Gravity, just understood it existed

Come back again when you understand that it doesn't exist.

Here is the best experiment I have seen that actually measures gravity:

https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/sites/sand.npl.washington.edu.eotwash/files/documents/prl85-2869.pdf

If you think gravity doesn't exist, then what is this experiment measuring?  And if that is (probably) too complicated for you, try standing on a scale and see if it measures anything.

Since Albert Einstein, we conceptualise gravity as a bended time-space, but under non relativistic circumstances we can call it a force, because it acts like one.

"Again, no actual forces are ever proportional or vary in strength to each object, it’s completely ridiculous."

Okay, let's do a thought experiment.
Imagine one cube of lead, 1*1*1cm. When you drop it, it accelerates downward by 9.81 m/s². Take another identical cube, it gets accelerated downwards by the same amount. Hold both cubes together, they get accelerated by the same amount. Cast them together. Why should they now accelerate at a different speed? And actually they don't. Gravity does not have to sense the weight of an object before it applies a certain force to it. It just applies the same force to a certain mass and by it accelerates it at the same amount.

Since Albert Einstein, we conceptualise gravity as a bended time-space, but under non relativistic circumstances we can call it a force, because it acts like one.

"Again, no actual forces are ever proportional or vary in strength to each object, it’s completely ridiculous."

Okay, let's do a thought experiment.
Imagine one cube of lead, 1*1*1cm. When you drop it, it accelerates downward by 9.81 m/s². Take another identical cube, it gets accelerated downwards by the same amount. Hold both cubes together, they get accelerated by the same amount. Cast them together. Why should they now accelerate at a different speed? And actually they don't. Gravity does not have to sense the weight of an object before it applies a certain force to it. It just applies the same force to a certain mass and by it accelerates it at the same amount.

The problem here is that the gravitational 'force' on an object is necessarily proportional to its inertial mass. Why should that be? It's easy to see why Einstein (and Newton, I think) was uneasy with this idea.

Quote from: turbonium2 on February 17, 2024, 01:10:17 AM

Your made up force does not make any sense.

Then how does an object of mass accelerate down with no unbalanced forces acting on it?

Let's say I am holding a bowling ball on earth, if the forces are balanced (I am holding it without moving it much), it will stay (roughly) where it is.
If I drop it, the mass of the earth will have a stronger pull than the mass of the ball, so the ball would fall downwards until it hit the ground, and the forces would equalise.

Once it is equalised, it won't move until another force acts upon it.

Why do you always describe things as falling down to Earth, falling down from the air, rather than pulled down to Earth?

If you believe in gravity, you cannot say things fall downward, that is what I say and believe is true.

Those, who know that things DO FALL downward, say things fall to Earth, the correct term, no conflict to say it.

But you can’t use a more conflicting term than ‘fall’ when you believe in gravity, pulling all things down to Earth, even a slip or trip on ground is a pulling down on us, a book dropped of a table is pulled down to Earth.

The word ‘fall’ would not exist or be used at all.

We’d say things are pulled down instead. A trip over a rock would pull us down to the ground. No rainfall. It’d be a rainpull instead. 


Maybe we say things fall, because we know they do fall, not pulled down by a made up force.

If you believe in gravity, you cannot say things fall downward, that is what I say and believe is true.

And I say you are entirely wrong.
If you like, gravity, pulling things towards Earth can make things fall downwards.

There is no conflict at all between saying things fall downwards, and saying gravity is causing it.

You position appears to be so desperate now, you are literally playing semantics.

Pulling things downward by a force within Earth is not a fall, which happens without any external force acting on it, pulling down on it from below.

Nice try anyway

Pulling things downward by a force within Earth is not a fall

Yes it is.
If something is sitting up high, and I pull it down, I make it fall.
Me pulling it doesn't mean it isn't falling.

Again, your position is so completely pathetic, that you know you cannot refute gravity, so you need to resort to pathetic word games.

Without an external force acting, objects don't accelerate, so they couldn't fall.

Pulling things downward by a force within Earth is not a fall, which happens without any external force acting on it, pulling down on it from below.

Nice try anyway

I've seen Stephanie Meyer write a more coherent sentence.

It falls downward without you pulling it down, without any external force acting on it

It falls downward without you pulling it down, without any external force acting on it

Hmm, that's better. But why is the sun floating?

It falls downward without you pulling it down, without any external force acting on it

Again, if there is no external force acting on it, how does it accelerate? It can't.
It needs a force to make it accelerate downwards.

Quote from: SunnyKid on March 18, 2024, 05:28:24 AM

Since Albert Einstein, we conceptualise gravity as a bended time-space, but under non relativistic circumstances we can call it a force, because it acts like one.

"Again, no actual forces are ever proportional or vary in strength to each object, it’s completely ridiculous."

Okay, let's do a thought experiment.
Imagine one cube of lead, 1*1*1cm. When you drop it, it accelerates downward by 9.81 m/s². Take another identical cube, it gets accelerated downwards by the same amount. Hold both cubes together, they get accelerated by the same amount. Cast them together. Why should they now accelerate at a different speed? And actually they don't. Gravity does not have to sense the weight of an object before it applies a certain force to it. It just applies the same force to a certain mass and by it accelerates it at the same amount.

The problem here is that the gravitational 'force' on an object is necessarily proportional to its inertial mass. Why should that be? It's easy to see why Einstein (and Newton, I think) was uneasy with this idea.

Einstein had no issue with the force of gravity being proportional to the masses involved. That's self evident to anyone who has picked up any two objects of different 'weight'.
What bothered Einstein was the action of force at distance with no apparent known mechanism. So he developed general relativity that makes gravity an effect on the space around the two objects and eliminated the need for mystical gravitons.
So far no experiment has found any errors in this theory.

I built the batmobile! 😉

I would further guess, Newton had no issues with it either, given he developed the original theory.
F(1-2) = M1 * M2/R(1-2)^2. Works great, explains our gravitational reality quite accurately.

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 06, 2024, 01:04:01 AM

It falls downward without you pulling it down, without any external force acting on it

Again, if there is no external force acting on it, how does it accelerate? It can't.
It needs a force to make it accelerate downwards.

The object’s mass being greater than that of air makes it fall through air, and it accelerates through air to a maximum speed, which is the same maximum speed for all falling objects.

This is kinetic force, generated by objects in motion, in this case, their falling motion. There is no external force making it fall through air, only wind resistance which acts against its fall through air, and it is both felt and measurable as all real forces are.

Consider your made up pulling force gravity. It supposedly will magically ‘adjust’ in strength to every objects mass, unlike all actual forces do, allowing you to excuse the fact all objects fall at the same rate, at ANY distance from your made up force’s source, another magical feature that no actual forces do.

You need TWO made up forces, the first one fails to explain why objects RISE in air. So you have to make up a second force to cover for the first one crapping out.

This is what happens when you try to twist the reality. It  needs more and more made up crap, and endless excuses for their failing to hold up.

The ONLY difference between objects that fall through air or water, or rise within them, is their relative density, when in proportion to their individual mass - same as saying a 20 ton ship has more mass than water, but less density than water, allowing the ship to float upon water. It has far greater mass, but less density in proportion to its mass and to that of water.

Same reason why objects either fall or rise in air - those with more mass/density than air will fall down within air, while those will less density than air will rise up in air. A submarine sinks down within water if it has more density than it. When its ballast tanks are filled with air, it rises up in water because it is less dense than water.

There are no magical made up forces here. It’s not a miraculous coincidence that objects rise in air or water if less dense than air or water, and fall or sink down in air or water if they have more density than those two mediums.

That is the marking point for objects either rising up or falling through both mediums.

This cannot work with your two made up forces. It is complete nonsense.  It is entirely based on an object’s relative density to the medium they’re within.

So, Turbonium, why does this density difference cause object to always fall down in the same direction? Or float up as the case may be.

The object’s mass being greater than that of air makes it fall through air

No, it doesn't.
That provides no directionality, nor a force to accelerate it.

There is no external force making it fall through air

Again, if there is no external force, there is nothing to make it accelerate, so it remains as is.

it is both felt and measurable as all real forces are.

Just like gravity.

Consider your made up pulling force gravity. It supposedly will magically ‘adjust’ in strength to every objects mass, unlike all actual forces do

No more magical than the wind magically "adjusting" in strength to the area of the object.

You are just repeating the same refuted BS.

Just like wind is proportional to area, gravity is proportional to mass.
Or if you like, just like wind applies across an area, gravity applies across a mass.

Again, real forces are proportional to something.
It doesn't matter what convoluted BS you want to dress that up in.

You need TWO made up forces, the first one fails to explain why objects RISE in air.

Buoyancy is not made up at all.
The pressure gradient is directly measurable.
So what you are really saying here is that not only do you need to reject gravity, a force which behaves like other forces and is directly measurable and verifiable and actually explains why things fall; you need to further outright reject reality to try to save your delusional pile of garbage from being exposed as the complete and utter failure it is.

If you honestly analyse it with gravity, the buoyant is a direct result. It is not something made up in addition.
It is just yet another thing you cannot explain.

This is what happens when you try to twist the reality. It  needs more and more made up crap, and endless excuses for their failing to hold up.

i.e. what you are doing.

Conversely, we can explain it with gravity, and the direct consequences of it, without needing to make up any crap.

This is also transferrable, explaining why centrifuges work, and how orbits work.

There are no magical made up forces here.

Yes, just the real forces of gravity and buoyancy which is a direct result of gravity.

This cannot work with your two made up forces.

Again, I'm not the one making up the forces.
It has been explained to you how it does work.
You didn't even attempt to show a fault with the explanation.
Instead, you just repeated the same pathetic lies.

Why don't you try showing a fault.

Start with a simple one, you have a see-saw.
First, a 1 kg object is placed on one side, causing it to fall down.
Then a 10 kg object is placed on the other.
What does gravity say should happen?

Do you think we need a new magical upwards force to explain why the 1 kg object rises? Or is it just a direct result of gravity being a greater force for the 10 kg object.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 06, 2024, 02:33:46 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 06, 2024, 01:04:01 AM

It falls downward without you pulling it down, without any external force acting on it

Again, if there is no external force acting on it, how does it accelerate? It can't.
It needs a force to make it accelerate downwards.

The object’s mass being greater than that of air makes it fall through air, and it accelerates through air to a maximum speed, which is the same maximum speed for all falling objects.

This is kinetic force, generated by objects in motion, in this case, their falling motion. There is no external force making it fall through air, only wind resistance which acts against its fall through air, and it is both felt and measurable as all real forces are.

Consider your made up pulling force gravity. It supposedly will magically ‘adjust’ in strength to every objects mass, unlike all actual forces do, allowing you to excuse the fact all objects fall at the same rate, at ANY distance from your made up force’s source, another magical feature that no actual forces do.

You need TWO made up forces, the first one fails to explain why objects RISE in air. So you have to make up a second force to cover for the first one crapping out.

This is what happens when you try to twist the reality. It  needs more and more made up crap, and endless excuses for their failing to hold up.

The ONLY difference between objects that fall through air or water, or rise within them, is their relative density, when in proportion to their individual mass - same as saying a 20 ton ship has more mass than water, but less density than water, allowing the ship to float upon water. It has far greater mass, but less density in proportion to its mass and to that of water.

Same reason why objects either fall or rise in air - those with more mass/density than air will fall down within air, while those will less density than air will rise up in air. A submarine sinks down within water if it has more density than it. When its ballast tanks are filled with air, it rises up in water because it is less dense than water.

There are no magical made up forces here. It’s not a miraculous coincidence that objects rise in air or water if less dense than air or water, and fall or sink down in air or water if they have more density than those two mediums.

That is the marking point for objects either rising up or falling through both mediums.

This cannot work with your two made up forces. It is complete nonsense.  It is entirely based on an object’s relative density to the medium they’re within.

But WHY DOES the SUN FLOAT? Answer my question.

The directionality is due to the object being within the air because it was put into the air from the ground, it does not start itself in the air, it has always existed from its creation on the ground, not in the air.

The first directionality acting on the object is an external force putting it up in air, at any angle it is put up into air, it is always upward in direction, not downward or sideways over the ground. You cannot throw it down from the ground into it, only upward into air at any angle of direction, not downward.

It does not need to move in every direction, and it cannot move in every direction.

The Earth stops it from going downward into the ground, being more dense than objects are. Same as why objects fall down from air, being more dense than air. That’s why objects drop straight downward in air, unless in a wind acting on them.

Simple as that.

Gravity cannot ever be measured or proven to exist at all, unlike all actual forces are.

How can you measure gravity with any instruments we have? Show me this great instrument which would measure for your made up force, because you can’t have a made up instrument for it.

Wind is not a proportional force, it is a single force of single strength at any one time and position.

You’re ignoring the fact that a wind is a force over an area of the air. It doesn’t have separate segments over it, which each act independently from the rest of it.

Wind is one single force, and when a larger area of that one wind hits an object, more of this one force is acting on it. The object is changing how much of the force hits it, the wind is not adjusting its strength to those objects, it has one strength of force over an area, it doesn’t matter what object it hits or how much of it hits an object.

When you call it ‘proportional’, you really mean it ‘adjusts’ in its strength in proportion to the objects it acts on, right?

That is what you believe happens with your made up force, no actual force does this at all.

Magnets don’t adjust in strength to heavier objects and apply more strength on them than lighter objects, equalizing how fast they are all pulled in at the same speed!!  That’s absurd.

Again, what you’re actually trying to NOT say is what you really mean here. But you don’t say it because it would sound stupid, because it is stupid.

You’re trying to avoid what you mean here.

There is nothing that is just ‘proportional’. Proportional to WHAT? How is it acting proportionally to something else.

You’re saying that your made up force VARIES in its strength in PROPORTION to what its mass is, so it applies more strength to objects of greater mass and less strength to objects of less mass!!

That’s quite a trick!  So how would objects blocked from another object directly below it work with your absurd force? Where do it’s ‘waves’ eminate from the Earth below them?

If a wave of gravity hits the hidden object from its side, wouldn’t it be pulled off sideways by the wave?  It just happens to work somehow, right?

Actual forces do not, will not, cannot vary in strength to equalize every object it hits, as if they all were the same object.

Wind does not vary in strength to objects. Wind is a single strength of force over an area, it doesn’t adjust in strength to objects of more surface area by applying more force on it. It is more of the area of that one force of wind which will hit objects with more surface area being HIT by that one force of wind than those with less surface area to be hit by that one force of wind.

Thanks for trying, but no go

Gravity cannot ever be measured or proven to exist at all, unlike all actual forces are.

How can you measure gravity with any instruments we have? Show me this great instrument which would measure for your made up force, because you can’t have a made up instrument for it.

Wind is not a proportional force, it is a single force of single strength at any one time and position.

You’re ignoring the fact that a wind is a force over an area of the air. It doesn’t have separate segments over it, which each act independently from the rest of it.

Wind is one single force, and when a larger area of that one wind hits an object, more of this one force is acting on it. The object is changing how much of the force hits it, the wind is not adjusting its strength to those objects, it has one strength of force over an area, it doesn’t matter what object it hits or how much of it hits an object.

When you call it ‘proportional’, you really mean it ‘adjusts’ in its strength in proportion to the objects it acts on, right?

That is what you believe happens with your made up force, no actual force does this at all.

Magnets don’t adjust in strength to heavier objects and apply more strength on them than lighter objects, equalizing how fast they are all pulled in at the same speed!!  That’s absurd.

Again, what you’re actually trying to NOT say is what you really mean here. But you don’t say it because it would sound stupid, because it is stupid.

You’re trying to avoid what you mean here.

There is nothing that is just ‘proportional’. Proportional to WHAT? How is it acting proportionally to something else.

You’re saying that your made up force VARIES in its strength in PROPORTION to what its mass is, so it applies more strength to objects of greater mass and less strength to objects of less mass!!

That’s quite a trick!  So how would objects blocked from another object directly below it work with your absurd force? Where do it’s ‘waves’ eminate from the Earth below them?

If a wave of gravity hits the hidden object from its side, wouldn’t it be pulled off sideways by the wave?  It just happens to work somehow, right?

Actual forces do not, will not, cannot vary in strength to equalize every object it hits, as if they all were the same object.

Wind does not vary in strength to objects. Wind is a single strength of force over an area, it doesn’t adjust in strength to objects of more surface area by applying more force on it. It is more of the area of that one force of wind which will hit objects with more surface area being HIT by that one force of wind than those with less surface area to be hit by that one force of wind.

Thanks for trying, but no go

Then explain, why IN HADE'S NAME IS THE  SUN FLOATING ABOVE THE EARTH?

It’s not floating, it has internal energy like every other heavenly object above Earth. What this energy is, isn’t known, but the Sun is clearly proof of there being some sort of ‘eternal’ energy it must have, everyone here knows this is true, nobody knows what it is or how it works, but we all know it exists.

So you don’t know why the Sun had eternal energy, it exists is all we know about it.

That may be the same energy of stars, etc. They all have some type of internal energy which no Earth object has, but we don’t need it, those objects seem to need it though.

Look at how they all shine out in lights, change shapes so rapidly for some of them, follow along in one group above Earth, while doing all this, and all are unique from the others, in various degrees.  One can identify which star they see without knowing its position in the skies, without any star maps.  I mean those who know and have seen the stars many times, that is. They even ‘sparkle’ differently, see their colours and motion differently from the other stars. That is not from the effects of our atmosphere, nothing else is either

It’s not floating,

Even other flat earthers acknowledge the sun’s orbit over the earth in atmosphere makes it a type of perpetual motion machine in the FE delusion. 

So the sun can orbit the earth in atmosphere and speed up and slow down with no explanation why. 

But you think satellites in orbit around the earth is impossible? 

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 07, 2024, 03:36:53 AM

It’s not floating,

Even other flat earthers acknowledge the sun’s orbit over the earth in atmosphere makes it a type of perpetual motion machine in the FE delusion. 

So the sun can orbit the earth in atmosphere and speed up and slow down with no explanation why. 

But you think satellites in orbit around the earth is impossible?

If the Sun can do all that, it means rockets and probes go into ‘space’ too?

They are not in one big bag of some kind, Each one is based on what we know exists, what must be proven to exist, and so on.

Not all work because we know one that exists but not knowing how or why. Move from there to the rest separately.

It’s not floating, it has internal energy like every other heavenly object above Earth. What this energy is, isn’t known, but the Sun is clearly proof of there being some sort of ‘eternal’ energy it must have, everyone here knows this is true, nobody knows what it is or how it works, but we all know it exists.

So you don’t know why the Sun had eternal energy, it exists is all we know about it.

That may be the same energy of stars, etc. They all have some type of internal energy which no Earth object has, but we don’t need it, those objects seem to need it though.

Look at how they all shine out in lights, change shapes so rapidly for some of them, follow along in one group above Earth, while doing all this, and all are unique from the others, in various degrees.  One can identify which star they see without knowing its position in the skies, without any star maps.  I mean those who know and have seen the stars many times, that is. They even ‘sparkle’ differently, see their colours and motion differently from the other stars. That is not from the effects of our atmosphere, nothing else is either

Ah, so it's not floating! Yes, you are exactly right! Then what is it doing just hanging out there in the sky shining like a limelight instead of just falling down?!

If the Sun can do all that,

You’re using word salad again.

How can the sun stay in “orbit” above a flat earth in the FE delusion.  How can it speed up and slow down.  Change the diameter of its circuit above the earth over a year.  All moving through atmosphere.  How can that be used to give manmade objects the same properties. 

Why not simply take a hot air balloon ride in the flat earth delusion, take a piece of sun.  Put it in a manmade object to give it the same properties as the sun.

The directionality is due to the object being within the air because it was put into the air from the ground, it does not start itself in the air, it has always existed from its creation on the ground, not in the air.

The first directionality acting on the object is an external force putting it up in air, at any angle it is put up into air, it is always upward in direction, not downward or sideways over the ground. You cannot throw it down from the ground into it, only upward into air at any angle of direction, not downward.

It does not need to move in every direction, and it cannot move in every direction.

The Earth stops it from going downward into the ground, being more dense than objects are. Same as why objects fall down from air, being more dense than air. That’s why objects drop straight downward in air, unless in a wind acting on them.

Simple as that.

So in your world all objects "know" what direction to fall because they started off on the ground. Air bubbles know to go up through water. Baseballs know which way to fall.
And this is simpler explanation than a mutual force called Gravity. Ok.
And objects never forget which way to fall?, no exceptions?

The directionality is due to the object being within the air because it was put into the air from the ground

You have had this pure BS refuted countless times.
If it truly was like this delusional BS, then moving it to the right should make it fall to the left.

Lying about it wont help you either.

The Earth stops it from going downward into the ground, being more dense than objects are.

And that lie doesn't work either.
Objects are stopped by solids, even solids which are less dense.

That’s why objects drop straight downward in air, unless in a wind acting on them.

The fact they go down, always accelerating downwards, rather than back the way they came demonstrates there is a downwards force acting on them.

Simple as that.

Gravity cannot ever be measured or proven to exist at all

Except it has been, countless times.
Your wilful rejection of reality doesn't change that.

How can you measure gravity with any instruments we have?

Go look up the Cavendish experiment.

Wind is not a proportional force

You have gone down this path of dishoneset BS before, and had it refuted, and then fled like the lying coward you are.
Bringing it up again is pointless except to further show your dishonesty.

It doesn't matter what delusional BS you want to coat it in, wind is proportional to area.
As I already pointed out, if you want to go down the BS path of "it's not proportional to area, it just acts over an area, the one force acts over a large area giving a large force", then the same can be said for gravity "it just acts over a mass, the one force acts over a large mass giving a large force"

That is just an incredibly dishonest way of saying it is proportional, without admitting it because doing so shatters your fantasy.

When you call it ‘proportional’, you really mean it ‘adjusts’ in its strength in proportion to the objects it acts on, right?

No, I don't.
It means the overall force on the object from that force is proportional to some property of that object.
It does NOT mean the force magically adjusts in strength like you want to pretend.

For wind, there is a certain air velocity, etc, which gives you the strength of the wind. That then applies a force to an object based upon its area.
Likewise, a given gravitational field has a certain strength that then applies a force to an object based upon its mass.

What all the evidence shows happens with gravity, is the same as what happens with other forces, just based upon a different property.

Lying about this to pretend gravity is magically different rather than just being honest for once in your life and admitting that real forces are proportional to a property of the object just further demonstrates your dishonesety.

Magnets don’t adjust in strength to heavier objects

Magnets apply a force based upon a property of the object.
It is more complex than gravity or wind, but it is still not one magically equal force to everything.
You were already provided a video showing that.
Again, lying just further shows your dishonesty.

Again, what you’re actually trying to NOT say is what you really mean here.

No, that is what you are hoping I would say, and what you will just lie to claim I mean it, so you can pretend gravity is magic.

You’re trying to avoid what you mean here.

No, YOU are trying to avoid what I mean here, just like you are with wind.

There is nothing that is just ‘proportional’. Proportional to WHAT?

This depends on the force.
For wind, it is area.
For gravity it is mass.
For electrostatic interactions it is charge.
And so on.

You’re saying that your made up force VARIES in its strength in PROPORTION to what its mass is, so it applies more strength to objects of greater mass and less strength to objects of less mass!!

No, your convoluted BS is saying that.
I am simply saying that the force on an object due to gravity is proportional to its mass.
Just like the force on an object due to the wind is proportional to its area.
You need to flee from this and come up with convoluted BS to pretend the force on an object due to the wind is magically the same, even though it is clearly different.

So how would objects blocked from another object directly below it work with your absurd force?

How does a fridge magnet stick to a fridge through a sheet of paper?
If you take a magnet, and then stick something magnetic to it, how does another magnetic object then stick to it?
How does a wave in an ocean move a boat when it has to pass through another boat first?

Not everything is magically blocked like you want to pretend.

If a wave of gravity hits the hidden object from its side

Just how is it hitting it from the side?

Wind does not vary in strength to objects.

Wind applies a different force to objects based upon their area.
Trying to cover this up with convoluted BS to pretend a force needs to apply the same force to an object just shows how much you are willing to lie to prop up your fantasy.

Thanks for trying, but no go

I would say you are projecting, but you aren't even really trying.
You are just spouting the same refuted BS again and again, while ignoring the refutation.