Ok , hmmm, I will re read again what you put,
Science already knows the magic of gravity
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
Just because they are two different things with two different properties.
In other words: you don't know and you're just making it up.
And ALSO contradicting your own claim: the action of Helium and Hydrogen having an opposite reaction to gravity.
By your logic, if I take an apple and a potato to the top of a building and drop them, they should do different things...
No, you misunderstand, they will will both fall at the same rate, but if you attached the apple to a helium filled balloon, you can either make the apple rise or slow down the fall rate of the apple.
If a person had to jump out of a burning building and had an inflatable balloon that was inflated by helium, it could be critical balanced so they hit the floor without hardly any force.
It is kind of fun to watch you make up such over the top silly stuff. You're a troll but at least you are a fairly humorus troll. I don't think you're as stupid as you pretend.
Wrong.
You claimed that hydrogen and helium don't behave the same because (in your own words) "they are two different things with two different properties".
This also applies to apples and potatoes.
Therefore they WILL fall at different rates (by your "logic").
1) It would depend ENTIRELY on what size the hydrogen balloon was.
2) "Critical balance" as you have been informed many times previously is a made up bullshit term with NO RELEVANCE to science.
If they had a balloon full of helium that could lift them, they would have a balloon roughly... well...
the buoyant force for one m³ of helium in air is: 1 m3 * (1.292 - 0.178) kg/m3 * 9.8 N/kg = 10.9 N
In a "standard" atmosphere, a one cubic foot helium filled balloon would weigh .0115 pounds, and would have a lift capacity (from its buoyancy compared to the air around it) of .0807 pounds. This gives it a total "lift capacity" of .069 pounds per cubic foot.
So, to have a total "lift capacity" of 100 pounds, which would also include the weight of whatever is containing it, you would need 100 / .069 = 1,449 cubic feet of helium... which equates to a balloon of roughly 15.5 feet in diameter... alternatively, using 1 foot diameter balloons (your average party balloon), which hold about half cubic foot of gas, you would need around 2750 of them.
The problem is, if you buy a balloon from a store, it is only about 93-97% helium... a small amount, for sure, but it has a fairly drastic effect on its overall buoyancy.
After a year or so interacting with him, on here and the forum he was banned from, I disagree: he IS that stupid and B) he's not pretending.
Science has new terms all the time.
You completely miss the point, if you had to hang onto a large helium balloon you would start to rise with the balloon, you can clearly feel gravity wants to pull you down, but you can also feel that the balloon is using force to lift you up, a force opposed to gravity.
Again... no, no you wouldn't. You wouldn't feel anything lifting you up unless you had an enormous balloon...
And yes, science comes up with new terms (or new combinations of terms) as needed... but "critical balance" is nonsensical bullshit...
So what?
"Critical balance" isn't a scientific term.
Like I said: it depends ENTIRELY on the size of the balloon.
Only in a trivial sense.
So, any retraction on your bullshit about the action of Helium and Hydrogen having an opposite reaction to gravity?
Did you go back and read the example I gave?
I do know it would be a rather large balloon, it was just hypothetically speaking. But thanks for the information.
Critical balancing is not nonsensical , any good carp angler will tell you this. It may be nonsensical in present terms, but it is a science of weight distribution and finding a critical balance.
One example.
Second example so you understand
That does not demonstrate anything resembling balance... nor being critical in any fashion.
What I see is something finding the right combination of buoyancy and drag... one could say a "balance" between buoyancy and drag... but that doesn't make "critical balance" a term that means anything.
What I see is something finding the right combination of buoyancy and drag... one could say a "balance" between buoyancy and drag... but that doesn't make "critical balance" a term that means anything.
I have not got a video of where we can critically balance a bait on the surface, or show you two different descent rates,
The idea is we have a sinker and add a floater to the sinker to balance the rate of falling, I can make a bait sink at almost no speed. I critically balance a suspender rig.
Attachments
Crap.
If it balanced "the rate of falling" then there'd be NO FALLING at all.
In other words it simply offsets some of the weight.
That STILL doesn't make it a scientific term, or of any use as a scientific term.
Again, that is balancing buoyancy against mass... "critical balance" is not a term, at least not in what you are describing.
I did a little digging... apparently, we are wrong: Critical Balance IS a term:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3488
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~kun...ng and stratified turbulence/Schekochihin.pdf