Lol, the author wishes to remain anonymous? Can you imagine knowing something so profound, and revolutionary, spending hours dreaming up formulas and discovering the real truth, then hiding your identity? This is a joke, right?
He writes> it is clearly the density of
the object and the density of the medium it is in, nothing more
So what about a steel ship? Metal is dense, just like the steel bolt in his beaker image. If it were only about density, why do ships float?
lol. OK sure, but the only reason a gap between metal plates would exist in a steel hull design would be for protecting the contents, like oil. It is not designed to increase buoyancy since the extra weight has to be factored in hull length, shape etc. without the extra weight, it would naturally be MORE buoyant since it would need to displace less water.
If you filled that hull with any other substance heavier than water, it still displaces water, but it will sink.
If you fill that hull with anything less dense than water (vegetable oil, liquified gas, air) it will float.
Even with a very heavy lead hull this works. If the hull is too thick, where its total volume (including its contents of air/oil/whatever) is more dense than water, it will sink below the water's surface and the pressure difference between water and air can be corrected, the air escapes like a bubble would, back to equilibrium. But say you cap off the hull before it sinks...now it still might sink but as it is sinking, pressure of the water above it grows and will cause it to burst. However, if the air inside it was pressurized (like a submarine), then it might not burst. The increased air pressure gives the sub more density, as density increases proportionally with pressure.
The reason airplanes are pressurized is to mimic conditions at sea level for humans because its comfortable. You asked what an air pocket is, which is related to a low pressure zone of air in the atmosphere that an airplane passes through, causing it to dip in altitude. But you know the thing!
OK, sure, but I don't think you are on the right track regarding the OP. Air & air pressure has nothing to do with a regular ship floating or sinking so it's not part of the absurd 'gravity does not exist' part this OP was on about explaining how ships can float. It's the weight of the ship that needs to displace the same amount of weight in water. If the weight of the ship can displace its own weight in water, without exceeding the freeboard height, it will float.
Submarines are completely different. They use air/water ballast to rise or sink, to overcome their natural buoyancy, so while you are on the right track as far as air pressure relating to submersed vessels, the OP was referring to regular ships (non-pressurized) that float.
Regular tankers/ships are not pressurized, nor are they air-tight as far as double-hulled vessels are concerned, so having air between hulls only protects their cargo against ruptures, but does not increase buoyancy.
A steel boat holds air, that's why it doesn't sink, the air that it holds is less dense than water, so it reaches an equilibrium with the weight of the boat and achieves buoyancy.
A steel boat holds air, that's why it doesn't sink,
No, that is wrong. It has nothing to do with air because the ship is not air-tight. It does not sink because the hull tries to displace its weight in water. So take two hulls; both weigh 1 ton and contain the same amount of air. One is shaped with a flat bottom, very wide with low sides, the other is a very narrow wedge with super tall sides, which one would sink? The wedge would sink because it does not have enough sideways displacement force to counteract gravity.
a wee bit. They say that what is called gravity is really just the fact that the objects mass is denser than the medium (air) that it finds itself in, sort of like how some things sink in water whilst others float.
A helium balloon for instance does travel upward through air or can stay stationary in mid air.
I might be misremembering but they also note that gravity is supposed to be this super force that holds everything down to earth yet is not so powerful that even a midge can overcome it with ease. Also, the point is made that gravity is allegedly so powerful that the moons gravity can pull the mighty oceans and cause all manner of turbulence and waves in the vast oceans yet leave lakes, lochs and rivers and people (who are 80% water) completely unperturbed.
In short, the case against gravity is the apparent inconsistency of it and of the things which break it's rules. They offer what they see as a more plausible explanation.
Here is the Flat Earth film Level. It's an hour long and both insightful and thought-provoking if nothing else, even if you don't agree with their conclusions.
I think they detail the gravity question in there though I can't quite recall.
These people who make these videos are so full of stupid, it's painful. They make graphics to supposedly support their ideas, yet they are so woefully wrong.
This image is right from the video, where they show a massive sun and he says "the rays would all be equal" yet, in reality, the sun is so far away the perceived size is much. much smaller, as we can see from any sunset.
The rays would all be equal. Here is a photo of what they're talking about. These rays are obviously hitting earth at a triangle shape which, to be fair, ought not to happen if the sun is massively bigger than the earth, regardless of how far away it is. In fact, the further away something is, the broader its light should be. Try it with a torch up close to your desk or wall or something and move it further and further back - see what happens to the light.
They point out how those rays act and it's completely understandable where they're coming from.
If you held a pea up to your lightbulb about the equivalent distance as the earth is alleged to be from the sun you would not see the light behaving in that manner. The way the suns rays penetrate through the clouds simply DOES suggest a much closer and more concentrated light source.
Now, I'm not saying that the earth is flat or that there isn't some legitimate fancy scientific rationale behind the behaviour of these rays which is beyond the ken of the layperson. I'm only saying that, once it's pointed out to you, the official scientific position clearly just doesn't pass the eyeball test.
These rays are obviously hitting earth at a triangle shape which, to be fair, ought not to happen if the sun is massively bigger than the earth,
Well sort of. It depends where you are on the ball The image is silly and cannot be used to demonstrate anything. The sun is showing through an opening in the clouds. It has nothing to do with the sun's size in relation to the earth. The sun 'broadcasts' and spreads out in that image, just like you expect it to. Remove the clouds and the light is all over uniform for the angle you are looking at. If you're on the north pole, the sun rays are at a low angle. If you're at the equator, it's above you. Simple.
Why would be need infinite acceleration? If Earth is less dense than space and something propelled Earth upward, wouldn't it continue to move in that direction?
Wouldn't it make more sense to say the Earth is falling downward not moving upward?
Essentially, you're moving downward and the only reason you don't fall off the Earth in an upward manner is that you're more dense than what's above you. When you jump, you get pushed downward because everything is already moving downward and since you're more dense than air, the air pushes you down. It's like jumping into wind. Say wind (air) is moving to the left. If you jump to the right, you will move to the right until the wind eventually stops your movement and then it pushes you to the left because you are more dense than air and thus you naturally want to go to the left when air is moving to the left itself.
This would then make your model work, would it not?
b) The earth has a massive molten ball of iron at it's core and is pulling everything toward it.
c) Look at any galaxy. They all form a ball in the middle and all its stars are pulled towards the core.
No matter where you go on the surface, you will always experience (relatively) the same force and therefore you cannot escape gravity's pull. Water is pulled in the same manner which is why it curves around the ball surface, like an ocean. The earth has no edge. If it did, it would collapse under its own weight. as the mass in the center would find the weakest part of the edge and rip it off. Eventually, all the edges would fold in on itself and form a ball - in its attempt to find its 'equalibreum'
Why_Things_Rise_and_Fall.pdf
Lol, the author wishes to remain anonymous? Can you imagine knowing something so profound, and revolutionary, spending hours dreaming up formulas and discovering the real truth, then hiding your identity? This is a joke, right?
He writes> it is clearly the density of the object and the density of the medium it is in, nothing more
So what about a steel ship? Metal is dense, just like the steel bolt in his beaker image. If it were only about density, why do ships float?
This paper is 100% laughable.
Idiot. Ships float because it displaces their weight in water. What is an 'air pocket' anyway? lol.
lol. OK sure, but the only reason a gap between metal plates would exist in a steel hull design would be for protecting the contents, like oil. It is not designed to increase buoyancy since the extra weight has to be factored in hull length, shape etc. without the extra weight, it would naturally be MORE buoyant since it would need to displace less water.
Oh, how compelling. They are just as wrong as you are. lol. Only air-tight ballast tanks can work to add buoyancy.
The hull is what allows air to displace water.
If you filled that hull with any other substance heavier than water, it still displaces water, but it will sink.
If you fill that hull with anything less dense than water (vegetable oil, liquified gas, air) it will float.
Even with a very heavy lead hull this works. If the hull is too thick, where its total volume (including its contents of air/oil/whatever) is more dense than water, it will sink below the water's surface and the pressure difference between water and air can be corrected, the air escapes like a bubble would, back to equilibrium. But say you cap off the hull before it sinks...now it still might sink but as it is sinking, pressure of the water above it grows and will cause it to burst. However, if the air inside it was pressurized (like a submarine), then it might not burst. The increased air pressure gives the sub more density, as density increases proportionally with pressure.
The reason airplanes are pressurized is to mimic conditions at sea level for humans because its comfortable. You asked what an air pocket is, which is related to a low pressure zone of air in the atmosphere that an airplane passes through, causing it to dip in altitude. But you know the thing!
OK, sure, but I don't think you are on the right track regarding the OP. Air & air pressure has nothing to do with a regular ship floating or sinking so it's not part of the absurd 'gravity does not exist' part this OP was on about explaining how ships can float. It's the weight of the ship that needs to displace the same amount of weight in water. If the weight of the ship can displace its own weight in water, without exceeding the freeboard height, it will float.
Submarines are completely different. They use air/water ballast to rise or sink, to overcome their natural buoyancy, so while you are on the right track as far as air pressure relating to submersed vessels, the OP was referring to regular ships (non-pressurized) that float.
Regular tankers/ships are not pressurized, nor are they air-tight as far as double-hulled vessels are concerned, so having air between hulls only protects their cargo against ruptures, but does not increase buoyancy.
The OP asked if anyone understood the "Gravity is not real but just different densities" conspiracy theory.
I responded with my understanding of it.
If he had asked if anyone understood the "accepted theory on Gravity" then your answer might have some merit here :)
You can understand a concept without accepting it's "correctness". Understanding is a cool concept.
The Titanic sank.
Malaysian Flight 370 crashed.
A steel boat holds air, that's why it doesn't sink, the air that it holds is less dense than water, so it reaches an equilibrium with the weight of the boat and achieves buoyancy.
No, that is wrong. It has nothing to do with air because the ship is not air-tight. It does not sink because the hull tries to displace its weight in water. So take two hulls; both weigh 1 ton and contain the same amount of air. One is shaped with a flat bottom, very wide with low sides, the other is a very narrow wedge with super tall sides, which one would sink? The wedge would sink because it does not have enough sideways displacement force to counteract gravity.
So Bull Boat vs Canoe or what?
Electromagnetism explains something fundamentally different than gravity.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/120163/is-gravity-just-electromagnetic-attraction
Science can not prove gravity. Density is easy to prove however. Lighter than air, floats, heavier than air, falls.
a wee bit. They say that what is called gravity is really just the fact that the objects mass is denser than the medium (air) that it finds itself in, sort of like how some things sink in water whilst others float.
A helium balloon for instance does travel upward through air or can stay stationary in mid air.
I might be misremembering but they also note that gravity is supposed to be this super force that holds everything down to earth yet is not so powerful that even a midge can overcome it with ease. Also, the point is made that gravity is allegedly so powerful that the moons gravity can pull the mighty oceans and cause all manner of turbulence and waves in the vast oceans yet leave lakes, lochs and rivers and people (who are 80% water) completely unperturbed.
In short, the case against gravity is the apparent inconsistency of it and of the things which break it's rules. They offer what they see as a more plausible explanation.
Here is the Flat Earth film Level. It's an hour long and both insightful and thought-provoking if nothing else, even if you don't agree with their conclusions.
I think they detail the gravity question in there though I can't quite recall.
These people who make these videos are so full of stupid, it's painful. They make graphics to supposedly support their ideas, yet they are so woefully wrong.
This image is right from the video, where they show a massive sun and he says "the rays would all be equal" yet, in reality, the sun is so far away the perceived size is much. much smaller, as we can see from any sunset.
https://imgur.com/LXWOY9c
The rays would all be equal. Here is a photo of what they're talking about. These rays are obviously hitting earth at a triangle shape which, to be fair, ought not to happen if the sun is massively bigger than the earth, regardless of how far away it is. In fact, the further away something is, the broader its light should be. Try it with a torch up close to your desk or wall or something and move it further and further back - see what happens to the light.
They point out how those rays act and it's completely understandable where they're coming from.
If you held a pea up to your lightbulb about the equivalent distance as the earth is alleged to be from the sun you would not see the light behaving in that manner. The way the suns rays penetrate through the clouds simply DOES suggest a much closer and more concentrated light source.
Now, I'm not saying that the earth is flat or that there isn't some legitimate fancy scientific rationale behind the behaviour of these rays which is beyond the ken of the layperson. I'm only saying that, once it's pointed out to you, the official scientific position clearly just doesn't pass the eyeball test.
Well sort of. It depends where you are on the ball The image is silly and cannot be used to demonstrate anything. The sun is showing through an opening in the clouds. It has nothing to do with the sun's size in relation to the earth. The sun 'broadcasts' and spreads out in that image, just like you expect it to. Remove the clouds and the light is all over uniform for the angle you are looking at. If you're on the north pole, the sun rays are at a low angle. If you're at the equator, it's above you. Simple.
Inb4 flat earthers try to say "we're just moving upwards really fast" without understanding we would need infinite acceleration.
Why would be need infinite acceleration? If Earth is less dense than space and something propelled Earth upward, wouldn't it continue to move in that direction?
Because as soon as you stop accelerating upwards, you wouldn't be pushed downwards.
Like when you're moving along at 60 miles an hour on the freeway you aren't pinned to your seat but a hard launch from a red-light you are.
Wouldn't it make more sense to say the Earth is falling downward not moving upward?
Essentially, you're moving downward and the only reason you don't fall off the Earth in an upward manner is that you're more dense than what's above you. When you jump, you get pushed downward because everything is already moving downward and since you're more dense than air, the air pushes you down. It's like jumping into wind. Say wind (air) is moving to the left. If you jump to the right, you will move to the right until the wind eventually stops your movement and then it pushes you to the left because you are more dense than air and thus you naturally want to go to the left when air is moving to the left itself.
This would then make your model work, would it not?
No.
a) The earth is not flat.
b) The earth has a massive molten ball of iron at it's core and is pulling everything toward it.
c) Look at any galaxy. They all form a ball in the middle and all its stars are pulled towards the core.
No matter where you go on the surface, you will always experience (relatively) the same force and therefore you cannot escape gravity's pull. Water is pulled in the same manner which is why it curves around the ball surface, like an ocean. The earth has no edge. If it did, it would collapse under its own weight. as the mass in the center would find the weakest part of the edge and rip it off. Eventually, all the edges would fold in on itself and form a ball - in its attempt to find its 'equalibreum'