[mcraent]

i am fairly new too this topic and it seems quite interesting to me because the more i look into it, the more i get confused by the globe earth and that is why i am more leaning towards the flat earth model. but 1 thing that really confuses me is buoyancy. i cant really seem how it would work.
could you please elaborate this a little bit more to me because i i can't get my head around it.

i thank you in advance.

[BigGuyWhoKills]

i am fairly new too this topic and it seems quite interesting to me because the more i look into it, the more i get confused by the globe earth and that is why i am more leaning towards the flat earth model. but 1 thing that really confuses me is buoyancy. i cant really seem how it would work.
could you please elaborate this a little bit more to me because i i can't get my head around it.

i thank you in advance.

In the FE model, buoyancy is the same as the RE model, except gravity is replaced with the UA.

[QED]

i am fairly new too this topic and it seems quite interesting to me because the more i look into it, the more i get confused by the globe earth and that is why i am more leaning towards the flat earth model. but 1 thing that really confuses me is buoyancy. i cant really seem how it would work.
could you please elaborate this a little bit more to me because i i can't get my head around it.

i thank you in advance.

I can help you with this question. Imagine a rock falling on Earth -- except there is no atmosphere, it is a vacuum. Gravity will exert a force on that rock, and it will thus accelerate. Now place that rock in a cup of water. Gravity still exerts a force, but there is water in the way, and so the rock must push through that water on its way to the bottom. Hence, it will accelerate slower than if it was falling in a vacuum.

Since there is a difference in acceleration, there must be a corresponding force that is responsible. We call this the buoyancy force. It is the force that a fluid exerts on an object moving within it.

Note, the atmosphere also provides a buoyancy force -- it is a fluid after all. We just don't notice it much because its value is small, because the density is low (compared to water).

There would be no difference regarding the buoyancy force if the UA was operative instead of gravity. It would behave the same. Of course, there are a ton of other problems with UA, but that is a different topic.

Does this help? What other questions do you have?

[timterroo]

i am fairly new too this topic and it seems quite interesting to me because the more i look into it, the more i get confused by the globe earth and that is why i am more leaning towards the flat earth model. but 1 thing that really confuses me is buoyancy. i cant really seem how it would work.
could you please elaborate this a little bit more to me because i i can't get my head around it.

i thank you in advance.

I can help you with this question. Imagine a rock falling on Earth -- except there is no atmosphere, it is a vacuum. Gravity will exert a force on that rock, and it will thus accelerate. Now place that rock in a cup of water. Gravity still exerts a force, but there is water in the way, and so the rock must push through that water on its way to the bottom. Hence, it will accelerate slower than if it was falling in a vacuum.

Since there is a difference in acceleration, there must be a corresponding force that is responsible. We call this the buoyancy force. It is the force that a fluid exerts on an object moving within it.

Note, the atmosphere also provides a buoyancy force -- it is a fluid after all. We just don't notice it much because its value is small, because the density is low (compared to water).

There would be no difference regarding the buoyancy force if the UA was operative instead of gravity. It would behave the same. Of course, there are a ton of other problems with UA, but that is a different topic.

Does this help? What other questions do you have?

Can you elaborate on the atmosphere being a "fluid"? I was always taught that gases and fluids are different physical states of substances, and the atmosphere is made up of gases. Which are expandable, and expand to fill in their container. Fluids on the other hand are not expandable and that is why fluids are used in hydrolic technology instead of gases. In fact, gases and fluids are entirely different in their properties.

[QED]

Yes, my pleasure. So liquids and gases are distinct thermodynamic states of matter (so are solids). We call liquids and gases "fluids." The reason why we do so is because both obey the same physics: fluid dynamics. It turns out that the equations which describe what liquids will do are the same as those which will determine what gases will do. That is incredible, and not entirely intuitive, but is evidently true.

Do take heed to make the following distinction: liquids and gases behave the same dynamically (the only difference being density), so we can discuss both using Newtonian Dynamics (or Lagrangian, if you prefer).

Liquids and gases do not necessarily, however, behave the same thermodynamically. They are different states of matter with different properties when it comes to heat and pressure (and other thermodynamic variables). Indeed, as you have noted, liquids are often incompressible, which makes them useful in hydraulics. Gases, of course, are quite compressible.

Does that help?

[timterroo]

Yes, my pleasure. So liquids and gases are distinct thermodynamic states of matter (so are solids). We call liquids and gases "fluids." The reason why we do so is because both obey the same physics: fluid dynamics. It turns out that the equations which describe what liquids will do are the same as those which will determine what gases will do. That is incredible, and not entirely intuitive, but is evidently true.

Do take heed to make the following distinction: liquids and gases behave the same dynamically (the only difference being density), so we can discuss both using Newtonian Dynamics (or Lagrangian, if you prefer).

Liquids and gases do not necessarily, however, behave the same thermodynamically. They are different states of matter with different properties when it comes to heat and pressure (and other thermodynamic variables). Indeed, as you have noted, liquids are often incompressible, which makes them useful in hydraulics. Gases, of course, are quite compressible.

Does that help?

Yes, thank you! First off, I failed to recognize the distinction between "fluid" and "liquid". I also have not studied a great deal about thermodynamics or dynamics in general. I'll have to read up on it a bit.

[QED]

Yes, my pleasure. So liquids and gases are distinct thermodynamic states of matter (so are solids). We call liquids and gases "fluids." The reason why we do so is because both obey the same physics: fluid dynamics. It turns out that the equations which describe what liquids will do are the same as those which will determine what gases will do. That is incredible, and not entirely intuitive, but is evidently true.

Do take heed to make the following distinction: liquids and gases behave the same dynamically (the only difference being density), so we can discuss both using Newtonian Dynamics (or Lagrangian, if you prefer).

Liquids and gases do not necessarily, however, behave the same thermodynamically. They are different states of matter with different properties when it comes to heat and pressure (and other thermodynamic variables). Indeed, as you have noted, liquids are often incompressible, which makes them useful in hydraulics. Gases, of course, are quite compressible.

Does that help?

Yes, thank you! First off, I failed to recognize the distinction between "fluid" and "liquid". I also have not studied a great deal about thermodynamics or dynamics in general. I'll have to read up on it a bit.

No worries.

Yes, I encourage you to study these topics: They are incredibly interesting. Very difficult and challenging, but also quite rewarding.

Do not hesitate to reach out with additional questions. It is my pleasure to help.