Alien Sky: The Lightning Scarred Planet, Mars (Full Documentary)

a reply to: Outlier13

Have you noticed that UFOs are attracted to very high Thunder heads that are full of lightning?

a reply to: wildespace

Air is a fluid too. In other words, the air displaced by a helium balloon is heavier than the helium balloon itself, and thus there is a net upward force.

And how was this upward force applied to the balloon again? I think I heard 3 different explanations, all of which are demonstrably wrong.

a reply to: Triggernometry

I think I heard 3 different explanations, all of which are demonstrably wrong.

but you just said no one has offered any explanations, and then you said only wildespace has made an attempt. Which is it ?

originally posted by: Triggernometry
a reply to: wildespace

Air is a fluid too. In other words, the air displaced by a helium balloon is heavier than the helium balloon itself, and thus there is a net upward force.

And how was this upward force applied to the balloon again? I think I heard 3 different explanations, all of which are demonstrably wrong.

The Archimedes principle is the correct answer, and is demonstrably right. It's what makes boats float and what makes air bubbles rise to the surface. A helium balloon is just a "bubble" in the atmospheric ocean.

a reply to: Triggernometry

Why don't you respond to the arguments I posted.

What arguments? All that palaver about air pressure?

It's not even wrong. It's meaningless.

a reply to: carewemust

I've noticed there are a lot of UFO sightings centered around massive electrical storms.

a reply to: Astyanax
force is created by two opposing bowl shaped magnetic fields. It will explain it in the first 20 minutes of this video.

I never asked you anything about gravity you have me mistaken for another member. You still haven't answered any of my questions. It's very obvious you don't intend to so have a good one, this conversation is dumb.

a reply to: Saint Exupery

You have some valid points, however, you are being a bit obtuse with respects to how you structure your argument. In the same breath where you say an EU claimant must prove their claims you must also admit a non-EU claimant must be able to disprove it. In the absence of a controlled experiment where we can somehow harness a 2 mile wide meteor and observe it's impact and ensuring results and document them in real time and in the absence of a controlled experiment where we can somehow harness a massive cosmological electric lightening bolt generator and observe the same we instead scale down experiments into what is observable with similar (not identical) environments.

While most of the data in the video is circumstantial the fact remains the hypothesis carries some level of merit based on the observable results of the small scale examples. There are some valid points made. I don't lean one way or another but there is certainly enough information provided to create some reasonable questions. If you have a source that explains in detail how these craters were in fact formed by meteorite impacts I would be happy to read it. I randomly stumbled across this video and wasn't even aware of there being an EU sub-culture. I will admit part of me felt this was similar to a flat Earther argument but when I did some research to disprove their claims I was unable to find any supporting data that did so. At least on all accounts that is.

originally posted by: booyakasha
a reply to: Astyanax
force is created by two opposing bowl shaped magnetic fields. It will explain it in the first 20 minutes of this video.

I never asked you anything about gravity you have me mistaken for another member. You still haven't answered any of my questions. It's very obvious you don't intend to so have a good one, this conversation is dumb.

Linky no worky.

a reply to: Outlier13

If you have a source that explains in detail how these craters were in fact formed by meteorite impacts I would be happy to read it.

www.barringercrater.com...

a reply to: Triggernometry

You claim you lost your log in details look a few pages back I give examples re a balloon & a boat hull.

What about objects dropped in a vacuum that have different densities falling at the same speed how does that work under your claims of no gravity..

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Triggernometry
a reply to: wildespace

Air is a fluid too. In other words, the air displaced by a helium balloon is heavier than the helium balloon itself, and thus there is a net upward force.

And how was this upward force applied to the balloon again? I think I heard 3 different explanations, all of which are demonstrably wrong.

The Archimedes principle is the correct answer, and is demonstrably right. It's what makes boats float and what makes air bubbles rise to the surface. A helium balloon is just a "bubble" in the atmospheric ocean.

I asked you what exactly is applying force to the balloon. "Pressure" and "Archimedes"is not an answer.

So what is pushing on the bottom of the balloon?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Triggernometry

Why don't you respond to the arguments I posted.

What arguments? All that palaver about air pressure?

It's not even wrong. It's meaningless.

It thought it was going to be about physics but you simply refuse to say anything of substance. Like I said, you recognise my arguments, that's the reason you don't want to touch it, because you know you can't.

a reply to: wmd_2008

You claim you lost your log in details

What do you mean "you claim" and what is your point?

a balloon & a boat hull.

You just posted the Archimedes principle, I know what it says, I asked a specific question about it.

What about objects dropped in a vacuum that have different densities falling at the same speed how does that work under your claims of no gravity..

They are both denser than a vacuum so go down.

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: Triggernometry

I think I heard 3 different explanations, all of which are demonstrably wrong.

but you just said no one has offered any explanations, and then you said only wildespace has made an attempt. Which is it ?

Because I was refering to the argument about bouyant force, not the one with the vacuum chamber........

originally posted by: Triggernometry
a reply to: MasterAtArms

again! you argue how pressure works, then confirm how pressure works in the same statement!

The only way air pressure is pushing something up is because air particles are moving in that direction. The only way force is being transferred is because particles are pushing against particles.

Wind is due to a pressure gradient. Are you going to tell me that air particles pushing against the sail of a ship making it move into the direction of the low pressure, are not moving in said direction?

Anyone?

originally posted by: Triggernometry

originally posted by: Triggernometry
a reply to: MasterAtArms

again! you argue how pressure works, then confirm how pressure works in the same statement!

The only way air pressure is pushing something up is because air particles are moving in that direction. The only way force is being transferred is because particles are pushing against particles.

Wind is due to a pressure gradient. Are you going to tell me that air particles pushing against the sail of a ship making it move into the direction of the low pressure, are not moving in said direction?

Anyone?

Wind is a result of pressure equalisation of atmospheric conditions. Hence why it is referred to as high and low pressure on weather reports. The wind is simple air moving to equalise the lower pressure areas. That is not dissimilar to how a hot air balloon or even an aeroplane achieve motion in an atmosphere, and has already been explained to you.

Hot air balloons do not experience a force pushing them up because the air around them is moving up, they experience lift because of pressure gradients caused by the local existence of a hot, less dense air pocket which the atmosphere is trying to equalise.

This process is absolutely identical why things float up, or on top of water.

You can also achieve lift in thermal currents, where the warmer air itself is moving up because it is less dense because of localised conditions, which again is a pressure gradient.

Why are you so fixated on this? this has been explained multiple times, and so has your vacuum claims

a reply to: MasterAtArms

Ignored the issue yet again.

Are the air particles that push against the sail of a ship moving into the direction they are pushing the ship in, or not?

originally posted by: Triggernometry
a reply to: MasterAtArms

Ignored the issue yet again.

Are the air particles that push against the sail of a ship moving into the direction they are pushing the ship in, or not?

What else would it be?

And yes, to guess where you are going with this, it is also air particles that are locally forcing anything else in atmosphere to move. but that does not mean there is a jet of air under a hot air balloon moving it upwards. Again, that is a result of the motion of air particles around the hot air balloon trying to equalise the local pressure around it, incidentally creating lift for that hot air balloon.

If gravity did not exist those air particles would not behave in such a manner as it is the gravity that clinging the atmosphere to the surface - the lower you go the strong the effect, which is why the atmosphere is denser at the surface than higher up.

To take this to the extremes, again, it is that very same gravity that keeps the atmosphere clinging to the surface of the planet rather than dissipating into the vacuum of space that surrounds us. This is how the planets, atmospheres, stars and you are able to exist - gravity.

Lets go back to your "barrier" - ie, domed flat earth. You will need to explain how your "absolute downness" rule for dense items work compared to lighter stuff like the atmospheric gasses, because in that case all the lighter gasses (such as nitrogen) would end up at the top and the heavier gasses (ie, oxygen) end up at the bottom creating a much more different atmosphere than is demonstrable in existence ~a pure oxygen environment, or even a high concentration environment is pretty toxic and dangerous~

AND

In your theory, where heavier things go down and lighter things go up, why would a hot air balloon actually rise at all? The weight of the canopy, ropes, basket, fuel tanks and occupants is obviously much, much heavier than the same volume of air.

a reply to: MasterAtArms

And yes, to guess where you are going with this, it is also air particles that are locally forcing anything else in atmosphere to move. but that does not mean there is a jet of air under a hot air balloon moving it upwards. Again, that is a result of the motion of air particles around the hot air balloon trying to equalise the local pressure around it, incidentally creating lift for that hot air balloon.

Creating lift? Lift is based on airflow.....a semantics mistake?

So wind is due to a pressure gradient in air that makes dense air move from high pressure areas to low pressure areas, of less dense air............

And when it takes objects along with this flow it is because air particles are pushing the object while moving into that direction........