.[22][23][24][25][26][27][5][28]

Muslims have settled in Rakhine State (also known as Arakan) since the 15th century, although the number of Muslim settlers before British rule is unclear

In 1826, after the First Anglo-Burmese War, the British annexed Arakan and encouraged migrations from Bengal to work as farm laborers.  The Muslim population may have constituted 5% of Arakan's population by 1869, although estimates for earlier years give higher numbers. Successive British censuses of 1872 and 1911 recorded an increase in Muslim population from 58,255 to 178,647 in Akyab District. During World War II, the Arakan massacres in 1942 involved communal violence between British-armed V Force Rohingya recruits and Buddhist Rakhine people and the region became increasingly ethnically polarized.

It's always the same shit ..

When it's not the amrricains,  it's the British. . When it's not the British it's the american ..

Now what does it has to do with Islam not much ..

Just proxy for British and usa colonial war ..

More than 100,000 Rohingyas in Myanmar live in camps for internally displaced persons, not allowed by authorities to leave.[33][34] Probes by the UN have found evidence of increasing incitement of hatred and religious intolerance by "ultra-nationalist Buddhists" against Rohingyas while the Burmese security forces have been conducting "summary executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and detention, torture and ill-treatment and forced labour" against the community.[35] International media and human rights organizations have often described Rohingyas as one of the most persecuted minorities in the world.[36][37][38] According to the United Nations, the human rights violations against Rohingyas could be termed as "crimes against humanity".[35][39] Rohingyas have received international attention in the wake of the 2012 Rakhine State riots, the 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis, and the 2016–17 military crackdown.



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

In April 1942, when the Japanese drove the British Army from Burma and seemed likely to invade India, General Sir Archibald Wavell ordered the creation of a guerrilla organisation which was to operate along the frontier between India and Burma. This frontier ran for 800 miles (1200 kilometres), from the Himalayas to the Bay of Bengal.

V Force was envisaged as a "stay-behind" force. If the Japanese had invaded India after the monsoon season ended late in 1942, V Force was to harass their lines of communications with ambushes and sabotage, and to provide intelligence from behind enemy lines. The first commander of the force was Brigadier A. Felix Williams, formerly the commander of the Tochi Scouts, a paramilitary unit on the North-west Frontier. When the Army failed to provide the 6,000 rifles it had promised to V Force, Williams arranged for weapons manufactured by gunsmiths in Darra Adam Khel to be delivered.[1]


Results

Inter-community relations
In the Arakan, V Force became involved in a local conflict between the mainly Moslem Maugh and Buddhist Arakanese peoples. The Maughs provided most recruits for V Force, the Arakanese supported the Japanese. Over the three years during which the Allies and Japanese fought over the Mayu peninsula, the Maughs engaged in a campaign against Arakanese communities, in many cases using weapons provided by V Force. In defence of the force, it can only be said that the conflict was no part of official policy, and possibly unavoidable in the situation.[3]

Another "stay behind" covert thing copy cat from nazi manual, usual for CIA nazi recruiters, and mi6 ..


Need more examples ?

When islamists will realize how they are used & abused for the defense of British or american interest, and colonial power stop to back them to wreck havok and political instability in area they want to conquere, jihadism is gone .


Need to stop getting educated from Reuters faux news & co ..


There is never a jihad without British or american to back them up, train them, arm them, fund them, brainwash them, for their colonial interest.


They did same in italia with red brigade, gladio and all this.

The jihad is same than red brigade with the coran instead of marx.

Im already educated, not from Reuters and truncated statstics.

They dont seem to be the same person



Przemax looks younger and less confident, and more into self questionning than baddecker.

But again who knows, could be an alternate personality, but they dont seem to have same form of expression , and same relation to the bible and religion.

Baddecker also always seem to be against flat earth, Przemax posted about flat earth theory too.

Need to stop thinking everyone who read the bible is baddecker lol.

Density and archimede is still product of gravity 

They will become human when their soul is ready to have more consciousness and monkeyness doesnt suit their aspiration 

It's very interesting dissertation based on riemann habilitation dissertation

Its sense is very clear lol

Read it more time, or watch the video I posted after, it's not giberish, are you familiar with riemann ?

Riemann is one of greatest mathematician of all times

If you understand the implication of Riemann on euclidian logic, mixed with liebniz view of optimal universe based on reason, it has very deep meaning.

Another version

https://networkologies.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/manifoldness-spacetime-as-hypernetwork-with-leibniz-whitehead-and-riemann/

networkologies

Online Home of Christopher Vitale, Associate Professor of Media Studies, The Graduate Program in Media Studies, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, NY
What might it mean to look at space and time as networks?  Historically,  a networkological  approach to time and space naturally finds one of its forefathers in Leibniz, but first its worth getting a sense of what he is reacting against. The early modern period is one of enormous flux as far as theories of space are concerned, both in terms of the establishment of space as a metric, measurable, and absolute domain (primarilly via Descartes invention of analytic/coordinate geometry), but also in terms of the parallel and complementary notion that this metrically determined sense of space and time governs the realm of things (res extensa, radically distinct from the non-metric realm of res cogitans). The Cartesian mind-body split and the notion of space (and with it the moving metric of time) as a metric is indissociable from the assumptions which make the Newtonian spatial project possible – a distinct observer, the progress of a spatialized, linear, uni-directional time, etc. This tradition, which starts with Descartes, is further formalized by Netwon, reaches its apotheosis in Kant, and is based upon a split of the world into subjective and objective, one which continues to haunt the pretensions to ‘objectivity’ in much of contemporary empirical science.

In contrast, the counter-tradition which Leibniz represents does not separate mind and body in the radical sense pursued by the Cartesians. For Leibniz, mind and matter are, to use a term employed by Deleuze, ‘enfolded’ in each other, two sides of the same great origami-like structure we call existence. Furthermore, perception is not something limited to rational beings – all parts of the universe, due to their possession of a ‘perspective’ on the universe, present an opening onto the entirety of all that exists, in both space and time, in nuce, so to speak, that is, in miniature. For in fact, were not all space and time the way it is, any given spacetime location or entity wouldn’t be what it is either. The whole is present, virtually and differently, in the parts.




This is something which he builds up from a Leibnizian approach to the cosmos, and which also provides a foundation for the often maligned ‘mereological’ aspects of the penultimate sections of Process and Reality. These sections, in which he shows the manner in which points, lines, and planes are in fact abstractions from the more complex entities we see in the world, works to show how the very notions of geometry, which many view as primary and foundational to any approach to spacetime, are in fact abstract derivatives thereof. This section, almost inpenetrable without having read Whitehead’s works leading up to Process and Reality (such as On the Concept of Nature and An Enquiry Concerning the Conditions of Natural Knowledge), are a reworking of his notion, developed in these earlier works,  of what he calls ‘extensive abstraction’. Here we see his argument, sketched in much clearer terms, that the mathematical models of space and time that we inherit from Newton and Descartes are in fact convenient and socially useful abstractions from the primary way in which we experience the world, which is that of moving, flexible, continually reconfiguring spacetime. And in fact, we all know this anyway – we often say things, when driving a car, for example, such as ‘oh, I need to make a left in like 5 minutes’. Space and time are naturally cojoined, and it is the abstractions of our modes of knowledge that separate them, leading to a situation which then needs to be overcome if we are to understand existence a bit more clearly.

While working to dissolve the distinctions between space and time, Leibniz and Whitehead also dissolve the related boundaries between mind and matter within an ontology that knows only events. If mind and matter are not fully separate, but rather two aspects of the same thing (namely, events), then the need to firmly separate the objective world of rigid, geometrical extension from the subjective world of potentially erring impressions, ceases to be a pressing matter for the establishment of scientific enquiry. And we have seen this with the rise of the ‘subjective’ seeming elements in quantum physics and relativity. What matters is not what ‘really’ happens to some impossible objective observer, but rather, what appears to happen from the perspective of the observer in question. And rather than these appearances be deemed ‘less real’, in line with a Newtonian/Cartesian approach to the world, rather, all these appearances are equally real. This is precisely why Bergson, another descendent of Leibniz, refers to all that exists as ‘an image’ – the universe has many images of events, each themselves events,  none of which are more or less real than others.




But this creates some difficulties, for how can we describe the unfolding of this change, if the order of events – that which is usually used to ‘tell’ time – is itself no longer stable? Whitehead’s term to describe change is thus not linked to time (which for him presupposes perspective and its limitations), but rather, what he calls the ‘creative advance’ of the universe. This advance is the sum totals of the changes and/in the ‘times’ of the events of which the universe is composed. Such a notion spatializes time as much as it temporalizes space, while providing a spur to the thought of change beyond standard conceptions of space and time.

This becomes a bit clearer by getting a sense of what is really at stake, mathematically, with the notion of spacetime. The events of which the creatively advancing manifold is composed are thus times as much as spaces, in that the only distinction between time and space is, if we are being mathematical, nothing more than the speed of light squared. That is, space takes a certain amount of time to cross at this ‘top speed’, while time going at top speed indicates a certain amount of space. Time and space are strictly convertible, at least numerically, with only a minus sign and a conversion factor, a multiplier, between the numbers that describe one, and those that describe another. But does that mean they are two different ways of describing the ‘same’ thing?

This one also super cool !

http://wlym.com/antidummies/part59.html

Riemann for Anti-Dummies Part 59
Think Infinitesimal by Bruce Director

"It is well known that scientific physics has existed only since the invention of the differential calculus," stated Bernhard Riemann in his introduction to his late 1854 lecture series posthumously published under the title, "Partial Differential Equations and their Applications to Physical Questions". For most of his listeners, Riemann's statement would have been fairly straight forward, for they understood the physical significance of Leibniz's calculus as it had percolated over the preceding sesquicentury through the work of Kaestner and Gauss. A far different condition exists, however, for most of today's readers, whose education has been dominated by the empiricism of the Leibniz-hating Euler, Cauchy and Russell. While such victims might find the formal content of Riemann's statement agreeable, its true intention would be as obscure to them as the Gospel of John and Epistles of Paul are to Karl Rove and his legions of true believers.

The empiricist will not understand Riemann's statement, for the simple reason that what he associates with the words "differential calculus" is a completely different idea than what Riemann and Leibniz had in mind. To the victim of today's empiricist-dominated educational system, the infinitesimal calculus concerns only a set of rules for mathematical formalism. But to the scientist, the infinitesimal calculus is a kind of Socratic dialogue, through which man transcends the limitations of sense-perception and discovers those universal principles that govern all physical action.

The empiricist rejects Leibniz's notion, because he accepts Aristotle's doctrine that "physics concerns only objects of sense", whereas Plato, Cusa, Leibniz and Riemann emphasized, physics concerns objects of {thought}. These thought-objects, or "Geistesmassen" as Riemann called them, refer to the universal principles which {cause} the objects of sense to behave the way they are perceived to behave. Not being directly accessible to the senses, such principles appear to come from "outside" the visible world. However, a great mistake is made if one concludes from this, as the sophists do, that these principles come from outside the universe itself. In fact, these principles, being universal, are acting everywhere, at all times, and in every "infinitesimal" interval of action, osculating the objects of sense as if tangent to the visible domain.

It is this relationship between the observed motions of the objects of sense, and the universal principles acting everywhere on them, that Leibniz's differential calculus is designed to express. Through it, a universal principle, as it is seen and unseen, is enfolded into a single thought, showing us what is known, and indicating to us what is yet to be discovered. A scientist who turns away, under Aristotle's, Sarpi's, or Russell's, influence, from these objects of thought, to objects of mere sense, is acting as if his own mind has ceased to exist, which, in fact, it has.

Just as Riemann correctly asserts, that scientific physics began with the invention of the differential calculus, it can be justly stated that the differential calculus began with Cusa's excommunication of Aristotle from science. While it is true that some of the methods of Leibniz's calculus were beginning to develop in the work of Archytas and Archimedes, this development was arrested when Aristotle's doctrines became hegemonic in European culture, following the murder of Archimedes by the Romans. Cusa reversed this disaster and reoriented European science away from its obsession with objects of sense, and back to the Pythagorean/Socratic focus on the idea.

Cusa insisted that perception is not caused by sensible things, but that things are sensible because the mind has the power to sense. In turn, the mind is able to sense, because it possesses a still higher faculty of rationality; and it is able to rationalize because it possesses a still higher faculty of intellect; and it is able to intellectualize because man is created in the infinitesimal image of God.





That the cognitive capacity of the mind was the real target of the oligarchy's attack on Leibniz's calculus, was confessed to a popular audience by Richard Courant and Herbert Robbins in their English language 1941 book, {What is Mathematics}:

"...the very foundations of the calculus were long obscured by an unwillingness to recognize the exclusive right of the limit concept as the source of the new methods. Neither Newton nor Leibniz coudl bring himself to such a clear-cut attitude, simple as it appears to us now that the limit concept has been completely clarified. Their example dominated more than a century of mathematical development during which the subject was shrouded by talk of `infinitely small quantities', `differentials',`ultimate ratios' etc. {the reluctance with which these concepts were finally abandoned was deeply rooted in the philosophical attitude of the time and in the very nature of the human mind}" (emphasis added, poor punctuation in the original bmd.).

The empiricist sees objects in motion and imagines them to move in a space that is as empty as he believes his own mind to be. A scientist envisions a manifold of universal physical principles, embodied as animated objects of thought that enliven the objects before his eyes. To the former, change is an annoying inconvenience that disrupts his ultimately futile attempts to maintain his accepted axiomatic-formal structure. To the latter, change is the happy indicator of the moving effect of universal principles acting, universally, yet differently, at all infinitesimal intervals of time and space.




http://lymcanada.org/riemman-for-anti-dummies/

This is real science  

If that doesnt prove many of the key point about fundementals of god existence as portrayed in new testament, I dont know what will lol




I dont know why baddecker doesnt post anymore, maybe he is banned, maybe he realized newton is bull crap, that his c&e theory based on thermodynamics is illusion, and he is investigation the real maths with Leibniz and riemann more in tune with god belief  

Newton is at best bogus metaphysics.

Descartes as long as he stay in philosophy he is ok, but his whole system of mechanics based on separation of mind and matter with pineal gland & all is beyond bogus.

Riemann is still the best so far   but relativity totally discard the Leibniz part which is too bad, need some new form of geometry and math and conception of space to accomodate all fields of science.

Israel are in war with Palestine & Iran,  it's not much for religious reason .. it's territorial thing.

Tell me one country who is not at war with another in those days lol

Maybe denmark ok .

I will never let an octogon control me !

I always wondered why they put all those signs on the border of the road, I was too sleepy during code courses ..