Flat Earth

[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!

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.

Some scientist(s) might be explaining gravity in totally incorrect ways. Who cares? Whatever gravity is, it works well for me on my way to work, etc.

[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.

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.

Yes, an apple and a helium balloon will both float around in a vomit comet, or in an elevator freefalling at terminal velocity, etc.  A helium balloon won't rise above other objects because all objects under these conditions are weightless.  Density doesn't matter; objects are equally dense in both a vomit comet and on the ground.  There is no force of density (in the sense that density doesn't determine weight).  But weight *is* equal to a force.  This has nothing to do with bubbles.  

[BADecker]

International Space Station Transits Saturn

International Space Station Transits Saturn
Image Credit & Copyright: Julian Wessel

Explanation: From low Earth orbit to the outer Solar System, this remarkable video frame composite follows the International Space Station's transit of Saturn. On January 15, the well-timed capture from a site near Dulmen, Germany required telescope and camera to be positioned along the predicted transit centerline, a path only 40 meters wide. That put the camera about 1,140 kilometers away from the space station during the transit and 1,600,000,000 kilometers away from Saturn. A video rate of 42 frames per second follows the orbital outpost moving quickly from lower right to upper left. The transit itself lasted about 0.02 seconds, with one frame showing the station directly in front of the ringed gas giant. Of course, you could also try to capture the International Space Station as it transits Jupiter.

[BADecker]

Yes, an apple and a helium balloon will both float around in a vomit comet, or in an elevator freefalling at terminal velocity, etc.  A helium balloon won't rise above other objects because all objects under these conditions are weightless.  Density doesn't matter; objects are equally dense in both a vomit comet and on the ground.  There is no force of density.  But weight *is* equal to a force.  This has nothing to do with bubbles.  

Not only are you wrong, you're completely Looney Toons and living in a total fantasy world.

You really need to learn how to use the English language better, so that you can thwart the joint in words of logic and science, rather than letting Wile E. Coyote do it for you.

 

[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.

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.

Yes, an apple and a helium balloon will both float around in a vomit comet, or in an elevator freefalling at terminal velocity, etc.  A helium balloon won't rise above other objects because all objects under these conditions are weightless.  Density doesn't matter; objects are equally dense in both a vomit comet and on the ground.  There is no force of density.  But weight *is* equal to a force.  This has nothing to do with bubbles.  

Not only are you wrong, you're completely Looney Toons and living in a total fantasy world.

If you think so, you have one simple way to show it: what is the formula for weight using density as a variable?  Hint: There isn't one.

[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.

Yes, an apple and a helium balloon will both float around in a vomit comet, or in an elevator freefalling at terminal velocity, etc.  A helium balloon won't rise above other objects because all objects under these conditions are weightless.  Density doesn't matter; objects are equally dense in both a vomit comet and on the ground.  There is no force of density.  But weight *is* equal to a force.  This has nothing to do with bubbles.  

Not only are you wrong, you're completely Looney Toons and living in a total fantasy world.

If you think so, you have one simple way to show it: what is the formula for weight using density as a variable?  Hint: There isn't one.

Fuck off with the straw-man dude, weight is defined using the "magical" gravitational acceleration variable 'g'. Mass however can be calculated simply by volume * density.

[BADecker]

Not only are you wrong, you're completely Looney Toons and living in a total fantasy world.

If you think so, you have one simple way to show it: what is the formula for weight using density as a variable?  Hint: There isn't one.

Fuck off with the straw-man dude, weight is defined using the "magical" gravitational acceleration variable 'g'. Mass however can be calculated simply by volume * density.

... At least until you turn the container over and dump the contents all over the table.

[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.

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.

Yes, an apple and a helium balloon will both float around in a vomit comet, or in an elevator freefalling at terminal velocity, etc.  A helium balloon won't rise above other objects because all objects under these conditions are weightless.  Density doesn't matter; objects are equally dense in both a vomit comet and on the ground.  There is no force of density.  But weight *is* equal to a force.  This has nothing to do with bubbles.  

Not only are you wrong, you're completely Looney Toons and living in a total fantasy world.

If you think so, you have one simple way to show it: what is the formula for weight using density as a variable?  Hint: There isn't one.

Fuck off with the straw-man dude, weight is defined using the "magical" gravitational acceleration variable 'g'. Mass however can be calculated simply by volume * density.

Correct, mass=volume * density, but that doesn't explain why objects float in a vomit comet but don't on the surface of the Earth.   The volume and density of an object remain the same regardless of whether its in a vomit comet or on Earth's surface, and thus so does its mass.  This means something else must explain why objects float in a vomit comet, but not on Earth.

[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.

Yes, an apple and a helium balloon will both float around in a vomit comet, or in an elevator freefalling at terminal velocity, etc.  A helium balloon won't rise above other objects because all objects under these conditions are weightless.  Density doesn't matter; objects are equally dense in both a vomit comet and on the ground.  There is no force of density.  But weight *is* equal to a force.  This has nothing to do with bubbles.  

Not only are you wrong, you're completely Looney Toons and living in a total fantasy world.

If you think so, you have one simple way to show it: what is the formula for weight using density as a variable?  Hint: There isn't one.

Fuck off with the straw-man dude, weight is defined using the "magical" gravitational acceleration variable 'g'. Mass however can be calculated simply by volume * density.

Correct, mass=volume * density, but that doesn't explain why objects float in a vomit comet but don't on the surface of the Earth.   The volume and density of an object remain the same regardless of whether its in a vomit comet or on Earth's surface, and thus so does its mass.  This means something else must explain why objects float in a vomit comet, but not on Earth.

Slinky floats on the surface of the earth:

[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.

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.

Yes, an apple and a helium balloon will both float around in a vomit comet, or in an elevator freefalling at terminal velocity, etc.  A helium balloon won't rise above other objects because all objects under these conditions are weightless.  Density doesn't matter; objects are equally dense in both a vomit comet and on the ground.  There is no force of density.  But weight *is* equal to a force.  This has nothing to do with bubbles.  

Not only are you wrong, you're completely Looney Toons and living in a total fantasy world.

If you think so, you have one simple way to show it: what is the formula for weight using density as a variable?  Hint: There isn't one.

Fuck off with the straw-man dude, weight is defined using the "magical" gravitational acceleration variable 'g'. Mass however can be calculated simply by volume * density.

Correct, mass=volume * density, but that doesn't explain why objects float in a vomit comet but don't on the surface of the Earth.   The volume and density of an object remain the same regardless of whether its in a vomit comet or on Earth's surface, and thus so does its mass.  This means something else must explain why objects float in a vomit comet, but not on Earth.

Slinky floats on the surface of the earth:

This has nothing to do with what we were talking about.  But that would be your common tactic: "Shit, I can't explain floating objects in freefall, let's talk about bubbles!"  Or, "Shit! I can't explain weight in terms of density, so I'll just move onto something irrelevant, like slinkies."

Although the explanation for the slinky is different, that explanation still has nothing to do with its density, but does have to do with gravity.  The slinky's natural tendency is to remained coiled; when you stretch out a slinky, it wants to revert back to its coiled shape.  When you hold a slinky in the air and release it, the top of the slinky falls at the rate of acceleration of gravity, which means the bottom of the slinky will experience an *upward* force at the rate of acceleration of gravity.  But, at the same time, the bottom of the slinky still wants to go downward as a result of gravity.  The upward force cancels out the downward force, and -- voila! -- the bottom of the slinky appears to float.  Once the slinky reverts back to its original coiled shape, the upward force no longer acts on the bottom of the slinky, and so the entire slinky falls and hits the ground.

You can't explain what happens to the slinky with density.

[jokinfol]

Of course the earth is flat. Go out and look at it. If it were round everything would be curving around and you'd be speaking to ppl who stand horizontally.

Really, the earth is flat as a pancake (and pancakes are round and flat)

[BADecker]

Of course the earth is flat. Go out and look at it. If it were round everything would be curving around and you'd be speaking to ppl who stand horizontally.

Really, the earth is flat as a pancake (and pancakes are round and flat)

People normal. People not horizontal. People perpendicular.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normal?s=t:

normal
[nawr-muh l]

adjective

...

5. Mathematics.

    being at right angles, as a line; perpendicular.

...

 

[montaga]

Ask yourself have you ever seen a satelite dish pointing straight up.
Of the thousands you have seen none is even close of straight up, why not dont people live below satelites.
Furthermore, satelite dish manufatures dont expect you to live direct underneath one otherwise they woulth come with drainage holes to let the water run out.

[Bitcoinpro]

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.

u sound like quite the crakhead

[trickyriky]

Ask yourself have you ever seen a satelite dish pointing straight up.
Of the thousands you have seen none is even close of straight up, why not dont people live below satelites.
Furthermore, satelite dish manufatures dont expect you to live direct underneath one otherwise they woulth come with drainage holes to let the water run out.

even better question is, does anybody still believe the bullshit about satellites, i mean come on were expected to believe were stood upon a giant sphere spinning at 1000mph and we have satellites a mile above land that are in perfect synchronous orbit with the spinning ball earth, so perfect that sky tv works........ LMFAO

go set up a digital satellite system or 3 then come back and honestly tell us were stood upon a sphere earth LMFAO   

[criptix]

OP, may i ask how much you earn per month and how much you would be willing to invest to proof without a doubt (!!) that flat earth is real and everything else a hoax?

There are several methods of doing so depending on how much money you are willing to spend.

Put your money where your mouth is!

This thread is about rockets and fraud. Like the fraud perpetrated on the British taxpayer by the Royal Aircraft Establishment with their BLACK ARROW rocket program in the 1960's.

That is fine no problem.
But don't you want to answer my questions? If you dont want to do it in public you could also send me a pm.

Question goes to all FE's

[eon89]

Of course the earth is flat. Go out and look at it. If it were round everything would be curving around and you'd be speaking to ppl who stand horizontally.

Really, the earth is flat as a pancake (and pancakes are round and flat)

The curvature of the planet happens at 25km distance - you cannot see it and that's why everything doesn't appear curved around you.

[trickyriky]

OP, may i ask how much you earn per month and how much you would be willing to invest to proof without a doubt (!!) that flat earth is real and everything else a hoax?

There are several methods of doing so depending on how much money you are willing to spend.

Put your money where your mouth is!

This thread is about rockets and fraud. Like the fraud perpetrated on the British taxpayer by the Royal Aircraft Establishment with their BLACK ARROW rocket program in the 1960's.

That is fine no problem.
But don't you want to answer my questions? If you dont want to do it in public you could also send me a pm.

Question goes to all FE's

does not need to spend a penny proving it, a working scale model of FE already exists, but no working scale model of hollow or sphere earth can be produced with bodies of water look up the recreation of the ancient greek antikythera mechanism or produce working scale models of either sphere or hollow earth, now thats what will cost

[eon89]

Then, are all the photos taken from space and the ISS fakes too? All of them?
I mean - this could have worked before mankind went into space, but now? How long will they still try with this flat earth scam?

[criptix]

OP, may i ask how much you earn per month and how much you would be willing to invest to proof without a doubt (!!) that flat earth is real and everything else a hoax?

There are several methods of doing so depending on how much money you are willing to spend.

Put your money where your mouth is!

This thread is about rockets and fraud. Like the fraud perpetrated on the British taxpayer by the Royal Aircraft Establishment with their BLACK ARROW rocket program in the 1960's.

That is fine no problem.
But don't you want to answer my questions? If you dont want to do it in public you could also send me a pm.

Rockets & fraud or bust dude, there's a thread for Flat Earth Q&A in the off-topic section.

Not sure why you are so passive-aggressive, but you started talking about rocket hoax because of flat earth.

Here is your op

Of coarse you ask "but why would they lie, I don't understand". They lie because they're hiding the fact the Earth is flat and there is no space to travel to or in. We're inside a giant underwater terrarium and atmospheric life is an artificially created novelty.

Throwing money at the question of whether the Earth is flat or not isn't going to prove shit. If you want proof just do some research, there's literally hundreds of different proofs that its flat and it wont cost you a dime.

It is funny that you conclude everything that doesnt support FE as a hoax but if it supports FE it can only be true.

So the idea behind my question is to make your own research (im not talking about watching youtube videos).
But to do so, you have to gather money to start your research.

And yes im talking about real science and research (i.e. building a vehicle to crash against the glass dome/flying over the northpole etc. pp.).
No Youtube.com videos, no URL Links, No Memes.


I can only conclude from your answer that you either have zero money or are scared that FE is just a hoax.

There is no possible argument why we shouldnt gather money to pay for conclusive and accurate proof of FE.
What can you believe more then your own eyes? (funny that you said that yourself several times in the FE thread)

btw. do you mind to post this also on the FE websites and forums on the internet?
maybe we might be able to gather a good chunk and build our own satellite or something?