The Joy Of Painting - Slackjaw (5) - Buoyancy Vs. Gravity (CD, Album)

All liquids and gases in the presence of gravity exert an upward force—called buoyancy —on any object immersed in them. If the object is less dense than the liquid or gas, buoyancy will make it float. A cork floats in water because it is less dense than a cork-size volume of water. In a full bathtub you can easily raise yourself up on your fingertips, thanks to the buoyant effect of the water. Water is dense enough to help support your weight. Air exerts a buoyant force on you too, but it is so small compared to your weight that it has almost no effect on you.

A column of water 10 meters 33 feet deep weighs the same and therefore exerts the same amount of pressure as a column of air extending all the way up through the atmosphere.

What I meant here was that it's impossible to prove anything. But that's not really a useful argument because absolute proof isn't really necessary for practical purposes. How do you propose buoyancy should cause things to rise? And from what are these things rising? What force is being counteracted by buoyancy? Things are massive, and massive things attract each other in our observations.

We can point telescopes at the sky and see that. Galileo essentially founded modern science after doing that. Einstein picked up the problem in the 30s and gave us an improved model that by and large was proven. Last question - how do you suppose gravitational waves were recorded if gravity isn't real? How does density affect that experiment? When a judge condemns people to death does he need absolute proof for practical purposes?

First, people are thinking that I am you using 2 accounts , so let's confuse the hell out of our lovers by me replying to this comment, which in their mind is my comment. So I'm about to have a conversation with myself No, man! FE loon you Things fall from the sky, thus gravity. How do you suppose the apple fell on Newton's head? How could you be so mentally dead? I hope you take no offense to that, since I am you and you are me EDIT: I misunderstood you.

Things fall because they're heavy because of gravity. The answer is a definite, kool aid YES. I am a fan of the theory that rotational velocity does indeed have an effect on the surrounding space time in such a way that there is an effect created. Theoretically with enough velocity, and a large enough 'object' there would be a vortex like distortion where the outside edges of say a spiral galaxy would, even at the speed of light, 'lag' relative to the rotation at the galaxies core, placing a stress or stretch on the very fabric of space time And you could theorise that the pull inward is due to a literal sort of buoyancy or density difference in the fabric of space time itself along this plane of rotation Just some thoughts.

Gravity is not real. It's electrostatic holding everything to the earth. The earth is a battery more than a magnet. The battery creates a magnetic field which attracts evrything, including water, also in a vacumm things fall at the same speed and if they were being pushed down because of density they would otherwise float although I believe the density of the object co-relates with the weight of the object because the object would be more highly charged more electrons thus pulled with more force from the electromagnetic pull.

What happens to shielded object? We can stop EM and magnetic fields, dow objects blocked from these fields lose weight or float? The earth is structurally very similar to an atom. We live in the nucleous of the atom, ionosphere is most likely the second valence shell on the earth. The sun is also the nucleus of another atom, obviously in a "higher level" we just see it differently from our perspective but it's probably a huge atom, and planets are "electrons". Higher level sun's have more planets is what I'm guessing.

And finally. Interesting new perspective. Why dont atoms fall apart? Especially if you think its because of magnetism or electricity? The electrical potential has to go somewhere. This is a simple question for intro physicists and it might get you to think about what you just wrote. I have a theory on this which I'm still trying to figure out, it's a great question and atoms probably do fall apart when they lose all electrons.

Obviously I don't agree with all of mainstream science, so you trying to prove me wrong with their numbers instead of logic is kinda futile. As for your, "perfect picture example Wow, just when I thought you couldn't embarrass yourself anymore, you go making a complement incoherent and poorly thought out statement like this.

If people are to get to the point where "everything is light" is common knowledge, then we're going to have to jump over some hurdles to get there. Don't worry about the haters. Their reality is based on theory and clever manipulation of mathematical formulas not based on the real world; handed to them by occultists who decided to call it a sphere prior to having the rocket technology to fly up high enough and confirm.

Sun worshippers in disguise. I thought the Scientific method was empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning; and very repeatable. What happened to going out to prove your theories in the real world? Nope, it made sense on paper, so we called it a day! Water lays flat in our cup, in our tub, in our pool, in our lake, and it is thus safe to say, in our oceans as well What kind of flat?

I don't know, but it is definitely not a rotating sphere. It's a small point, but observation cannot be a priori. Since a priori means before experience. A posteriori is the one you're looking for. I had no idea this existed, thanks for those links. Should be good to show people that the earth isn't flat.

Sure, but you don't consider light, temperature, and water condition to prove your point. Here's the same shot on a different day. Where's your supposed curve? EDIT: There is no curve, bud.

I think he chose a bad fixed camera position, he could've drove a bit further from East through West and clearly it's of very distorted quality. They should take a pic and video with the building clear in the background, and better equipment with MUCH better zoom from different angles. Most of the curvature becomes apparent at the end of the horizon. The video starts of with the 'globe shill' picture that is cropped and already far far zoomed in on the horizon. Because it's cropped it seems like it starts from the car.

Just where the 'flat earth' shill' starts his video at that point in the video, which is completely zoomed out. Thus for the viewer it's like both were started from the same perspective. Pause the video at It is after that endpoint where he should zoom in. Compare and the pictures for yourself, you'll see it because of the towering building. That is the furthest he could zoom.. In the end of the video he is playing with perspective again and comparing it with their blurry flat pic. When you have a picture of a circle and you zoom in on it really close, is there a point where the line making up the circle no longer looks curved to you?

An infinitely large circle would have almost completely flat curve at an observational level. Some people are just thick. What do you mean by 'observational level' and how does that idea make sense when talking about a infinite object, whatever that might be.

I'd recommended communicating plainly. That's a pretty plain sentence. Humans exist at a single observational level, an infinitely large circle is going to look like a straight line to anyone observing it. A person looking at a sufficiently large circle will not be able to perceive any curvature. It will effectively be a straight line to them as long as the scale is large enough. I don't know why you are talking about an "infinite circle" or how you or anyone would have a concrete idea of what that means to observe.

My point is that you are expecting people to except you bizarre language as matter of fact. And in that way I see how some flat earthers or other idiots would be put off from science when you are carrying forward this pretention that everyone should automatically understand what you are saying when you say something crazy.

That's what I mean by speaking plainly. Your hypotheticals help no one. And at the end that's all communication is, trying to help another person understand you. Show me a curving ocean, buddy. Stop with your theories and on paper shenanigans. I'm not against the scientific method; I'm against blind faith, CGI, and photoshop telling me what my world looks like.

Mathematics isn't a science, you dimwit. The scientific method has nothing to do with mathematics. And there are tons and tons of empirical evidence for gravity. Every time we launch something in space for an example. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

All rights reserved. Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds. Submit a new link. Submit a new text post. Get an ad-free experience with special benefits, and directly support Reddit. Bigoted slurs are not tolerated. Misleading, fabricated or sensationalist headlines are subject to removal. Self posts that lack context or content may be removed. Send a message to conspiracy. Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. Become a Redditor and join one of thousands of communities.

The Theory of Gravity. Lets dissect this theory, shall we? First, I ask for evidence that mass attracts mass. It does not exist. There is no real experiment to prove that mass attracts mass. Thats why it is called the theory of gravity. A microphone will drop because it is more dense than the air around it.

A balloon will float up because it is less dense than the air around it. A rock will sink in water because it is more dense than water. A chunk of wood will float up in water because it is less dense than water. That is measurable, observable and repeatable. That is science. But saying that things fall because there is a force pulling them down to Earth is not provable.

The Cavendish experiment allegedly shows gravitational forces at work. It is basically a rod suspended from a string with weights on either end. Presumably due to gravity. So is gravity really at work? Does this experiment really prove anything? Here is a link to an article explaining the experiment and a quote from the link below "The setup consisted of a torsion balance to attract lead balls together, measuring the torque on a wire and then equating it to the gravitational force between the balls.

Here is a link to a much older video displaying the cavendish and other experiments If this experiment is so easy, why is it that I have only heard about it after my own research?

Experiments aside, I have questions about how science views gravity in general. How does gravity even effect water? Gravity is not holding the universe together.

It is just a lie. Want to add to the discussion? Post a comment! Create an account. You have no idea what a theory even is, so how can you try to explain one? The pressure comes from the force of repulsion between molecules as they collide and jostle against each other. Even air, which seems so rarefied, is an extremely dense crowd of molecules.

At sea level, the average distance between air molecules is only a few billionths of a meter. At the macroscopic level, air pressure is the average effect of many, many of these molecules colliding and jostling. So, layers of water and layers of air transmit pressure in the same way as the stack of books. A climber stands on the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro. Here the air pressure is only about half what it is at sea level.

What keeps the sea level air from rushing up the side of the mountain to equalize the pressure? A balloon will be subjected to an upward buoyancy force equal to the weight of the same volume of the surrounding air.

The gravitational force on the balloon does. If the balloon is filled with helium, which is lighter than air, the buoyancy force will be greater, causing the balloon to rise until the surrounding air is just as rarefied as the helium.

Measure the lifting forces generated by a helium balloon inflated to various sizes. You can do this by using a postal scale to weigh a small weight with the balloon attached. The bigger you inflate the balloon, the lighter the scale will read. The difference in scale reading between the inflated and empty balloon is the lifting force.

This in turn is the force of buoyancy created by external air pressure minus the weight of the added helium gas. One pupil did this experiment and made a graph of the lifting force versus the volume of the balloon. The volume was estimated by measuring the circumference with a tape measure and using the formulas for a sphere to get the volume.

Her points fell on a beautifully straight line with a slope of 1 ounce per cubic foot. This agrees with the theory: the difference in weight between 1 cubic foot of air and 1 cubic foot of helium is close to 1 ounce. Now we can understand the gradual thinning of the atmosphere as we ascend from sea level toward outer space. As we go up, the air becomes less and less dense, so each layer of air weighs less. The pressure and its gradient decrease in the same proportion, maintaining the force balance.

At the top of Kilimanjaro, the pressure and the resulting buoyancy force are half the sea level values, but so is the weight of the air. If you solve the force balance equation, it predicts that the density of the air drops by roughly a factor of two for every 19, feet of ascent. But we get remarkably close! We use the balance of upward and downward forces to predict atmospheric and underwater pressure.

This kind of analysis solves problems in so many different branches of science that it has a name: detailed balance.

We can figure out a lot of stuff about a system by realizing that when it settles into equilibrium, each process must balance the opposite process. So detailed balance helps us understand lasers and transistors and chemical reaction rates and many other things.

Tags: buoyancy , education , gravity , science. John Vanderbank. Wassily Kandinsky. Genevieve Esson.

View All Subjects. Similar Art. Each purchase comes with a day money-back guarantee. Search Type Keyword.

Toggle Mobile Navigation Menu. Greeting Cards Spiral Notebooks. Wall Art. Art Media. Home Decor. Men's Apparel. Women's Apparel. Youth Apparel. Gravity Paintings zero gravity law of gravity gravity bomb low gravity anti-gravity gravity well.

Flat-earthers must deny gravity, at all cost, for their house of cards comes crashing down if they admit that gravity is real. Gravity is indisputable and undeniable. It's a fact. We don't need a PhD in Physics to test it for ourselves. Pick som.

9 thoughts on “The Joy Of Painting - Slackjaw (5) - Buoyancy Vs. Gravity (CD, Album)

  1. View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the CD release of Buoyancy Vs. Gravity on Discogs.
  2. Aug 02,  · Slackjaw - Buoyancy Vs. Gravity - Music Skip to main content Hello, Sign in The Joy of Painting. The Joy of Painting. Listen Now $ 6. Sieve. Sieve. Listen Now $ Buy any of their CD's you can get your hands on -- "The Curvature of the Earth" is the most recent -- or "A Sinking Ship Loves Company". And 5/5(2).
  3. Jan 01,  · Check out Buoyancy Vs. Gravity by Slackjaw on Amazon Music. Stream ad-free or purchase CD's and MP3s now on The Joy of Painting. The Joy of Painting. Listen Now $ In MP3 cart View MP3 Buy any of their CD's you can get your hands on -- "The Curvature of the Earth" is the most recent -- or "A Sinking Ship Loves 5/5(2).
  4. Buoyancy Vs. Gravity, an album by Slackjaw on Spotify. The Joy of Painting. 6. Sieve. 7. Sea and Shore. More by Slackjaw. It's Always Something. Slackjaw. A Sinking Ship Loves Company. Burd Cage Bangers. More Slackjaw. Listen to Buoyancy Vs. Gravity now. Listen to Buoyancy Vs. Gravity in full in the Spotify app.
  5. The Joy of Painting is an American half-hour instructional television show created and hosted by painter Bob Ross which ran from January 11, , to May 17, In each episode, Ross taught techniques for landscape oil painting, completing a painting in each session. The program followed the same format as its predecessor, The Magic of Oil Painting, hosted by Ross's mentor Bill lucbabobfilante.svizokagluricocoveswaytsunucuph.coal network: PBS.
  6. May 04,  · @ Mittelwelle kHz demonstrates buoyancy vs centrifugal force @ Smarter Every Day shows buoyancy vs acceleration @ Kevin Lubick shows buoyancy vs free fall @ Gravity is NOT.
  7. Mar 12,  · The Joy of Painting with Bob Ross Season 1 Playlist:
  8. Dec 23,  · Notice that if the surrounding liquid is water, R(o)/R(l) is the definition of the specific gravity of R(o). Thus, V(s)/V(o) = specific gravity of R(o) if it's floating in water. The qualitative way to interpret this is that the % volume of the object that is submerged is equal to the ratio of the density of the object to the surrounding fluid.
  9. Because gravity is a two way deal. Earth is pulling on the Moon, the Moon is pulling on the Earth. Now it's time for my questions. Let's say for a moment that gravity doesn't actually exist and that the forces we usually attribute to gravity are the result of Density and Buoyancy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *