Flat Earth

[—]

Retardation emanates from this thread.

If I get rich some day, all of you should expect to be on the first private space cruise and see the so called "flat earth" with your own very eyes.

Sorry dude but you're a gullible fool if you believe the Earth is a spinning globe.

The stupid person thinks he is as smart or smarter than the smart person, and therein lies his stupidity.  Most of us here know who the gullible one is...(as a few flat earth YouTubers laugh their way to the bank).

I recall an earlier post of yours in which you claimed you cared about intellectual honesty, or something along those lines.  Or maybe it was that you were on the fence about what to believe.  Whatever it was, I guess you decided to throw that out the window.  If I was a scammer, I would love people like you -- say anything that seems plausible at face value and you're in, hook, line, and sinker.

If you think you're smart, you really should evaluate the circumstances under which you've reached your new found beliefs, and then consider the consequences they will bring you -- socially and otherwise -- if you are wrong (and you are).  If you really value intellectual honesty, you should re-evaluate your beliefs for any flaws and inconsistencies (and there are many) to ensure that you are not being deceived.  Seems to me you went from zero-to-fuck it in no time.

Edit:  Remember, we aren't the ones that think a 3,000 mile-high sun can illuminate the bottom of the cloud layer after sunset, but illuminate neither the ground nor the top of the cloud layer. 

I provide photographic evidence of the tops of clouds with with a hot spot under the Sun to prove my point. I point out that the distance to the Sun as measured by a sextant is 3k miles. I prove that the Earth is stationary with Airy's failure experiment and the fact the Sun isn't overhead at 12 AM every ~180 days. I point out that the path of the Sun through the sky as measured by a sundial is impossible on a globe Earth. I even drew an illustration on how the bottom of clouds are illuminated by the Sun on our flat Earth at sunset.

You on the other hand pull a statement out of you ass with no pictures, data or anything at all to analyze. Perhaps you should go "zero-to-fuck" yourself until you can back up what you're saying with something other than unsubstantiated comments.

You provided your misunderstandings, and do yourself the disservice of discrediting or ignoring everything that doesn't fit your beliefs as if they are trivial.  For example, your picture shows a single beam of light illuminating the bottom of the clouds, and ignores the fact that the sun in the picture would also be illuminating the top of the clouds as well as the ground.  Just because you drew it doesn't mean that's what actually happens.  And you KNOW what happens after sunset (unless you're an invelid or something and haven't been outside in years...or if you're blind).

On the other hand your misunderstandings *are* trivial with respect to maintaining a belief in a spherical earth.  You have an extreme case of confirmation bias, and are willing to perform the mental gymnastics required to maintain your beliefs at all cost.  That's the embodiment of intellectual dishonesty.  Accept photos that fit your belief only and reject all others, accept all experiments that (you think) support your beliefs and reject all that don't, etc.  It's like you're actively trying to be paranoid (by wilfully trying to confirm that millions of people are all lying to you) and delusional (willfully trying to believe in things that don't correspond with reality; refer to your drawing).

But, I understand why you do this.  As I've stated before, it must be a thrilling feeling to think that you are part of some select minority and are privy to information that billions of others are not, including the smartest people on the planet who occupy the most privileged and exclusive professions.  From time to time, I like to convince myself of how smart I am, too.  Because, well...nobody likes to feel wrong or like an idiot.

Thanks for the effort, but tl;dr
btw did you know you live on a none moving plane(t) and not on a Ball moving through space like being kicked by David Beckham
 

[BADecker]

Thanks for the effort, but tl;dr
btw did you know you live on a none moving plane(t) and not on a Ball moving through space like being kicked by David Beckham
 

No, no, no.

Haven't you figured out yet, that when I walk, it is not I that move, but it is the earth that moves under me? In addition, it is the same for everyone else, even if they are walking in the opposite direction right past me.

Once science figures this out, they will be on their way to discovering the true physics of this stationary moving flat earth globe we live on.

[protokol]

Thanks for the effort, but tl;dr
btw did you know you live on a none moving plane(t) and not on a Ball moving through space like being kicked by David Beckham
 

No, no, no.

Haven't you figured out yet, that when I walk, it is not I that move, but it is the earth that moves under me? In addition, it is the same for everyone else, even if they are walking in the opposite direction right past me.

Once science figures this out, they will be on their way to discovering the true physics of this stationary moving flat earth globe we live on.

And don't forget, the galaxy is spinning at like 500,000 mph. Everything's relative man!

I especially like the flat-earth explanation for gravity - apparently the flat earth is accelerating upwards perpetually at 9.8m/s^2, but somehow we still haven't broken the speed of light yet!

[BADecker]

Thanks for the effort, but tl;dr
btw did you know you live on a none moving plane(t) and not on a Ball moving through space like being kicked by David Beckham
 

No, no, no.

Haven't you figured out yet, that when I walk, it is not I that move, but it is the earth that moves under me? In addition, it is the same for everyone else, even if they are walking in the opposite direction right past me.

Once science figures this out, they will be on their way to discovering the true physics of this stationary moving flat earth globe we live on.

And don't forget, the galaxy is spinning at like 500,000 mph. Everything's relative man!

I especially like the flat-earth explanation for gravity - apparently the flat earth is accelerating upwards perpetually at 9.8m/s^2, but somehow we still haven't broken the speed of light yet!

This is because the earth is accelerating downward just as fast... and in every other direction, as well.

Here is the real stickler. Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Math are simply forms of complex probability. All you need to do is determine what you want to prove with QM and QM, and you can prove it. And then you can prove it in exactly the opposite direction, or any other direction you choose.

I would normally say something like, "Wrap your head around that one." But with QM you can wrap that one around your head at the same time.

I'm not kidding. Watch Brian Cox at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo.

[notbatman]

Thanks for the effort, but tl;dr
btw did you know you live on a none moving plane(t) and not on a Ball moving through space like being kicked by David Beckham
 

No, no, no.

Haven't you figured out yet, that when I walk, it is not I that move, but it is the earth that moves under me? In addition, it is the same for everyone else, even if they are walking in the opposite direction right past me.

Once science figures this out, they will be on their way to discovering the true physics of this stationary moving flat earth globe we live on.

And don't forget, the galaxy is spinning at like 500,000 mph. Everything's relative man!

I especially like the flat-earth explanation for gravity - apparently the flat earth is accelerating upwards perpetually at 9.8m/s^2, but somehow we still haven't broken the speed of light yet!

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

[protokol]

This is because the earth is accelerating downward just as fast... and in every other direction, as well.

Here is the real stickler. Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Math are simply forms of complex probability. All you need to do is determine what you want to prove with QM and QM, and you can prove it. And then you can prove it in exactly the opposite direction, or any other direction you choose.

I would normally say something like, "Wrap your head around that one." But with QM you can wrap that one around your head at the same time.

I'm not kidding. Watch Brian Cox at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo.

Hmm, that's not quite correct. Don't forget that quantum mechanical effects only happen on the quantum level, not in the macro world. The reason that particles are thought of as a "probability cloud" is because, on that scale, you can only know where a particle is by colliding another particle with it (like a photon), and by doing so, you inherently affect the position or speed of the particle you are trying to measure. Until you do this, you cannot know where the original particle is, so it becomes a cloud of probability.

I like Brian Cox, but he's not the best at explaining complex theories IMO.

[protokol]

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree?

[notbatman]

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree?

I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules?

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree?

I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules?

tl;dr I have no idea is what you are basically saying.

This flat earth thing is so bullshit it's easy to see the holes in their crack pot "theory", this is even more crazy than the whole Bitcoin was made by the NSA thing. If the earth was flat, how do you not find an edge, or even fall from said edge.

"Drugs" is one hella of a drug.

[notbatman]

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree?

I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules?

tl;dr I have no idea is what you are basically saying.

This flat earth thing is so bullshit it's easy to see the holes in their crack pot "theory", this is even more crazy than the whole Bitcoin was made by the NSA thing. If the earth was flat, how do you not find an edge, or even fall from said edge.

"Drugs" is one hella of a drug.

Antarctica isn't a continent it's a ring that surrounds the earth and holds in the oceans. Beyond the Antarctic ring you'll find the wall of a golden (colour due to oxide) nickel-iron steel dome. There's a treaty called the Antarctic Treaty System signed by all the countries in 1959 that prevents anybody not sanctioned from exploring Antarctica. Anybody who attempts test the ATS and venture into Antarctica will be met with military force.

You can download Gleason's New Standard Map of the World (31.4 MB) here ---> https://i.imgur.com/O8IpMmi.jpg

[BADecker]

This is because the earth is accelerating downward just as fast... and in every other direction, as well.

Here is the real stickler. Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Math are simply forms of complex probability. All you need to do is determine what you want to prove with QM and QM, and you can prove it. And then you can prove it in exactly the opposite direction, or any other direction you choose.

I would normally say something like, "Wrap your head around that one." But with QM you can wrap that one around your head at the same time.

I'm not kidding. Watch Brian Cox at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo.

Hmm, that's not quite correct. Don't forget that quantum mechanical effects only happen on the quantum level, not in the macro world. The reason that particles are thought of as a "probability cloud" is because, on that scale, you can only know where a particle is by colliding another particle with it (like a photon), and by doing so, you inherently affect the position or speed of the particle you are trying to measure. Until you do this, you cannot know where the original particle is, so it becomes a cloud of probability.

I like Brian Cox, but he's not the best at explaining complex theories IMO.

Yest, but "quantum" is a word invented and applied to complex probability, so that such probability can be lifted up in the minds of common folks, so that the probability people can be held in awe by us commoners.

Since complex probability can be used to calculate anything in any way, and can be used to manipulate even the probability strength of whatever is calculated, QM is only useful as a tool to give people ideas. And that is what it is all about, isn't it? Once people have ideas, then they can go on to engineer them into reality or practicality, or at least prove them out by non-QM math.

[BADecker]

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree?

I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules?

tl;dr I have no idea is what you are basically saying.

This flat earth thing is so bullshit it's easy to see the holes in their crack pot "theory", this is even more crazy than the whole Bitcoin was made by the NSA thing. If the earth was flat, how do you not find an edge, or even fall from said edge.

"Drugs" is one hella of a drug.

Antarctica isn't a continent it's a ring that surrounds the earth and holds in the oceans. Beyond the Antarctic ring you'll find the wall of a golden (colour due to oxide) nickel-iron steel dome. There's a treaty called the Antarctic Treaty System signed by all the countries in 1959 that prevents anybody not sanctioned from exploring Antarctica. Anybody who attempts test the ATS and venture into Antarctica will be met with military force.

You can download Gleason's New Standard Map of the World (31.4 MB) here ---> https://i.imgur.com/O8IpMmi.jpg

If the circumference of the flat earth were anywhere near the size depicted by Gleason's map, there would be no way that all the people presently alive on the earth could monitor Antarctica to keep people off it... even if they did it as a full-time job. It is simply way too long of a coast.

[protokol]

This is because the earth is accelerating downward just as fast... and in every other direction, as well.

Here is the real stickler. Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Math are simply forms of complex probability. All you need to do is determine what you want to prove with QM and QM, and you can prove it. And then you can prove it in exactly the opposite direction, or any other direction you choose.

I would normally say something like, "Wrap your head around that one." But with QM you can wrap that one around your head at the same time.

I'm not kidding. Watch Brian Cox at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo.

Hmm, that's not quite correct. Don't forget that quantum mechanical effects only happen on the quantum level, not in the macro world. The reason that particles are thought of as a "probability cloud" is because, on that scale, you can only know where a particle is by colliding another particle with it (like a photon), and by doing so, you inherently affect the position or speed of the particle you are trying to measure. Until you do this, you cannot know where the original particle is, so it becomes a cloud of probability.

I like Brian Cox, but he's not the best at explaining complex theories IMO.

Yest, but "quantum" is a word invented and applied to complex probability, so that such probability can be lifted up in the minds of common folks, so that the probability people can be held in awe by us commoners.

Since complex probability can be used to calculate anything in any way, and can be used to manipulate even the probability strength of whatever is calculated, QM is only useful as a tool to give people ideas. And that is what it is all about, isn't it? Once people have ideas, then they can go on to engineer them into reality or practicality, or at least prove them out by non-QM math.

I'm no expert, but it's not true that "complex probability can be used to calculate anything in any way". I don't quite know what you mean by it. Probability is an inherent part of QM, but it doesn't manipulate anything, it's simply a number which tells us how likely something is.

The vast majority of quantum effects were worked out in theory first, and weird and controversial though they seemed, years later they are being proven again and again with practical experiments. They're not a way to confuse anyone, although they are apparently very hard to analogise without learning the maths.

Have a read of this: http://www.livescience.com/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html

[protokol]

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree?

I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules?

Why do I first need to answer your high school physics question? The apple doesn't play by different rules, it's just much denser than the surrounding atmosphere so gravity acts on it more, causing it to fall. The balloon is less dense than the atmosphere, so it will rise as long as its mass is small enough.

Just give me your explanation for gravity on a flat earth already, I feel like I'm being trolled here.

[the joint]

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree?

I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules?

Balloons rise in the atmosphere due to hydrostatic pressure (i.e. lighter fluids rise when immersed in heavier ones), but a balloon in space doesn't rise.  Balloons released on Earth won't reach outer space because the force of lift will eventually reach equilibrium with the force of gravity.  Hydrostatic pressure applies to fluids, but the density of interstellar gasses is so low in space that they behave like individual particles (which is why balloons won't rise in space).  Apples are too dense and heavy to gain lift from hydrostatic pressure.  So, apples fall when dropped because of gravity, and because they aren't buoyant in the atmosphere like balloons are.  Balloons are subject to gravity, too, but this doesn't become as obvious until balloons reach an altitude at which the atmosphere is so thin that the lift generated from hydrostatic pressure is overcome by the force of gravity.  In a vacuum affected by a gravitational field, a helium balloon would actually fall; this is because gravity still affects it, but hydrostatic pressure doesn't.

[—]

The Magic of Density

[BADecker]

The Magic of Density

Imagine that you have that container in the picture, sitting on your table, just like it is in the picture, without a cap or cover on it. Now, turn it 180° upside down, above the table. Oops! Suddenly, in the face of gravity, density doesn't have any meaning at all.

[notbatman]

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree?

I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules?

Balloons rise in the atmosphere due to hydrostatic pressure (i.e. lighter fluids rise when immersed in heavier ones), but a balloon in space doesn't rise.  Balloons released on Earth won't reach outer space because the force of lift will eventually reach equilibrium with the force of gravity.  Hydrostatic pressure applies to fluids, but the density of interstellar gasses is so low in space that they behave like individual particles (which is why balloons won't rise in space).  Apples are too dense and heavy to gain lift from hydrostatic pressure.  So, apples fall when dropped because of gravity, and because they aren't buoyant in the atmosphere like balloons are.  Balloons are subject to gravity, too, but this doesn't become as obvious until balloons reach an altitude at which the atmosphere is so thin that the lift generated from hydrostatic pressure is overcome by the force of gravity.  In a vacuum affected by a gravitational field, a helium balloon would actually fall; this is because gravity still affects it, but hydrostatic pressure doesn't.

It will stop rising when the density of the atmosphere reaches that of the helium in the balloon. We haven't even reached this mythical vacuum space you talk about before it stops that is if it hasn't already popped which is unlikely. Then you invoke the magical force of gravity but why? This unpoppable balloon has stopped rising due to the atmosphere it's displaced being the same density as the helium. Then you go on to mention the fantasy of interstellar space; this isn't even relevant. As for the apple it falls because it's denser than air and again you invoke the magical force of gravity for no reason.

You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty yet your statements here show that you're an outright intellectual fraud.

[the joint]

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree?

I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules?

Balloons rise in the atmosphere due to hydrostatic pressure (i.e. lighter fluids rise when immersed in heavier ones), but a balloon in space doesn't rise.  Balloons released on Earth won't reach outer space because the force of lift will eventually reach equilibrium with the force of gravity.  Hydrostatic pressure applies to fluids, but the density of interstellar gasses is so low in space that they behave like individual particles (which is why balloons won't rise in space).  Apples are too dense and heavy to gain lift from hydrostatic pressure.  So, apples fall when dropped because of gravity, and because they aren't buoyant in the atmosphere like balloons are.  Balloons are subject to gravity, too, but this doesn't become as obvious until balloons reach an altitude at which the atmosphere is so thin that the lift generated from hydrostatic pressure is overcome by the force of gravity.  In a vacuum affected by a gravitational field, a helium balloon would actually fall; this is because gravity still affects it, but hydrostatic pressure doesn't.

It will stop rising when the density of the atmosphere reaches that of the helium in the balloon. We haven't even reached this mythical vacuum space you talk about before it stops that is if it hasn't already popped which is unlikely. Then you invoke the magical force of gravity but why? This unpoppable balloon has stopped rising due to the atmosphere it's displaced being the same density as the helium. Then you go on to mention the fantasy of interstellar space; this isn't even relevant. As for the apple it falls because it's denser than air and again you invoke the magical force of gravity for no reason.

You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty yet your statements here show that you're an outright intellectual fraud.

PSo, it's all density, eh?

Here's a question for you then, and I'll even play by your rules:  In simulated anti-gravitational environments, such as when an airplane dips at a given speed and angle such that everything is floating around (actually, they're just in free-fall) in an air-filled chamber -- you know, just like the videos you almost surely believe NASA creates to fool us into believing that astronauts are in outer space -- how do you explain that everything in the plane is *floating*?  In other words, if both the air and all objects in the air-filled chamber are descending at the same speed relative to each other, why doesn't density separate the more-dense objects (like people) from the air in the chamber?

The problem for you is that hydrostatic pressure decreases in weightless (NOT sparce)  environments.  If it didn't, then in the descending airplane that causes all things inside it to free-fall, all of the objects that are more dense than the air would fall to the floor of the plane, even in free-fall conditions.

1) Mass + gravity --> weight --> hydrostatic pressure --> balloons rise, apples fall
2).Mass + no gravity --> weightlessness --> no hydrostatic pressure --> balloons and apples behave similarly
3) Density = mass/volume.  That's it.  Density is dependent upon mass, but is independent of weight which is integral to hydrostatic pressure.  We can see this from free-fall airplanes in which all objects are weightless in their environment; it doesn't matter how much mass or density the objects have, they all have no weight.  This gives us two scenarios to consider -- we see how objects behave in weightless environments (such as free-fall planes), and also in weighted environments (such as on Earth's surface).  Does density explain both scenarios? No. What does? Gravity.

By the way, the formula for weight is w=mg where m=mass and g=Freefall acceleration of gravity.  In a freefall airplane, g=0, so w=0.

[notbatman]

No that's not the flat earth explanation for gravity, that's the controlled oppositions attempt at discrediting flat earth with a straw-man. Gravity is a fallacy invented to explain the orbits of the fake ball planets they claim are solid objects flying around in their fake vacuum space. None of the forces they attribute to gravity here on earth require gravity as an explanation for their cause.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the flat earth explanation for gravity. Why does the apple fall from the tree?

I'll answer your question but first you have to explain why a helium balloon rises up into the sky when you let go of the string? Then you have to explain why the apple has to play by a different set of rules?

Balloons rise in the atmosphere due to hydrostatic pressure (i.e. lighter fluids rise when immersed in heavier ones), but a balloon in space doesn't rise.  Balloons released on Earth won't reach outer space because the force of lift will eventually reach equilibrium with the force of gravity.  Hydrostatic pressure applies to fluids, but the density of interstellar gasses is so low in space that they behave like individual particles (which is why balloons won't rise in space).  Apples are too dense and heavy to gain lift from hydrostatic pressure.  So, apples fall when dropped because of gravity, and because they aren't buoyant in the atmosphere like balloons are.  Balloons are subject to gravity, too, but this doesn't become as obvious until balloons reach an altitude at which the atmosphere is so thin that the lift generated from hydrostatic pressure is overcome by the force of gravity.  In a vacuum affected by a gravitational field, a helium balloon would actually fall; this is because gravity still affects it, but hydrostatic pressure doesn't.

It will stop rising when the density of the atmosphere reaches that of the helium in the balloon. We haven't even reached this mythical vacuum space you talk about before it stops that is if it hasn't already popped which is unlikely. Then you invoke the magical force of gravity but why? This unpoppable balloon has stopped rising due to the atmosphere it's displaced being the same density as the helium. Then you go on to mention the fantasy of interstellar space; this isn't even relevant. As for the apple it falls because it's denser than air and again you invoke the magical force of gravity for no reason.

You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty yet your statements here show that you're an outright intellectual fraud.

PSo, it's all density, eh?

Here's a question for you then, and I'll even play by your rules:  In simulated anti-gravitational environments, such as when an airplane dips at a given speed and angle such that everything is floating around (actually, they're just in free-fall) in an air-filled chamber -- you know, just like the videos you almost surely believe NASA creates to fool us into believing that astronauts are in outer space -- how do you explain that everything in the plane is *floating*?  In other words, if both the air and all objects in the air-filled chamber are descending at the same speed relative to each other, why doesn't density separate the more-dense objects (like people) from the air in the chamber?

The problem for you is that hydrostatic pressure decreases in weightless (NOT sparce)  environments.  If it didn't, then in the descending airplane that causes all things inside it to free-fall, all of the objects that are more dense than the air would fall to the floor of the plane, even in free-fall conditions.

1) Mass + gravity --> weight --> hydrostatic pressure --> balloons rise, apples fall
2).Mass + no gravity --> weightlessness --> no hydrostatic pressure --> balloons and apples behave similarly
3) Density = mass/volume.  That's it.  Density is dependent upon mass, but is independent of weight which is integral to hydrostatic pressure.  We can see this from free-fall airplanes in which all objects are weightless in their environment; it doesn't matter how much mass or density the objects have, they all have no weight.  This gives us two scenarios to consider -- we see how objects behave in weightless environments (such as free-fall planes), and also in weighted environments (such as on Earth's surface).  Does density explain both scenarios? No. What does? Gravity.

By the way, the formula for weight is w=mg where m=mass and g=Freefall acceleration of gravity.  In a freefall airplane, g=0, so w=0.

So you're saying a helium balloon will float around in the middle of the vomit comet ("artificial zero-gravity" airplane ride) with the apple?

To answer your question the force caused by the plane dropping counters the force due to the apples density thereby causing it to float. A balloon on the other hand should rise up faster than normal due to the additional force.

Also, NASA does fake all their space walks in their fake space. You can see air bubbles rising, scuba tanks in the background and various items floating up in their "official" videos. It's not a matter of "belief" as you put it.