The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: LittlePineapple on April 16, 2025, 11:17:24 AM
-
if not gravity, what keeps us on the ground
-
if not gravity, what keeps us on the ground
There are three answers to this. Maybe more, but:
1. Some flat-earthers say that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards and the acceleration is what we perceive as gravity. Never mind that if this were the case, we'd see the stars rushing past us at breathtaking speed.
2. Another answer to this is that all objects move toward the center of the universe, because it is in their nature. This doesn't actually answer the question, but it's something they can say.
3. And of course if we leave flat-earth aside, another explanation for what keeps us on the ground is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is constantly pressing down on us with his noodly appendages. This is the explanation I like best. Unless, of course, we follow Newton or Einstein.
-
Our greater mass than air keeps us on Earths surface, simple as that.
Why do you think we need to be held down to the surface? Our mass does that for us.
-
No, our weight is what keeps us on the ground. Without gravity, mass would not know which way is down.
-
No, our weight is what keeps us on the ground. Without gravity, mass would not know which way is down.
This is correct. Density, or mass, needs something to act on it. Gravity is the force that acts on mass to pull things in the direction of the force field. When a less-dense object is immersed in a more dense fluid, the less-dense object rises because gravity is pulling harder on the more-dense fluid.
"Up" and "down" are defined by the direction of pull of gravity. Without gravity there is no up or down.
-
Our greater mass than air keeps us on Earths surface, simple as that.
Not as simple as that.
This provide absolutely no basis for any directionality nor any reason to move at all.
It provides no reason for the rate of acceleration or the force felt on a scale, nor why this varies over Earth's surface.
It provides no reason for the pressure gradient and no reason for the why the pressure gradient doesn't push us up.
A simple similar example is standing on a trampoline.
The springs are all stretched out and providing a force pushing us up.
In order to not go up, we need a force trying to make us go down.
If you are saying our mass does this, then you are saying there is a force proportional to mass pulling us down, i.e. gravity.
-
All things are on Earths surface, ground or waters of Earth.
There is nothing directional about all things being on the surface of Esrth, except for the heavenly objects above Earth.
If we jump into a lake, we change where we originate from, on ground. We sink down in the lake because we’re denser than water. That’s it.
We cannot rise up into air above us being denser than air. If we climb a mountain and fall off of it into air, or roll down the mountain side we are still going down through air.
That’s the basis for our directionality in other mediums than ours on ground.
If you can assume all things were created and put on Earths surface, all things are denser than the air above all things on ground.
Why would there be any need for some sort of force to pull things down when all things are already on the ground! Our density keeps things on the ground, no holding down force needed
-
Why would there be any need for some sort of force to pull things down when all things are already on the ground! Our density keeps things on the ground, no holding down force needed
If there is no force keeping things on the ground, then why do you need a force to lift things off of the ground?
-
All things are on Earths surface, ground or waters of Earth.
Except when they are not.
Do you mean they "started" there?
If so, you have had your origin BS refuted countless times.
Things do not magically return to their origin. They fall down.
There is nothing directional about all things being on the surface of Esrth
But there is about things falling down.
Something you can't explain.
We sink down in the lake because we’re denser than water. That’s it.
That isn't it, as density does not explain why something should sink.
Why should being denser than water make you go down?
Why not up?
Why not sideways?
Why would it make you move at all?
More importantly, how does this magically create a pressure gradient?
Why doesn't this pressure gradient push things up?
If you can assume all things were created and put on Earths surface
I have absolutely no reason to do that, and that in no way helps explain it.
Why would there be any need for some sort of force to pull things down when all things are already on the ground!
They aren't. Plenty of things are in the air.
What is making them go back down?
Our density keeps things on the ground, no holding down force needed
Except as repeatedly explained, density doesn't explain it.
Why should dense things go down?
All the available evidence shows that in order to accelerate an object a force is needed.
Why should going down be different?
Especially as this force is measurable on a scale?
-
Inertia.
-
Inertia.
If the only thing keeping us on the ground were inertia, then every time you jump up, you'd keep going up and up and up and never come down.
-
Inertia.
If the only thing keeping us on the ground were inertia, then every time you jump up, you'd keep going up and up and up and never come down.
Let's say I'm in an elevator in the middle of space far away from any gravity. No windows. The elevator is accelerating upwards. What is holding me to the floor? My inertia countering the elevator rising.
Likewise for me and the ground.
-
Let's say I'm in an elevator in the middle of space far away from any gravity. No windows. The elevator is accelerating upwards. What is holding me to the floor? My inertia countering the elevator rising.
No. The normal force of elevator's floor counters the force of your weight due to the elevator's acceleration. Come now, you're supposed to be better than this.
-
Let's say I'm in an elevator in the middle of space far away from any gravity. No windows. The elevator is accelerating upwards. What is holding me to the floor? My inertia countering the elevator rising.
No. The normal force of elevator's floor counters the force of your weight due to the elevator's acceleration. Come now, you're supposed to be better than this.
The force of my weight? What do you mean by that, because that sounds like inertia with extra steps.
-
Everything has always existed on Earths surface - ground and waters of Earth. Our greater mass is what keeps us on the Earths surfaces, the air above us is less dense than all things on Earth, but we can create things less dense than air, and they rise up in air, being less dense than air.
A made up force would hold all things to the surface, being less dense than air wouldn’t matter.
Your made up force doesn’t make any sense, nor should it, being made up fiction.
Why would you think things shouldn’t fall through air? It’s less dense than all things, which must be put upward into air from the surface, they originate on the surface, created to be on the surface of Earth.
They have no directionality until put upward into air by an external force, so why would they always go upward from Earth? Because things are on the surface, always existed on the surface of Earth, ground or waters.
Where do you ever see things floating in air or space? You seem to believe all things would float around in air or space without a force pulling them all down to Earth!!
You’ve got no basis at all for thinking things float around in space, without any directionality.
We cannot prove things always have existed on the Earths surface, or not, since we didn’t exist as yet, but we know all things have always been on Earth since day one, and ever since then, and always will in future, so the evidence strongly suggests things have always been on Earth since day one.
There’s no need for some great pulling down and holding down force to exist, it’s made up bs.
Look at all actual forces - every one proven to exist, demonstrated to exist, behaves like all other actual forces do, and are entirely consistent in their actions.
You need to make up a force for your ball Earth speeding and spinning around in endless space, but it’s crap, and will never work out
-
Let's say I'm in an elevator in the middle of space far away from any gravity. No windows. The elevator is accelerating upwards. What is holding me to the floor? My inertia countering the elevator rising.
No. The normal force of elevator's floor counters the force of your weight due to the elevator's acceleration. Come now, you're supposed to be better than this.
The force of my weight? What do you mean by that, because that sounds like inertia with extra steps.
Force = mass * acceleration. Weight = mass * gravitational acceleration. Weight is a force.
-
Inertia.
If the only thing keeping us on the ground were inertia, then every time you jump up, you'd keep going up and up and up and never come down.
Let's say I'm in an elevator in the middle of space far away from any gravity. No windows. The elevator is accelerating upwards. What is holding me to the floor? My inertia countering the elevator rising.
Likewise for me and the ground.
Gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. In your "elevator" the elevator's acceleration keeps you on the floor. On the Earth, the Earth's gravity acting upon your mass is what keeps you on the ground. A 300-pound sumo wrestler and a pea are both held to the floor of the elevator, or the ground on Earth. You need acceleration or gravity for either to be held down.
Inertia is just the name we give to the tendency for things in motion to stay in motion unless a force acts upon them, and for things at rest to remain at rest unless a force acts upon them.
So there are only three possible ways people and objects remain on the ground:
1. Gravity.
2. If the surface of the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards. That is, moving upwards at a constantly increasing speed. This is preposterous because very shortly after the creation of the Earth, it would be moving upwards at nearly the speed of light. Or for those that reject the speed of light, it would be moving upwards by now at an incomprehensible speed. This is just absurd.
3. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is constantly pressing down on us with His noodly appendages. I like this explanation best, but that does not make it right.
Everything has always existed on Earths surface - ground and waters of Earth. Our greater mass is what keeps us on the Earths surfaces, the air above us is less dense than all things on Earth, but we can create things less dense than air, and they rise up in air, being less dense than air. ...
You are describing buoyancy: The tendency of a less dense object to float upon a more dense fluid, such as water or air. Or negative buoyancy: the tendency of a more dense object to sink in a less-dense fluid, such as water or air.
Buoyancy and negative buoyancy only exist because gravity exerts a force on an object that is proportional to the object's mass. it is the differential pull of gravity against an object, vs its pull on the same volume of the fluid the object is in, that causes the object to rise or sink. Mass does nothing unless a force acts upon it.
-
2. If the surface of the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards. That is, moving upwards at a constantly increasing speed. This is preposterous because very shortly after the creation of the Earth, it would be moving upwards at nearly the speed of light.
Out of curiosity, how long do you think it would take for it to reach the speed of light?
Also why are you presenting a false dichotomy?
-
2. If the surface of the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards. That is, moving upwards at a constantly increasing speed. This is preposterous because very shortly after the creation of the Earth, it would be moving upwards at nearly the speed of light.
Out of curiosity, how long do you think it would take for it to reach the speed of light?
Also why are you presenting a false dichotomy?
It never reaches the speed of light, but it would be traveling through space at just under the speed of light. And due to the dilation of time and space, we would have reached the furthest galaxies in the universe long ago. It would overtake the stars and we would see them whizzing past us as if they were going the other way at the same speed. We do not see this. Therefore it is not happening. We are not accelerating. We are merely in a gravitational field.
Or to state it another way: You cannot accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec forever. If you think you can, then you profoundly misunderstand physics. You say you do not deny science, but you make claims which are incompatible with science. Where would the energy come from to accelerate the entire Earth forever? It takes energy to accelerate mass. There is no possible source of energy for what you are proposing. Especially if you adhere to the version of FET that claims the flat Earth is infinite.
What do you think is a false dichotomy? Those are the only explanations for what we perceive as gravity: Either actual gravity, or unending acceleration.
(Obviously, the bit about the FSM was a joke.)
-
Everything has always existed on Earths surface
That is your baseless assertion you cannot justify, which in no way addresses what is asked.
We have been over this countless times.
Things do not magically return to their point of origin.
If they did, I could pick something up and move it up and to the right and release it and it would down and to the left.
It does not.
You also can't appeal to a surface, because I can break something off a cliff or an overhang and release it and instead of going back to the surface I broke it off from, it falls down.
You even contradict this when you say we can create things less dense and they go up.
This shows the origin is entirely irrelevant. So stop bringing it up. It just shows your dishonesty.
Our greater mass is what keeps us on the Earths surfaces, the air above us is less dense than all things on Earth, but we can create things less dense than air, and they rise up in air, being less dense than air.
Firstly, try to stay consistent between mass vs density. If you want to appeal to density, say density.
More importantly, except as repeatedly explained, density provides no reason for things to accelerate.
Even more importantly, it entirely fails to address the pressure gradient observed in fluids.
A made up force would hold all things to the surface, being less dense than air wouldn’t matter.
Wrong again.
You have buoyancy explained as a direct result of gravity.
It is like 2 kids on a see-saw.
The lighter kid hops on first and the see-saw goes down. Then the heavier kid hops on the other side.
According to your BS the lighter kid should magically stay down.
But according to any sane individual, the heavier kid having a greater downwards force will cause the see-saw to rotate lifting the lighter kid in the process.
e.g. say you have a steel ball, a cork ball, and water.
You can't have all three go down and occupy the same space.
The greater force on the steel ball will push the water out of the way. The lesser force on the cork ball will allow the water to push it out of the way.
Or for the more technical route, you can consider each layer of water. In this layer it is being pulled down by its own weight, and it is pushed down by the weight of the water above. This means the total force pushing down on the next layer below is greater than the force of the layer above pushing down.
This creates a pressure gradient with the pressure increasing the further down you go.
This means any object immersed in this fluid will have a greater pressure below pushing it up than from above pushing down.
This results in an upwards force on the object from this pressure gradient.
If this upwards force is greater than the downwards force due to gravity, it will push the object up.
So contrary to your blatant lies, gravity makes sense; your BS does not.
Why would you think things shouldn’t fall through air?
Notice how you shift the question.
Instead of even attempting to explain why you just want us to say why not?
How about the fact that there is pressure gradient in the atmosphere, with a greater pressure the lower down you are.
That means the air pressure below the object is pushing up with a greater force than the air above pushing down.
That means the air is pushing the object up, so the object should go up.
More importantly, if we ignore objects falling due to gravity and rising due to buoyancy due to gravity, then every instance we have ever seen of an object accelerating requires a force.
Why should objects falling or rising be any different?
Why should they magically accelerate without a force?
And going even further, how does this magical acceleration without a force impart a force onto things like scales to produce measurable results?
All the evidence shows we need a force. The question is only what is that force.
You have already had your origin BS refuted countless times. Again, stop bringing it up. It shows you are a lying POS with no integrity at all that doesn't give a damn about the truth.
Where do you ever see things floating in air or space?
Where do we ever see things outside the gravitational influence of Earth?
You seem to believe all things would float around in air or space without a force pulling them all down to Earth!!
Yes, because that is what all evidence shows.
All the evidence shows that if you want to accelerate something you need a force.
So without a force there is no acceleration and no reason for it to go down.
You’ve got no basis at all for thinking things float around in space, without any directionality.
Again, you shift how it should work.
YOU have no basis for any directionality nor why objects should accelerate at all.
You are the one who needs to provide this basis.
And so far everything you have tried has utterly failed.
Look at all actual forces - every one proven to exist, demonstrated to exist, behaves like all other actual forces do, and are entirely consistent in their actions.
Like gravity. Something you are yet to show any fault with and yet to provide a viable alterative.
You need to make up a force for your ball Earth speeding and spinning around in endless space
Except if your delusional BS actually worked, it would work just as well for a round Earth. In fact it can work better, because you can average the surface to the point at the centre of Earth and remove some problems.
-
2. If the surface of the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards. That is, moving upwards at a constantly increasing speed. This is preposterous because very shortly after the creation of the Earth, it would be moving upwards at nearly the speed of light.
Out of curiosity, how long do you think it would take for it to reach the speed of light?
Also why are you presenting a false dichotomy?
It never reaches the speed of light, but it would be traveling through space at just under the speed of light. And due to the dilation of time and space, we would have reached the furthest galaxies in the universe long ago. It would overtake the stars and we would see them whizzing past us as if they were going the other way at the same speed. We do not see this. Therefore it is not happening. We are not accelerating. We are merely in a gravitational field.
Or to state it another way: You cannot accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec forever. If you think you can, then you profoundly misunderstand physics. You say you do not deny science, but you make claims which are incompatible with science. Where would the energy come from to accelerate the entire Earth forever? It takes energy to accelerate mass. There is no possible source of energy for what you are proposing. Especially if you adhere to the version of FET that claims the flat Earth is infinite.
What do you think is a false dichotomy? Those are the only explanations for what we perceive as gravity: Either actual gravity, or unending acceleration.
(Obviously, the bit about the FSM was a joke.)
Or relativistic gravity. Which says you are being held to the surface due to inertia. Like I said. Or a million other explanations.
All these problems you bring up are all solved problems with the particular model that purports the earth is accelerating upwards. You also say puzzling things like "you make claims which are incompatible with science" which is one of the primary purposes of non-normal science, one of the historically most useful parts of science.
You thinking those are the only explanations possible just goes to show you haven't thought about the matter much critically.
-
2. If the surface of the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards. That is, moving upwards at a constantly increasing speed. This is preposterous because very shortly after the creation of the Earth, it would be moving upwards at nearly the speed of light.
Out of curiosity, how long do you think it would take for it to reach the speed of light?
Also why are you presenting a false dichotomy?
It never reaches the speed of light, but it would be traveling through space at just under the speed of light. And due to the dilation of time and space, we would have reached the furthest galaxies in the universe long ago. It would overtake the stars and we would see them whizzing past us as if they were going the other way at the same speed. We do not see this. Therefore it is not happening. We are not accelerating. We are merely in a gravitational field.
Or to state it another way: You cannot accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec forever. If you think you can, then you profoundly misunderstand physics. You say you do not deny science, but you make claims which are incompatible with science. Where would the energy come from to accelerate the entire Earth forever? It takes energy to accelerate mass. There is no possible source of energy for what you are proposing. Especially if you adhere to the version of FET that claims the flat Earth is infinite.
What do you think is a false dichotomy? Those are the only explanations for what we perceive as gravity: Either actual gravity, or unending acceleration.
(Obviously, the bit about the FSM was a joke.)
Or relativistic gravity. Which says you are being held to the surface due to inertia. Like I said. Or a million other explanations.
All these problems you bring up are all solved problems with the particular model that purports the earth is accelerating upwards. You also say puzzling things like "you make claims which are incompatible with science" which is one of the primary purposes of non-normal science, one of the historically most useful parts of science.
You thinking those are the only explanations possible just goes to show you haven't thought about the matter much critically.
You do understand what acceleration is, don't you? It is a change in speed or direction. If the Earth were constantly accelerating upward its speed would increase without end, and it would soon be traveling at near the speed of light and would cross the entire universe in an eyeblink. This is just absurd. You cannot increase speed forever.
The only way acceleration can continue forever is by orbiting IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.
Inertia is not a force holding us down. Inertia is just a word for Newton's first law of motion: An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by a force, and an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by a force. If inertia were all that was keeping us on the ground, then when you jump up you'd continue to go up. The reason you don't continue to go up is GRAVITY pulling you back toward the center of mass of the Earth.
Lastly, you propose that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards. Where does the energy for this acceleration come from?
-
You do understand what acceleration is, don't you? It is a change in speed or direction. If the Earth were constantly accelerating upward its speed would increase without end, and it would soon be traveling at near the speed of light and would cross the entire universe in an eyeblink. This is just absurd. You cannot increase speed forever.
The only way acceleration can continue forever is by orbiting IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.
Inertia is not a force holding us down. Inertia is just a word for Newton's first law of motion: An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by a force, and an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by a force. If inertia were all that was keeping us on the ground, then when you jump up you'd continue to go up. The reason you don't continue to go up is GRAVITY pulling you back toward the center of mass of the Earth.
Lastly, you propose that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards. Where does the energy for this acceleration come from?
You do understand they are appealing to an interpretation of general relativity, where an object in free fall is considered to be in an inertial frame of reference, and Earth is round the surface is accelerating outwards in curved spacetime?
-
You do understand what acceleration is, don't you? It is a change in speed or direction. If the Earth were constantly accelerating upward its speed would increase without end, and it would soon be traveling at near the speed of light and would cross the entire universe in an eyeblink. This is just absurd. You cannot increase speed forever.
The only way acceleration can continue forever is by orbiting IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.
Inertia is not a force holding us down. Inertia is just a word for Newton's first law of motion: An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by a force, and an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by a force. If inertia were all that was keeping us on the ground, then when you jump up you'd continue to go up. The reason you don't continue to go up is GRAVITY pulling you back toward the center of mass of the Earth.
Lastly, you propose that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards. Where does the energy for this acceleration come from?
You do understand they are appealing to an interpretation of general relativity, where an object in free fall is considered to be in an inertial frame of reference, and Earth is round the surface is accelerating outwards in curved spacetime?
Wait a minute! Are you saying that flat-earthers say the Earth is round and accelerating outwards, i.e. expanding at an ever-increasing rate? If that's the case, how is it "FLAT"?
I do understand that flat-earthers claim that everybody who has ever been in Earth orbit is lying about it, that the Apollo astronauts all lied about it, everybody who's ever been to an Antarctic research station is lying, everybody who's ever gone to Antarctica on an adventure education is lying, the whole world of professional and amateur astronomers are lying, and all the managers and workers at NASA, Roscosmos, and the Chinese space agency are lying. Also that all the engineers and technicians at all the companies and government agencies that operate weather and communications satellites are lying.
But I admit that I an flummoxed by what they believe about the Earth, because there seem to be several, if not many, entirely different and contradictory versions of flat-earth. Is the Earth an infinite plane? Is it a disk? How thick is it? What is underneath it? Or does it go on down infinitely? If it's infinitely thick and accelerating upwards, how is that possible? If it's a disk accelerating upwards, would we be left behind if we managed to get past the NASA penguins and got over the ice wall and fell off the edge? Are the sun and Moon lamps on tracks or holograms projected on an overhead screen of some sort?
At least Terry Prachett explained clearly and concisely how his Discworld worked. Flat disc, four elephants, one turtle, ocean water flowing off the edge all around.
(The joking way they talk about the NASA penguins is just one reason I think most of them are just in it for giggles and don't actually believe any of it.)
-
Wait a minute! Are you saying that flat-earthers say the Earth is round and accelerating outwards, i.e. expanding at an ever-increasing rate? If that's the case, how is it "FLAT"?
Not most, just this particular one.
They are appealing to a particular interpretation of GR to appeal to non-Euclidean space time, to try saying the surface of Earth is "flat" in the curved space-time.
It isn't flat by any stretch of the imagination, but that is the game they are appealing to.
Likewise, they are appealing to the same game when they are saying Earth is accelerating upwards, that in general relativity you can interpret it as free fall being an inertial reference frame and Earth is accelerating outwards through curved space time, and our "inertia" which is really just gravity is keeping us on the surface of Earth.
Their "flat" earth model, is the round Earth model with gravity holding us on Earth's surface, with some semantic BS thrown in to try to redefine things.
So they aren't saying people are lying, just "mistaken".
But I admit that I an flummoxed by what they believe about the Earth, because there seem to be several, if not many, entirely different and contradictory versions of flat-earth. Is the Earth an infinite plane? Is it a disk? How thick is it? What is underneath it? Or does it go on down infinitely? If it's infinitely thick and accelerating upwards, how is that possible? If it's a disk accelerating upwards, would we be left behind if we managed to get past the NASA penguins and got over the ice wall and fell off the edge? Are the sun and Moon lamps on tracks or holograms projected on an overhead screen of some sort?
And that is because Earth isn't flat and you need wildly different ideas to address different points, and in order to do so, you contradict other points.
So you end up with a bunch of contradictory models.
And they like keeping them ill defined, so they can pretend they can work and adjust as needed to pretend they do.
-
Everything has always existed on Earths surface
That is your baseless assertion you cannot justify, which in no way addresses what is asked.
We have been over this countless times.
Things do not magically return to their point of origin.
If they did, I could pick something up and move it up and to the right and release it and it would down and to the left.
It does not.
You also can't appeal to a surface, because I can break something off a cliff or an overhang and release it and instead of going back to the surface I broke it off from, it falls down.
You even contradict this when you say we can create things less dense and they go up.
This shows the origin is entirely irrelevant. So stop bringing it up. It just shows your dishonesty.
Our greater mass is what keeps us on the Earths surfaces, the air above us is less dense than all things on Earth, but we can create things less dense than air, and they rise up in air, being less dense than air.
Firstly, try to stay consistent between mass vs density. If you want to appeal to density, say density.
More importantly, except as repeatedly explained, density provides no reason for things to accelerate.
Even more importantly, it entirely fails to address the pressure gradient observed in fluids.
A made up force would hold all things to the surface, being less dense than air wouldn’t matter.
Wrong again.
You have buoyancy explained as a direct result of gravity.
It is like 2 kids on a see-saw.
The lighter kid hops on first and the see-saw goes down. Then the heavier kid hops on the other side.
According to your BS the lighter kid should magically stay down.
But according to any sane individual, the heavier kid having a greater downwards force will cause the see-saw to rotate lifting the lighter kid in the process.
e.g. say you have a steel ball, a cork ball, and water.
You can't have all three go down and occupy the same space.
The greater force on the steel ball will push the water out of the way. The lesser force on the cork ball will allow the water to push it out of the way.
Or for the more technical route, you can consider each layer of water. In this layer it is being pulled down by its own weight, and it is pushed down by the weight of the water above. This means the total force pushing down on the next layer below is greater than the force of the layer above pushing down.
This creates a pressure gradient with the pressure increasing the further down you go.
This means any object immersed in this fluid will have a greater pressure below pushing it up than from above pushing down.
This results in an upwards force on the object from this pressure gradient.
If this upwards force is greater than the downwards force due to gravity, it will push the object up.
So contrary to your blatant lies, gravity makes sense; your BS does not.
Why would you think things shouldn’t fall through air?
Notice how you shift the question.
Instead of even attempting to explain why you just want us to say why not?
How about the fact that there is pressure gradient in the atmosphere, with a greater pressure the lower down you are.
That means the air pressure below the object is pushing up with a greater force than the air above pushing down.
That means the air is pushing the object up, so the object should go up.
More importantly, if we ignore objects falling due to gravity and rising due to buoyancy due to gravity, then every instance we have ever seen of an object accelerating requires a force.
Why should objects falling or rising be any different?
Why should they magically accelerate without a force?
And going even further, how does this magical acceleration without a force impart a force onto things like scales to produce measurable results?
All the evidence shows we need a force. The question is only what is that force.
You have already had your origin BS refuted countless times. Again, stop bringing it up. It shows you are a lying POS with no integrity at all that doesn't give a damn about the truth.
Where do you ever see things floating in air or space?
Where do we ever see things outside the gravitational influence of Earth?
You seem to believe all things would float around in air or space without a force pulling them all down to Earth!!
Yes, because that is what all evidence shows.
All the evidence shows that if you want to accelerate something you need a force.
So without a force there is no acceleration and no reason for it to go down.
You’ve got no basis at all for thinking things float around in space, without any directionality.
Again, you shift how it should work.
YOU have no basis for any directionality nor why objects should accelerate at all.
You are the one who needs to provide this basis.
And so far everything you have tried has utterly failed.
Look at all actual forces - every one proven to exist, demonstrated to exist, behaves like all other actual forces do, and are entirely consistent in their actions.
Like gravity. Something you are yet to show any fault with and yet to provide a viable alterative.
You need to make up a force for your ball Earth speeding and spinning around in endless space
Except if your delusional BS actually worked, it would work just as well for a round Earth. In fact it can work better, because you can average the surface to the point at the centre of Earth and remove some problems.
All objects exist on Earth, and always have, other than the heavenly bodies above Earth, which have always existed above Earth.
That’s what the evidence shows, and no evidence shows otherwise.
A force is needed to put objects upward into air, they don’t go up into air unless by an external force acting on them.
That’s what changes their point of origin, a greater mass of objects put upward into a less dense medium, air.
It’s entirely due to greater mass that makes them stay on Earth, in the first place.
A force isn’t required to have all objects on Earth, their greater mass than air holds everything to the surface.
Objects on ground will sink in water, being more dense than water. They don’t rise up into air from ground being more dense than air.
A submarine sinks down in water when more dense than it, and rises up in water when less dense than it. The relative density of sub to water is the deciding factor.
A helium filled balloon rises up in air being less dense than air, and falls down through air when losing helium and becomes denser than air again.
-
A force isn’t required to have all objects on Earth, their greater mass than air holds everything to the surface.
Then why is a force required to lift an object off the surface of the earth if there is no force holding it down to overcome? That is unless you think that mass is a force.
-
All objects exist on Earth
Repeating the same baseless claims, based upon a wilful rejection of evidence does not help you.
A force is needed to put objects upward into air, they don’t go up into air unless by an external force acting on them.
Again, you have had this pathetic BS of yours refuted countless times.
A force is needed to put an object upwards and to the right, but it doesn't fall down and to the left. Instead, it falls down.
You can use a force to pry an object off a cliff face, but it doesn't fall back to the cliff face, instead it falls down.
You can use a force to pry an object downwards from an overhand, and it doesn't fall back up to the overhang, it falls down.
It clearly does not matter at all in what direction a force moved an object.
It doesn't magically cause it to go back to where it came from.
So that complete absence of reason from you is quite clearly pure BS.
The origin of something does not determine what way it goes.
It’s entirely due to greater mass that makes them stay on Earth, in the first place.
No, it doesn't, as that provides absolutely no reason for them to stay on Earth.
A force isn’t required to have all objects on Earth
To have them just sit there on a perfectly motionless Earth with no atmosphere, no.
But if you move them a force is required to accelerate them down.
And a force is clearly there, measurable by a scale where a spring is compressed by that force to produce a measurable reading.
If there was no force it would simply sit on top of the scale without compressing the spring at all and without producing a reading of its weight.
Likewise, there is also a measurable pressure gradient in the atmosphere. If the object has air beneath it (such a table, or something hanging from a string) you then have the problem of that greater air pressure below pushing the object up.
That means it needs a downwards force to counter the upwards force from the air.
All the evidence shows there is a force.
Objects on ground will sink in water, being more dense than water.
Again, density provides no reason.
There is no directionality to it.
And again, this doesn't help with the pressure gradient.
Consider an object of density equal to the surroundings. e.g. something with the same density as water.
Your density should do nothing.
So the only thing acting on it is the pressure gradient which should then push it up.
This pressure gradient kills your delusional BS, so it isn't a surprise that you keep ignoring it at all costs.
Try to address the pressure gradient for once in your life.
-
Everything was created to exist on Earths surface, ground or water of Earths surface.
The entire surface is where all things exist, always have existed. Not at a single point on the surface, the whole surface itself is our place of origin.
We walk over the surface, not stay at one point on the surface our whole lives, that’s stupid!
-
Everything was created
Spamming the same delusional BS will not help you.
Things do not return to the point of origin.
They go down.
Origin will not help you, no matter how many times you spam the same pathetic BS.
We walk over the surface, not stay at one point on the surface our whole lives, that’s stupid!
Yes, your claims are stupid.
We do not fall back to a point of origin.
And nor do we fall back to the surface.
As already explained, if you have a cliff and break a rock off it, that rock doesn't fall back to the surface of the cliff, it falls down.
It entirely ignores the fact that the surface is right beside it and instead falls down.
If you have an overhang, you can break something off the bottom, and it falls down, directly away from the surface it was broken off from.
And you can't try to average it over the entire Earth because that would mean everything should fall towards the north pole in your fantasy, not down.
But you can for a RE, and get everything falling to roughly the centre of Earth.
Again, your BS doesn't work.
Things do not fall towards their origin, nor do they magically fall to the surface of Earth. They fall down.
And you have no explanation for this at all.
And like I had said, even if your BS did work for that, it in no way explains the pressure gradient, nor the fact that we can measure a force trying to push things down, with that force reducing due to buoyancy.
Your BS simply doesn't work at all.
You need a downwards force proportional to mass.
You can reject it being based on gravity, but you need that force. That is the only way to make things work.
And that force needs to vary over Earth.
-
Let's say I'm in an elevator in the middle of space far away from any gravity. No windows. The elevator is accelerating upwards. What is holding me to the floor? My inertia countering the elevator rising.
No. The normal force of elevator's floor counters the force of your weight due to the elevator's acceleration. Come now, you're supposed to be better than this.
The force of my weight? What do you mean by that, because that sounds like inertia with extra steps.
Force = mass * acceleration. Weight = mass * gravitational acceleration. Weight is a force.
Weight is a force? It seems like its just the tendency of things to follow their natural trajectory.
-
Let's say I'm in an elevator in the middle of space far away from any gravity. No windows. The elevator is accelerating upwards. What is holding me to the floor? My inertia countering the elevator rising.
No. The normal force of elevator's floor counters the force of your weight due to the elevator's acceleration. Come now, you're supposed to be better than this.
The force of my weight? What do you mean by that, because that sounds like inertia with extra steps.
Force = mass * acceleration. Weight = mass * gravitational acceleration. Weight is a force.
Weight is a force? It seems like its just the tendency of things to follow their natural trajectory.
Yes, weight is a force. You’re thinking of gravitation, which is not a force.
-
As opposed to us floating around in ‘space’?
You mean that everything on Earth was first created to float around in ‘space’ without a great force within a ball Earth that pulled everything from space that was floating around in it, until close enough to the ball Earth, and a force pulled them all down to Earths surface?
That’s what you assume existed first? As opposed to all the evidence that shows it’s not true?
-
You mean that everything on Earth was first created
No, we don't.
As opposed to all the evidence that shows it’s not true?
Your wilful ignorance is not evidence.
And again, we know it has nothing to do with them magically being created to be at a location.
-
Not one location or one point, the entire surface of Earth itself is where all things originated from, created to exist upon. Not one point over the whole surface, that’s just nonsense.
-
Not one location or one point, the entire surface
Things originate at a location, not a surface.
I get it, your position is such utter garbage you need to dishonestly appeal to a surface to pretend it has any chance of working.
But that is just nonsense.
When you are born you are not born over the entire surface. You are born at a particular location.
Likewise, when an object is made, it is not made over the entire surface, it is made at a particular location.
If you want to imagine your god creating things, it is not creating a single thing over the entire surface. Instead it creates it at a particular location.
For example, in the fairy tale world of the Bible, Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden. They weren't created over the entire surface. So by your logic they should fall back there, not to any random point on the surface.
And again, we see things DO NOT fall "towards the surface". Instead they fall DOWN!
e.g. on a cliff face, if you break a rock away from it, instead of falling back to the surface of Earth, i.e. that cliff face, they fall DOWN!
If you are on the bottom of an overhang, and you break something off from the bottom of the overhang, then they fall directly away from the surface, they fall DOWN!
When you are on a sloped portion of the surface, yet again, it doesn't fall towards the surface, it falls DOWN!
When you dig a giant hole, and drop something into that hole, it doesn't fall towards the surface of Earth, it falls DOWN into that hole.
If it was falling towards the surface, then the orientation of that surface would matter, as would the direction to it.
Now you could try say it is somehow falling towards an average of the surface, but that would make things fall to the north pole in your delusional fantasy and you would need to make Earth a sphere to have it work.
But what makes it even more pathetic, we can take water, and turn it into steam, or electrolyse it to get hydrogen, and suddenly it doesn't fall down, it goes up.
Again, your nonsense doesn't work. It is just a steaming pile of garbage you use to pretend to have an explanation.
-
if not gravity, what keeps us on the ground
There are three answers to this. Maybe more, but:
1. Some flat-earthers say that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards and the acceleration is what we perceive as gravity. Never mind that if this were the case, we'd see the stars rushing past us at breathtaking speed.
2. Another answer to this is that all objects move toward the center of the universe, because it is in their nature. This doesn't actually answer the question, but it's something they can say.
3. And of course if we leave flat-earth aside, another explanation for what keeps us on the ground is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is constantly pressing down on us with his noodly appendages. This is the explanation I like best. Unless, of course, we follow Newton or Einstein.
mmmm... spaghetti...
-
Weight?
-
Things originate at a location, not a surface.
I get it, your position is such utter garbage you need to dishonestly appeal to a surface to pretend it has any chance of working.
But that is just nonsense.
When you are born you are not born over the entire surface. You are born at a particular location.
Likewise, when an object is made, it is not made over the entire surface, it is made at a particular location.
If you want to imagine your god creating things, it is not creating a single thing over the entire surface. Instead it creates it at a particular location.
For example, in the fairy tale world of the Bible, Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden. They weren't created over the entire surface. So by your logic they should fall back there, not to any random point on the surface.
One point on our PLACE of origin, the entire surface is where we originate from, at any one point on the place of our origin.
It’s not difficult to understand this.
-
One point on our PLACE of origin
I get it, you are desperate and willing to use whatever pathetic tactics you can.
But again, it is a POINT of origin, not a SURFACE of origin.
Sane people understand this, but not you.
And again, even if you do want to appeal to a SURFACE of origin, it still doesn't work, as things fall DOWN not towards the surface.
Again, this is shown by hills, holes, cliffs and overhangs.
And again, we can easily get a counterexample, by taking water, which according to you originated on the surface and must have because it goes back to the surface, and boiling it, and then all of a sudden it goes away form the surface, yet again showing you are spouting pure BS.
Again, this isn't difficult to understand. Stop playing dumb.
-
Things must originate from somewhere, as things do exist and must originate from somewhere, to exist.
-
Things must originate from somewhere, as things do exist and must originate from somewhere, to exist.
Yes, somewhere, a place, a point.
Not an entire surface.
Again, appealing to origin doesn't help you in any way.
You have been provided several examples which show it doesn't work, and you have just ignored them.
-
The entire surface is where all things originate from, first came to exist on, created to be on.
An entire surface is our place of origin, our region or environment or habitat of origin. And there are countless points on our place of origin, where we first came to exist on our place of origin. And we move from that point to other points on our place of origin.
It’s not difficult to understand this.
-
Earth is our planet of origin, too. We come to exist on the Earth, and on its surface, and they are both where we originate from.
-
It’s not difficult to understand this.
it isn't difficult to understand, nor is it difficult to understand that your claim is pure BS.
Once more I know that you are desperate to pretend things originate on the surface so you can pretend things fall down to go back to their origin. But they don't.
Things originate at a point. And they clearly do not fall back to that point.
And again, if you are on a hill or against a cliff or under an overhang, you can break things off and they fall DOWN, not back to the surface.
You can take a fish out of a lake, and it still falls down.
You can go into a tunnel under a lake, and it still falls down.
You can dig a massive hole, quite deep, and drop something from the surface inside, and it falls down.
You can turn water into steam and watch it rise.
So no, things originate a point, not a surface, and things do not return to their origin, even if you want to pretend that is a surface.
Again, your BS simply doesn't work.
Earth is our planet of origin, too. We come to exist on the Earth, and on its surface, and they are both where we originate from.
And notice how that doesn't require a flat Earth at all?
In fact, it actually works a lot better with a round one. Because you can then average that planet, to get a point at the centre, which things fall towards.
-
You’re clueless. The surface of Earth, the waters on Earth, and the air above Earth, are three distinctly different environments, right?
They are three distinctly different areas where things can originate from, can first come to exist within or on. Even your made up ‘space’ would be a different and unique area where things can originate from, come to exist within, right?
All of them are places or areas or environments where things can originate from.
So Saturn originated in ‘space’, a point within ‘space’, and we originate on Earths surface, and a point on that surface.
A point WITHIN our place of origin.
Where do you think stars originate from? Space? A point of nowhere?
-
You’re clueless.
There you go projecting again.
The surface of Earth, the waters on Earth, and the air above Earth, are three distinctly different environments, right?
No. If you are just providing a vague "surface of Earth" I see no reason why the water, which can also make up the surface, and the air immediately above it isn't all part of the same environment.
If you want to appeal to different environments, then the peak of a mountain is quite a different environment to a desert.
But I already gave you an example where you consider those areas and show it is pure BS.
Again, take a fish out of a lake and drop it beside it and see how it falls down, not to the lake.
You can then take the fish into a tunnel that goes under the lake, and drop it again, and see how it goes down, rather than up towards the lake.
Again, your claims are pathetic BS which are trivial to refute.
Origin doesn't help at all.
Things do not go to the origin, nor to any magical surface of origin.
Stop acting like a complete moron that comprehend such simple things.
-
Where do you think stars originate from? Space? A point of nowhere?
Where do you think the earth originated?
-
If all things that we’ve always seen to be on the Earths surfaces of ground and waters, have always been seen on Earth, have always been on Earth, and always will be on Earth in the future, it’s a good indication that all things have always been on Earth since they first came to exist, were first created, even more likely that is when there has never been something from elsewhere land on Earth.
We’ll never know for sure, we can’t prove where all things on Earth originated from. But everything doesn’t always need that level of proof, to make a valid conclusion without an actual witness seeing it in person.
The weight of evidence is often enough to make a conclusion, a ruling, and we have more than enough evidence for that conclusion, as I see it.
When there’s no evidence it is otherwise, it’s certainly not the other way around more likely at all.
If all things on Earth originated on Earth, not elsewhere than on Earth, which all evidence indicates is the case, what that would mean, is not needing a force in the ball Earth to hold all things down to the surface, because all things were always on the surface from day one.
That’s what we start from, not all things floating around in ‘space’, nothing has ever been seen floating around in space, let alone crashing down on Earth, that’s complete nonsense
-
The question is ‘what keeps us on the ground’?
We don’t need anything to keep us on the ground but our own mass and density. And it works that way perfectly.
All things are on Earth, because they always have been on Earth. If not, why do things exist on the ground? Why do things only go into air if an external force acts on them to put them into air? Nothing floats up into air by itself. Only things we make with less density than air will rise above the surface by themselves and without an external force acting on them.
Helium filled balloons rise up into air without any force acting on them externally. They rise because of their lesser relative density than air, same way things fall down from air with their greater density than air.
This is an absolute fact, we have measured for that.
What we’ve measured for, is each objects density, and mass as well.
An object will rise up in air or water if it’s less dense than air or water, there is no external force acting on them to rise up in air or water. Their lesser density than air or water makes them rise upward in air or water. When their density is measured to be less than air or water, they rise up in air or water. They don’t rise when they are measured as more dense than air or water. They fall or sink down in air or water when more dense than they are.
This proves it is caused by an objects relative density to air and water, measured to be their relative density.
Their bs is toast, it’s time to bury this crap for good. The end.
-
We don’t need anything to keep us on the ground but our own mass and density.
Mass and density are not a force. Why do I need to generate an upward force called lift to fly.
Why can’t I simply jump up and keep going up and up. My legs pushed me off and away from the ground.
When I jump, what causes me to slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance. Stop for a split second. Change travel of direction 180 degrees. Then what force causes me to accelerate down. Not drift down, but accelerate down. How do you accelerate a mass without an unbalanced force.
-
it’s a good indication that all things have always been on Earth
No, it isn't.
It is a useless and worthless indication of nothing.
Even more so when it requires to literally reject countless observations of things not from Earth ending up on Earth.
What you are really saying is that your wilful ignorance of reality should be taken as evidence of your delusional BS.
That isn't how any sane person operates.
And even more so, when you keep repeating this same pathetic BS to pretend things magically return to their origin when that clearly isn't the case.
The weight of evidence is often enough to make a conclusion
And we have more than enough evidence to conclude your delusional BS is wrong while gravity works just fine.
When there’s no evidence it is otherwise
But there is.
It is just that lying POS like you ignore it and pretend it is "fake".
Because that is what lying POS like you do. When evidence shows you are wrong, rather than admit it, you just double down on your lies.
what that would mean, is not needing a force
No, it wouldn't.
Even if you want to lie to everyone to pretend everything magically originated on Earth, that still doesn't magically mean you don't need a force.
Again, all the available evidence shows that if you want to accelerate an object then YOU NEED A FORCE;
that if you want to compress a spring then YOU NEED A FORCE;
that if you want to turn a generator to generate electrical power then YOU NEED A FORCE.
So if you want to have objects accelerate towards the ground, if you want objects to compress a spring such as in a scale to measure its weight, if you want to turn a water wheel to generate electrical power, then you need a force making these things go down.
The question is ‘what keeps us on the ground’?
And the only way for this to be a coherent question, is if you recognise the things trying to make us not on the ground.
For example, what keeps us returning to the ground, when we jump?
What keeps us on the ground, even when that results in compressing a spring?
What keeps us on the ground, even with a pressure gradient trying to push us up.
And all of this quite clearly shows WE NEED A FORCE!
We don’t need anything to keep us on the ground but our own mass and density.
And notice how again you just assert the same pathetic crap.
Why should mass and density keep us on the ground?
There is no reasoning at all there, just a pathetic, baseless assertion.
So no, not only does that not work perfectly, it doesn't work at all.
You may as well say the existence of bananas keep us on the ground, and if all the bananas in the world get eaten we will start floating off into space. It makes just as much sense, i.e. none at all.
If not, why do things exist on the ground?
Because of the same force which returns them to the ground when you throw them.
Only things we make with less density than air will rise above the surface by themselves and without an external force acting on them.
Wrong again.
Once more, another aspect of reality you, and other lying POS like you, need to continually flee from is the pressure gradient.
Air has a pressure gradient. All fluids do in a gravitational field when they aren't in free fall.
And do you know what that means?
If you put an object, like a helium filled balloon, into this fluid, there is a greater force acting on it from below than the force acting on it from above.
That an external force.
So no, you are entirely wrong.
Objects lighter than the air do not magically rise on their own accord.
They rise due to the force of the pressure gradient pushing them up.
Lying about this fact and claiming your dishonest delusional BS is an "absolute fact" will not help you. It just how truly pathetic you are.
So all you have managed to prove is how dishonest, desperate and pathetic you are.
-
Why would there be a force acting to push things up from the surface, if there’s a force acting to pull things down to the surface?
Air pressure doesn’t push anything upward in water or on the ground. Why claim it does such a thing?
How would you have a force holding all things down to Earth, holding all waters and all air down to the surface, but leaves air above the surface, and water above the surface?
What proves anything is pushed upward against the first idiotic failed made up force you can’t save for your life?
Why would ‘buoyancy’ happen to be the exact same objects with less density than air and water in both cases? It must be an amazing coincidence that their relative density is the deciding factor all the time for both mediums!
Or how about admitting it’s convoluted worthless bs for once? Because a shirt pile of stupid excuses aren’t going to help this fairy tale anymore
-
Right, things with less mass than air are pulled to the surface by your first made up force, which cannot pull down all the air which has almost no density , while it pulls down gazillion tons of water in the oceans no problem.
Then after the first force which stops pulling down air that birds fly within leaves air above Earth, another force pushes the air upward from Earth, in ‘gradients’!!
Now a helium ballon is pushed upward against the first amazing force, subs rise up in water against the first great force, and all is solved with two made up bs forces just like that!
-
I’ve got to see your ‘gradients’ push things up from Earth and seev’buoyancy’ defeat your other dip is downward from the previous state , this is not a downward slope or curve or anything.
Do you see the surface past your ‘dip’?
Yes, it’s there after your ‘dip’.
Which means it is NOT A DIP, because it is actually STILL RISING UP AFTER YOUR DIP
Your idiots have lied well to you and it’s hard to think with your own brain again. Coming up with a bs word like ‘dip’ isn’t a lot better for you.
Do you even know what ‘dip’ means, what people think ❤️dip means?
I’m done arguing with morons who have no brain or clue about anything anymore. Dip means a lower level or grade than before, in geographical terms. It is never an upward slope or lesser slope.
But why do I even bother with this crap force in a battle of made up bs forces!!
-
Why would there be a force acting to push things up from the surface, if there’s a force acting to pull things down to the surface?
As already explained in 2 different ways.
Firstly, the simple way:
They are in a fluid.
This fluid is trying to go down.
The only way for this fluid to go down is to push the other object up.
This is like 2 kids on a see saw.
The heavier one goes down, while the lighter one goes up.
In addition, the weight of the heavier one is reduced by the weight of the lighter one (if you try to measure them while on the see-saw by measuring the force between the seesaw and the ground, assuming it gets that low).
The same happens in a fluid.
The object immersed in a fluid, has its weight reduced by the weight of the fluid displaced.
If that fluid is heavier, the object is pushed up.
You can't have both the fluid and the object go down. One has to go down, while the other goes up.
Again, so simple a child could understand.
But apparently, it is beyond your comprehension.
Is that because you are a complete imbecile so heavily brain damaged you can't understand such simple things?
Or do you fully understand and just refuse to accept it and instead choose to lie to everyone like the lying POS you are?
Or the more complex version:
The fluid is being pulled down by gravity.
This compresses the layer of fluid below, pressurising it which in turn pushes the upper layer back up to support it.
Then the layer below must apply a force to the next layer down for both its weight, and the weight of the fluid above.
This creates a pressure gradient, where the pressure is greater the lower down you are.
If you place an object in this fluid, the pressure gradient means the force of the fluid pushing up from below is greater than the force from the fluid pushing down from above. This results in an upwards force on the object from the fluid.
To reject this, you need to reject one or both of 2 things:
1 - the existence of the pressure gradient.
This is not simply objecting to the above explanation of why a pressure gradient exists, but actually objecting to its existence. This is quite problematic, because this is an empirically verifiable fact. A fact that planes rely upon to do things like measure their altitude. So rejecting this just shows wilful rejection of reality and a desperate attempt by you to cling to a fantasy.
2 - That a pressure gradient would push objects from the region of high pressure to the region of low pressure. Again, this is quite easy to demonstrate fact. It is the basic principle of how firearms work, and pneumatic systems.
Why would ‘buoyancy’ happen to be the exact same objects with less density than air and water in both cases? It must be an amazing coincidence that their relative density is the deciding factor all the time for both mediums!
Because gravity is a force proportional to mass.
i.e. the very thing you hate.
Because of this, the pressure gradient, assuming g and rho remain constant is given by dP=g*rho_fluid*h.
This is because it depends on the weight of the fluid.
If you then take an object (assumed to be a prism for simplicity) with cross sectional area A and height h, and place it in this fluid, this pressure gradient pushes upwards with a force of dP*A.
i.f. F_b = g*rho_fluid*h*A = g*rho_fluid*V.
and the downwards force of gravity is simply F_g=g*m = g*rho_obj*V
So the net force is:
F_n=g*rho_obj*V - g*rho_fluid*V
F_n = g*V*(rho_obj - rho_fluid).
Not an amazing cooincidence.
A simple fact directly expected from the fact that gravity is a force proportional to mass.
Or how about admitting it’s convoluted worthless bs for once? Because a shirt pile of stupid excuses aren’t going to help this fairy tale anymore
You mean your posts? Your pathetic excuses and fairy tale?
Again, the pressure gradient is real, demonstrable, measurable, verifiable fact.
The resulting force from it is trivial to work out.
And then measuring objects shows that as that well as that upwards force from buoyancy, you need a downwards force proportional to the mass of the object.
Right, things with less mass than air are pulled to the surface by your first made up force, which cannot pull down all the air which has almost no density , while it pulls down gazillion tons of water in the oceans no problem.
No, everything is pulled down. But it is not magic.
It can't just magically increase the force to pull things down when other forces act against it.
If it could, everything would be a black hole.
Instead, things rest upon other things.
The water rests upon the surface instead of magically pushing its way through or occupying the same volume.
Each layer supports the layer above. And the same thing happens with air.
You could even imagine a hypothetical world with almost no atmosphere.
Now the air is acting more like a collection of particles than a gas.
These particles, with lots of energy, will fall towards this planet due to gravity, and bounce of the surface.
And they will keep doing that, with virtually no air pressure.
Then if you add more in, you increase the chance for a collision.
Now an air particle can fall down and hit another one, causing it to head back down faster.
This is increasing the pressure.
And it is that pressure which keeps the air above.
Again, if you analyse it honestly (and with intelligence you apparently don't have), it all makes sense.
And you are yet to show any actual fault.
all is solved with two made up bs forces just like that!
No, unlike you we don't need to make up forces.
Instead, this rising and falling of objects is explained by 1 force, gravity. A very real and demonstrable force which you can demonstrate exists yourself but choose not to because it isn't compatible with your delusional fantasy.
A force which both acts directly on the object to try to pull it down, and on the fluid the object is in, trying to pull the fluid down, which creates a pressure gradient which pushes the object up.
This resulting force is often known as buoyancy, but this is not some magic separate extra force. This force is a direct result of gravity and the fluid being supported at the base.
And this force of buoyancy is certainly not made up.
Again, even if you want to reject gravity because your delusional fantasy can't work with it, the pressure gradient which is the buoyant force is easy to demonstrate exists and is quite well documented and relied upon for things like altimeters in planes.
There is no way out of it without rejecting so much of reality it isn't funny.
Do you see the surface past your ‘dip’?
Has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Can you try explaining the pressure gradient? Or you going to claim it doesn't exist?
Can you explain what causes it?
Can you explain why it shouldn't push things up?
Or can you only continue with this pathetic childish wilful rejection of reality?
-
Pressure doesn’t push things up in air or water. If a sub went to the bottom of the ocean, the pressure would crush it like a peanut, not ‘push it up in water’!
But that doesn’t work with your argument either. That’s okay, just ignore it like you always do when your arguments fail to hold up. Maybe you need to make up a third force that is in the deepest waters which crushes all objects and spits them out in pieces on the ocean floor!!! Call it ‘Jawsity’ or something, the great underwater force which crushes all things!
-
There are many things that nobody can ever explain. Many have claimed they are due to whatever they think up, because it cannot be proven wrong or proven in any way at all, and they claim to have explained them all by that sort of bs.
Nobody knows how the Earth or Sun or life was created, but they were created, that’s all we know for sure. It isn’t by magic, because we cannot explain them, that’s just pure ignorance and stupidity.
Saying it was created by our Creator cannot be proven nor ever could be proven true or false, but it’s the only answer I have for these things.
One thing I do know though, is that if they weren’t faking and hiding everything from us, and actually going up in craft to study the stars and all above us, to understand them better, to know how they work, and how they can move like that, and change shapes and colours, all which we SHOULD be doing now instead of faking and lying to us all the time, then even if we never really can explain all these things completely, we’d have a much better understanding of these amazing creations God gave for us to see and gaze upon.
Exactly like Von Braun said, that both science and religion should work together to understand the heavens, both have value and merit in this greatest of all ventures that they are preventing from doing for a grotesque and evil lie.
-
Pressure gradients were created like everything else was.
Oceans have huge volumes of deep waters within them, as do some lakes. All that water on top is a heavy mass on the lower waters of it, creating more and more pressure on the lowest water below the rest above it.
That’s why shallow waters don’t have much pressure at their bottoms while oceans and deep lakes do.
The air and water has density like all other things do. But they have larger areas of air and water with density, and come downwards toward the surface due to their overall density, creating pressure gradients that are greater at lower levels of air and water, when deep enough for it.
They do not push anything upward in these pressure gradients, they crush or mash them inward on themselves with that oressure.
-
Pressure gradients were created like everything else was.
Oceans have huge volumes of deep waters within them, as do some lakes. All that water on top is a heavy mass on the lower waters of it, creating more and more pressure on the lowest water below the rest above it.
That’s why shallow waters don’t have much pressure at their bottoms while oceans and deep lakes do.
The air and water has density like all other things do. But they have larger areas of air and water with density, and come downwards toward the surface due to their overall density, creating pressure gradients that are greater at lower levels of air and water, when deep enough for it.
They do not push anything upward in these pressure gradients, they crush or mash them inward on themselves with that pressure.
-
Pressure doesn’t push things up in air or water.
So now just straight up to wilful rejection of reality?
Why wouldn't it?
And importantly note that it is not simply "pressure" but a pressure GRADIENT!
i.e. the pressure is higher the lower you go.
So if you consider an object in the fluid, the higher is greater below.
Are you truly going to try claiming that a high pressure wont try pushing into a lower pressure?
If so, please tell us how things like firearms and potato cannons work.
But that doesn’t work with your argument either.
You mean you blatantly lie to everyone yet again and spout more pathetic dishonest crap because your BS doesn't work and you can't show a single fault with gravity.
There are many things that nobody can ever explain.
And there is plenty that can be explained but you keep pretending can't be because the RE model explains it so well, yet your BS has no chance.
So why don't you stop with the pathetic deflections and deal with the points being discussed.
Why things fall, and the pressure gradient.
Things which are trivial to explain if you don't have a deep seeded need to reject reality, but which you can't explain at all.
it’s the only answer I have for these things
And that is a pathetic lie.
If that truly is the case, then the honest thing to do is say you have no answer, say you have no explanation at all.
Exactly like Von Braun said, that both science and religion should work together to understand the heavens, both have value and merit in this greatest of all ventures that they are preventing from doing for a grotesque and evil lie.
Or you can discard all the religious BS and try for honest understanding, even if that understanding contradicts your pathetic beliefs.
Again, the only one preventing things for a grotesque and evil lie are people like you.
People like you who choose to do whatever you can to oppose reality, to blatantly lie about others, and reject reality at all costs.
Pressure gradients were created like everything else was.
i.e. you have absolutely no explanation. Just "God did it".
Oceans have huge volumes of deep waters within them, as do some lakes. All that water on top is a heavy mass on the lower waters of it, creating more and more pressure on the lowest water below the rest above it.
i.e. you fully accept gravity, a downwards force acting on the water pushing/pulling it down, with the lower layers of water needing to support the higher ones.
If it was just density, then the density could be the same and there would be no need for the water below to support the water above.
They do not push anything upward in these pressure gradients, they crush or mash them inward on themselves with that pressure.
Do you understand what a pressure gradient is?
Again, like in the other thread, here you are basically saying that if you have an object, with high pressure on one side and low pressure on the other, that pressure does nothing.
Do you even understand what pressure is?
-
Air has mass, water has mass, all objects have mass, and the ground has mass, and all have density, and your made up force is just a big joke.
How can your bs force pull down the air, but not all the air, a force that pulls all things down to earths surface, except the air, only some is pulled down, but not to the surface, just above the surface, but still pulls lots of air down and pushes it harder and harder down to the surface, just with air and water, everything else isn’t pressurized or compressed by your made up force, just air and water are, it always conflicts itself like this, as a bs story always stinks and fails in the end!
-
Why do only the oceans and seas, and some of our deeper lakes, have immense pressure at lower depths, but not shallower waters?
Because they have more water above them, which has more mass of water above the rest of the water below it!
And more water has more mass and with enough more water above the rest, the greater mass above comes downward on the water below it, and all that water now has even more mass coming down on the water below that, and so on..,
Your bs force should pull all the air down to the very surface of Earth, if any air was being pulled down, all the air would be pulled down by your hopeless force!
Forces don’t care what they hit or what their mass or density are before hitting things with their force of energy.
Forces are not proportional in strength to objects they hit, don’t measure their mass or density, then adjust in strength to the objects mass and or density, because it wants them to all have the one same result on all objects of various masses and densities, that’s the stupidest claim ever made, so goofy and idiotic that it’s even spoken about by anyone at all.
-
Your bs force should pull all the air down to the very surface of Earth, l
Like in reality the air molecules bunch up at the surface creating a pressure gradient where gas molecules in a sealed tank tend to equal distance to maintain the same pressure through the sealed container. Gas molecules flow from high pressure to low pressure and equalize potential. What is constraining the higher pressure and density of the lower atmosphere form equalising with the lower pressure and density of the upper atmosphere. Especially if you think the earth is sealed under a dome.
-
It is their greater mass and density from that volume of air and water from above that sinks downward to the lower air and water below it which creates this pressure at lower levels of air and water.
That’s why it doesn’t happen that way with lighter gas molecules, which go upward or opposite the other gas molecules, and equalize the pressure within a closed system like a tank.
The tank itself compresses the molecules of gas or air, equally in a closed area or system of containment.
-
Air has mass
And that means gravity is pulling it down as well.
So for an object to go down it has to push the air up, so it needs enough force from gravity to push the air up.
How can your bs force
You are the one with BS, not me.
I'll stick to reality, something you can't refute and just need to lie about.
pull down the air, but not all the air
It isn't magic.
It can't magically force the air to go to infinite pressure.
it always conflicts itself like this
Your strawmen certainly do.
But you are still to show any contradiction for gravity.
Because they have more water above them, which has more mass of water above the rest of the water below it!
Yes, so more mass needing to be supported by gravity.
Something that makes absolutely no sense in your "its all density" BS.
You have no explanation at all for why water, being the same density as the water below, should need to be supported by a pressure gradient.
But it makes perfect sense with gravity.
So are you now asking questions and providing the answer to show why your model is complete crap?
Your bs force should pull all the air down to the very surface of Earth
Why?
Because you say so?
Again, it isn't magic.
It can't just magically compress air to infinity.
Forces are not proportional in strength
Repeating the same pathetic crap wont help you.
It is their greater mass and density from that volume of air and water from above that sinks downward to the lower air and water below it which creates this pressure at lower levels of air and water.
Notice how you are just throwing out a bunch of words with no explanation at all?
What greater mass and density?
Stop using the 2 like they are interchangeable.
We know the density of water, and we know it is based upon the environment, not magic different water.
So when we have a water filled tube, the entire tube should be at the same density and the same pressure in your pathetic BS.
Because in your pathetic BS there is no force trying to force the top layer of water down into the lower layer. Instead it should just sit there, being happy at the right density.
That means no pressure gradient in your fantasy.
That’s why it doesn’t happen that way with lighter gas molecules
There you go contradicting reality again.
Air is known to have a pressure gradient, with the air pressure being lower the higher you go.
And gravity explains this.
Once more, the pressure gradient is based upon the density of the fluid, based upon the mass that each layer needs to hold up.
-
Forces have to be proven to exist, demonstrated to exist and behave in certain ways, be fully consistent in their behaviours and actions, and most of all, make perfect sense and are logical and can be explained in what they all do.
Your made up force can’t be proven to exist, demonstrated to exist, entirely inconsistent in its actions and behaviour, to conflict with itself in many ways, and it is completely nonsensical and illogical and could never act as you claim it does.
When all things of any mass all fall down through the air at the same speed and same acceleration in air to that one speed if high enough, telling me it’s at other speeds on regions of Earths air, you’ve no proof to be true, as usual, doesn’t explain anything of it as a magical super force.
All you do is see that all objects fall through air to the Earths surface at the very same speed, then just claim it’s your goofy force doing it that way.
No force can or could act that way, there is no force even capable of such magical feats as this.
Just because you must have a force to explain your ball Earth crap, doesn’t mean you’ll ever have a force, because it isn’t explained or possible by a force of any sort.
Relative density explains it perfectly, and everything else perfectly and fully consistent with all of it.
All forces do is emit energy outward, hit whatever is there, and the objects react differently to the forces, based on THEIR properties of mass and density and surface area and so on. The forces do nothing more than emit their energy at one level of strength at any given time, and that’s it!
There is one and only one explanation for why things all fall through air at the same speed, because as we already know, all of them are denser than air is, there mass doesn’t matter in a fall through air, they are all the same, all of more density than air, that is the threshold they all pass through to fall the same speed, because forces can’t do that either, and aren’t needed to explain this at all.
Things less dense than air will rise up in air, being passed the opposite threshold of air’s density.
Same for things denser than water sink down through it, passing its threshold, and less dense things rise up in water and float on it, again passing its opposite threshold.
You’ll hate the day you know you’ve been wasting lots of time arguing their bs story, I’m sure you won’t until you know it is complete bs
-
Forces have to be proven to exist, demonstrated to exist and behave in certain ways, be fully consistent in their behaviours and actions, and most of all, make perfect sense and are logical and can be explained in what they all do.
And gravity has been, beyond any sane doubt. And you are just resorting to blatantly lying about it repeatedly.
It has been proven to exists with countless experiments, including simple observations of things falling, and through more complex setups like the cavendish experiment.
Gravity behaves as forces do, being proportional to a property of the object, and following an inverse square law like a monopole force should.
It is entirely consistent with you yet to demonstrate a single inconsistency and instead resorting to pathetic lies.
It makes sense for anyone who is homeset and examines it honestly rather than with your pathetic dishonest BS.
Stop just spouting the same pathetic BS and actually show a problem.
When all things of any mass all fall down through the air at the same speed and same acceleration in air
This demonstrates that there is a downwards force proportional to mass.
No force can or could act that way, there is no force even capable of such magical feats as this.
You keep spouting this pathetic BS, yet you can't justify it at all.
Again, if there was no force, the object wouldn't be accelerating.
So there clearly is a force, the only question is what and how this force behaves.
Relative density explains
absolutely nothing.
It doesn't explain why it should move at all.
It doesn't explain the directionality.
It doesn't explain the rate.
It doesn't explain why the rate varies over Earth.
It doesn't explain the pressure gradient.
It doesn't explain why the pressure gradient isn't pushing everything up.
It explains NOTHING!
It is only with gravity that relative density can explain anything.
All forces do is emit energy outward, hit whatever is there, and the objects react differently to the forces, based on THEIR properties of mass and density and surface area and so on.
Yes, just like wind applies a force based upon the area, and electrostatics apply a force based upon the charge, gravity applies a force based upon the mass.
There is one and only one explanation for why things all fall through air at the same speed
And that is a downwards force proportional to mass, i.e. gravity.
Simply being denser is clearly not enough as that provides no reason to fall.
all of more density than air, that is the threshold they all pass through to fall the same speed
Except it clearly isn't.
Instead, it is significantly greater such that the upwards buoyant force is negligible so there is no easily detectable change in rate.
When that is no longer the case, we see they don't fall at the same rate.
You’ll hate the day you know you’ve been wasting lots of time arguing their bs story, I’m sure you won’t until you know it is complete bs
You mean I have been arguing against your BS story, with me providing reality, with you unable to show a fault and instead just repeating the same pathetic refuted BS across several threads.
-
No forces act like that, it’s ridiculous and absurd,
Forces simply emit energy outward from their sources, at one level of strength at any given time,
That energy goes outward as one level of strength to a distance, and then loses strength and then dies out, that is all they ever do or can do.
There’s no force that emits energy at one strength, then controls and adjusts its one strength to all objects it hits, it never changes at all until losing strength over distance, not any other change is done by forces.
Wind emits over an area of air and the land below it, in one level of strength over a span of distance, a swath of a force.
The larger surfaces within its span of wind are hit by more of that span of force, objects are the variable which gets hit by more or less on the one strength of force over a larger span.
Wind is not proportional in its strength, no force is. Forces aren’t intelligent or have sensors to detect properties of objects it will soon hit, measure its density or mass or both, they’re simply energy emitted outward to everywhere in its reach, has nothing else to do with what it hits, no magical sensing abilities of objects and their mass or density or surface area, does not adjust its one level of strength into millions of different levels of strength each going to objects of different mass and density, making the strength needed for each object proprtional to their mass or densitu, all of which makes the force act on them all equally!
That’s completely idiotic
-
No forces act like that, it’s ridiculous and absurd
Except things like magnetism, electrostatics, wind, and so on.
Unless you are going to deal with a contact force, like someone pushing something, that is how it works.
It is proportional to some property of the object.
Forces simply emit energy outward from their sources, at one level of strength at any given time
I know you love spouting this pathetic crap, but that isn't how it works at all.
They are not emitting energy outwards.
That isn't how any force works.
There’s no force that emits energy at one strength, then controls and adjusts its one strength to all objects it hits, it never changes at all until losing strength over distance, not any other change is done by forces.
And that doesn't describe how gravity works at all.
It is just your pathetic strawman.
Wind emits over an area of air and the land below it, in one level of strength over a span of distance, a swath of a force.
The larger surfaces within its span of wind are hit by more of that span of force
Just like gravity, but using mass instead of area.
It is the same principle.
Wind is not proportional in its strength
Except you just admitted it was.
You just refuse to use those words because it shows you to be the absolutely pathetic lying POS you are.
And yet again, you just entirely jump between different piles of BS to keep repeating the same pathetic BS in circles.
-
Wind is a force over a span of area, it has nothing to do with surface areas it hits more or less of its wind, nor does wind adjust its strength at all to things it hits or not hits or partly hits in its path.
Wind doesn’t adjust its strength to each surface area of objects and make them all fly back 10.56 meters either, just your bs force can perform that miracle feat!
By your argument, wind should hit a large surface area with less strength than a small surface area and make them both fly back 10.675 meters or whatever!!
-
In fact, when all objects of different mass and density all fall through air at the same speed, it proves there is NO external force causing it!
Forces don’t ever make such things happen in the real world. Only in a fairy tale world can that happen, not our world though. It’s loony land stuff you wish were possible in reality, but get serious here
-
In fact, when all objects of different mass and density all fall through air at the same speed, it proves there is NO external force causing it!
Actually, objects with the same mass but different densities generally do fall at different rates. That is unless you think that a one pound ball of steel and a one pound ball of styrofoam will fall at the same rate.
-
Wind is a force over a span of area
And gravity is a force over a "span of mass".
Again, it works the same. It is just proportional to a different property of the object.
For wind, that same "field" hits every square cm of the object with the same force.
For gravity, that same filed hits every g of the object with the same force.
With wind, that results in a force proportional to area.
With gravity, that results in a force proportional to mass.
Repeatedly ignoring this and instead pretending gravity should be magic and magically apply the same force to every object, and cutting an object in 2 should result in gravity magically doubling the force, just shows everyone how utterly pathetic and dishonest you are.
By your argument, wind should hit a large surface area with less strength than a small surface area and make them both fly back 10.675 meters or whatever!!
No, that is by YOUR pathetic BS.
By reality, you have some property of the object, lets call it P, and then a force of some form which acts on that property with a constant of proportionality k.
This means the force is given by F=k*P.
This results in an acceleration of the object, based upon a=F/m.
i.e. a=k*P/m.
For wind, P is area, so you have a=k*A/m (technically more complicated than that, buts lets keep it simple).
For electrostatics, that is charge, so you have a=k*q/m
For gravity, it is mass, so you have a=k*m/m=k.
In fact, when all objects of different mass and density all fall through air at the same speed, it proves there is NO external force causing it!
Wrong again.
When on object accelerates, it proves there is a force acting.
If the rate of acceleration is the same, it proves the force is proportional to mass.
And this is seen elsewhere. For example, in a mass spectrometer, where the force is proportional to charge. All objects with the same mass to charge ratio are accelerated the same.
That is why mass spectra are reported with the x axis being m/z rather than m.
So yes, forces do make such things happen in the real world.
But because your delusional fantasy doesn't work with such forces, and you are desperate to pretend your fairy tale world is reality, you lie about what happens in reality.
It just shows how utterly pathetic you are.
Again, observations from reality, and there countless examples of this, show there is a downwards force acting on all objects which is proportional to mass.
This even applies to applies to objects like helium filled balloons which rise in air due to the force of the pressure gradient (with that gradient also being evidence of this force proportional to mass).
The questions from that point are what is this force and why is it proportional to mass?
-
Wind is a force over a span of distance, emitted outward at one level of strength at any given moment.
That’s it. The wind hits whatever is there to be hit by it, over its span. And like all other actual forces, which emit energy outward in various ways and spans of distance, it ends there. What happens afterwards has nothing to do with the forces, they are not proportional forces, they are one strength of energy emitted outward, in various ways and spans of area, points to miles in spans.
If you stretch out your arms in a strong wind, you’re hit by a larger span of the wind, more of its one span of force.
That’s not a proportional force, it’s one and only one strength of force, it doesn’t change at all, YOU are the one changing how much of that one force hits you at one time, along its span at one time, by changing your surface area larger than before!
In every case, forces emit out energy at a certain level of strength, over a large span of area, or in a small line, a small em wave, etc…
Forces emit energy outward, in one level of strength, they don’t adjust their strength at all, objects are proportional to THE ONE LEVEL OF ENERGY OR STRENGTH OF FORCE WHICH HITS THEM.
The forces have nothing to do with how much of its one level of energy or strength hits objects, it’s not varying it’s strength at all, the objects very in how much of its one strength hits them!
Actual forces simply emit some sort of energy out from their sources of origin, at one level of strength, at any given moment, PERIOD.
I’m very aware that you need a made up force that calculates the mass and density of every object in the air, instantly, after emitting one level of energy outward over the ball Earth, and above the ball into air, up to a certain, but never mentioned altitude above the Earth ball…..
That would be in a wave pattern, or some form of energy emitted outward by your made up force, and it’s source is within the ball Earths core, apparently.
What happens next, is just a joke.
You’re claiming wind is a proportional force, it adjusts its level of strength to an objects surface area, which is yet again more nonsense.
The wind isn’t adjusting its strength, the objects are variable to the amount of wind or amount of its one force of energy which hits the object, the force isn’t using different levels of strength at all.
Same way as a current in a river is a span of force over a distance along a river, under or atop it, etc.
All actual forces emit energy outward over a span, a length of distance or area, waves are emitted outward by some forces and are also a span of energy emitted by those forces.
That’s always the case, all forces emit energy outward in a span of some length, small to large in length.
These spans of energy emitted outward by forces, don’t adjust or vary in strength, ever.
Objects are the variable and proportional to the force, it’s one level of strength hitting it, how much of the span of a force is hit by it, all of the span or part of the span, and that doesn’t make any force proportional, in the way you mean it.
You mean it is VARIABLE IN ITS LEVEL OF STRENGTH, that it emits energy outward at one level of strength, and then varies its strength to millions of different levels of strength to some property or properties of all objects it hits, such as their mass or density or surface area, but you’re very wrong about that claim.
I’ve already explained that wind doesn’t vary or adjust its strength, more or less of the force hits an object of more surface area to BE hit by that force of wind.
The whole span of a force is what is emitted outward at one time, as a single level of strength or energy.
The problem is that you’re not accounting for the entire force of a wind, it’s not a part of a force, it’s the entire span of it, so you can’t argue it’s a proportional force as part of its span hits an object.
-
Wind is a force over a span of distance
Area, not distance.
And again, just like gravity is for mass.
This is a proportional force, just like all of them.
Lying about it just shows how utterly pathetic you are.
In every case, forces emit out energy
Again, not how it works.
Repeating the same pathetic BS just makes you desperate.
they don’t adjust their strength at all
Again, the only one suggesting that is you, where you want to claim gravity magically changes.
I’m very aware that you need a made up force that calculates the mass and density of every object in the air
No, that is YOUR made up force, not mine.
It is a strawman you made up because you can't refute reality.
You’re claiming wind is a proportional force
Because it is.
Because it doesn't just magically produce the same force on every object. Instead, it is proportional to the area of the object.
it adjusts its level of strength
No, the "strength" is the same, the force is different.
And you can't refute it at all.
Again, you are just playing semantic games.
Replace area with mass and you have gravity.
Same way as a current in a river is a span of force over a distance along a river, under or atop it, etc.
And gravity can be seen as a span of force over a mass.
Objects are the variable and proportional to the force, it’s one level of strength hitting it, how much of the span of a force is hit by it, all of the span or part of the span, and that doesn’t make any force proportional, in the way you mean it.
And importantly, some property of the object.
For wind, it is area.
For electrostatics its charge.
For magnetism it is more complex.
For gravity it is mass.
Again, if your simple BS was true, a magnet would attract everything.
It would attract iron, paper, water, clothes, aluminium and so on.
But in reality, we see it only attracts some things.
Because the force is proportional to a property of the object.
Again, lying about it just shows your desperation.
If you want to say forces are magic like you claim, hitting all objects with the same force, why can a magnet lift a piece of iron, but not a much lighter piece of aluminium of the same shape and size?
-
Forces emit energy outward, in one level of strength, they don’t adjust their strength at all,
Nothing to do, so I'll try to clarify a point. Just one, so there will be some chance that turbonium will have the patience to read me thoroughly.
If I press a book against a wall, the book does NOT go through the wall, no matter how great my force. Because the wall DOES adjust the level of strength with which it reacts to mine.
But let's forget about this and suppose that gravity IS indeed the only kind of force which adjusts its level of strength.
Why this? Why do all objects fall at the same rate (in vacuum, in a certain location)?
This is a FULLY LEGITIMATE question, and physicists have posed it for centuries.
They did careful experiments to see whether this was true for substances with a different protons/neutrons ratio.
(then came Einstein who gave a nice answer, with GR, but let's forget about this for now)
But
(please read carefully, this is the main point)
we have a FACT: things fall at the same rate.
If we do NOT know WHY this happens, this does NOT make the fact go away.
People often think that science is about finding causes, and if it cannot do it, then it's a failure.
But physics, especially fundamental physics, is NOT about causes. It's about finding RULES.
The rules according to which things happen.
Newton's Law is such a rule. Once thought to be exact, now only approximate (a very good approximation though, except around black holes or such stuff)
It helps us to describe how the “rate of falling” varies slightly, on Earth, with latitude and altitude. And how it varies greatly from near Earth to Moon's distance to near Jupiter. And many other things.
turbonium is totally free to propose another set of rules, but they have to predict/describe the same range of phenomena (and possibly some more)
For now, his “density rule” can predict that denser bodies go down in a less dense medium, and less dense bodies go up. Really not much.
And HOW can we know that a body is denser or less dense? Why, from its going DOWN or UP!
That is, “things go the way they go because that's the way they have to go”!
Very zen, but hardly useful.
What we need is a set of rules according to which, if we put on a plate of a scale a cubic inch of lead and on the other plate a bottle with half a liter of water, the lead (denser) goes UP, and the water (less dense) DOWN. But if we make the arm of the 1st plate 4 times long as the 2nd, then it's the lead to go down!
We NEED such rules, to build cranes, bridges etc.
Can turbonium give such a rule, based only on density? No need to take the trouble, I can do it for him.
Rule (“density rule”): on every object near Earth's surface acts a downward force given by:
F = g*V(D – DM) (of course, if D < DM, F is < 0, that is, directed upwards)
where V is the volume of the object, D its density, DM the density of the surrounding medium (for vacuum, DM = 0), g a number whose average value is 9.81 and which, mysteriously, varies a little with latitude and altitude, and greatly in space. Unlike with Newton's Law, we have here no means to predict its variations.
And if we want the downward acceleration (the “rate of falling”) we must divide by V*D and get (in vacuum, with DM = 0) just g
And we have this mysterious, magical phenomenon. Given a certain quantity of matter, if we vary its density (e.g. water freezing or ice melting) the “rate of falling” stays the same. Objects of different D, or V, or both, all have the same “rate of falling” (in vacuum, in a certain location).
Conclusion: as to equality of the “rate of falling” Newton's Law or this “density rule” are equally mysterious. With Newton's Law having the advantage of predicting the variations of g.
Or maybe I haven't been smart enough in formulating this “density rule”?
-
Because magnets pull in magnetic objects and not objects without magnetic properties or pulls those lesser which have lesser magnetic properties, and magnets do not adjust its strength to the less or more magnetic properties of every object and pulls them all in at the same rate, only your bs force can perform that miraculous stunt!
But inexplicably, your bs force only adjusts its strength to all objects mass and density when pulling them down to the surface, but releases its variable strength used on each object after they’re on the surface, and no longer adjusts its strength to their mass anymore. Why not say it’s all bs because it all is bs from the start? You’d be telling the truth for the first time if you did!
-
Because magnets pull in magnetic objects and not objects without magnetic properties or pulls those lesser which have lesser magnetic properties
i.e. there is some property of the object which impacts the force imparted by a magnet.
i.e. magnetism doesn't follow your pathetic BS idea about how forces should work.
Gravity is similar, acting on mass rather than magnetic susceptibility/magnet moment and so on, and is not complicated by being a dipole.
If your pathetic BS was true, the only way to adjust the force from a magnet is by having a different magnet which emits a different strength, or having a larger or smaller object.
It shouldn't matter what properties the object has, such as if it is magnetic or not.
Because that is the pathetic hole you have dug for yourself.
Going to stop with all the pathetic BS now?
-
Every force acts differently on properties of objects, lightning hits metal poles because it’s a magnetically charged force like a magnet is, that’s how forces all act, they don’t vary in strength though, they cannot adjust in strength at all, they emit outward as energy and that’s it. What happens after that doesn’t involve the force at all, it’s expelled its energy outward. That’s where it ends, who knows what happens next isn’t relevant or acted on further by the force.
They’re one and done things, get the idea now?
You can try to excuse this and that forever, but there’s nothing to excuse your claim that this bs force would make all objects as if all have one same mass and density, adjusting its strength a million levels to each objects mass and density variances, to then make all objects act the same way to this force, which is the stupidest claim ever made by far, it’s completely nuts, beyond compare
-
Every force acts differently on properties of objects
And with that you have effectively admitted that you are a lying POS.
You can try to excuse this and that forever
I'm not the one trying to excuse anything.
YOU are the one doing whatever you can to pretend reality doesn't work.
Again, please tell me why if I get a nice strong magnet, different materials of the same size and shape are affected differently, and a why a similar principle can't also apply for gravity.
Why don't you try claiming that magnets are magically adjusting their strength to each object?
Why do you happily accept that there is some property of the object that determines the resulting force on an object in a magnetic field?
Yet you then entirely reject that idea for gravity.
You can try this pathetic BS forever, but all it does is demonstrate you are a pathetic, dishonest, lying, subhuman POS with no concern for the truth, no concern for reality, and no integrity at all.
Again, several different objects, all of the same shape and size, but of different magnetic properties and different masses.
Why should gravity apply the same force to all, but magnetism doesn't?
There is no way out for you.
You have to either demand magnetism applies the same force to all, or accept that the resulting force is dependent upon a property of the object in question other than its shape and size, which can allow both gravity and magnetism to apply a different force to each object.
So again, going to stop with the pathetic BS now?
-
...lightning hits metal poles because it’s a magnetically charged force like a magnet is...
If that were true (it isn't) then why does lightning strike trees and (rarely) people?
-
Again, please tell me why if I get a nice strong magnet, different materials of the same size and shape are affected differently, and a why a similar principle can't also apply for gravity.
You’ve answered your own question and have no clue you did, so let me point it out to you…
You asked if objects can react differently to magnets, then why can’t your made up force?
Because your made up force magically makes all objects react THE VERY SAME AS EVERY OTHER OBJECT DOES!!
Which is completely ridiculous and impossible by any actual force to do…
It’s insane, in fact. Why would any force ever do all that? There’s no logic or reasoning behind your crazy story.
Again you’re trying to hide from your own claims because you cannot answer for them in any way.
Look very closely at your claims about your fairy tale force..
Don’t hide from what you’ve claimed of your force, let’s go over what magical feats you claim is will do..,
You’re claiming there is a force within Earth and in all things, but mainly you refer to Earth having this force.
A force that goes far beyond all other forces, that acts completely differently from all other forces, despite your endless excuses and worthless claims it does act like all actual forces.
What makes you ever believe that any of our actual forces perform such magic that wouldn’t even make any sense to do in the first place?
The dumbest claim you’ve ever made, or you believe is true because they tell us it’s true…
Forces do not, will not, cannot, adjust their strength to a property of objects, they are only one level of strength emitted outward at any given time, and never change in strength or in proportion to objects in one of their properties.
Magnets don’t adjust in strength to the amount of magnetic properties an object has, balancing its strength of pull as the same for all objects with different levels of magnetic properties.
A wind does not hit two objects of larger and smaller surface areas by adjusting its strength to each object, and blows each of them back by 10.654 meters.
The one most important thing we all know about forces is that the objects they hit, REACT COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY TO THE FORCE!
The very thing you claim that YOUR bs force does, is the very thing we all know that NO force ever does, or ever could do, or what reason to ever do it!!
-
Again, please tell me why if I get a nice strong magnet, different materials of the same size and shape are affected differently, and a why a similar principle can't also apply for gravity.
You’ve answered your own question and have no clue you did, so let me point it out to you…
So you are saying I clearly explained why you are lying to everyone?
You asked if objects can react differently to magnets, then why can’t your made up force?
No, not my made up force. The very real force which has been shown to exist with countless examples of evidence.
The real force you resort to repeatedly lying about.
Because your made up force magically makes all objects react THE VERY SAME AS EVERY OTHER OBJECT DOES!!
No, it doesn't.
That is your pathetic strawman.
So I'll skip the rest of your pathetic BS and ask again:
Again, please tell me why if I get a nice strong magnet, different materials of the same size and shape are affected differently, and a why a similar principle can't also apply for gravity.
If you want to pretend gravity should magically produce the same force on every object, explain why the same shouldn't happen for magnetism.
-
What does it matter if magnets or winds acted as a proportional force on objects, as you’re claiming they are, while I’m claiming they aren’t, the biggest problem you cannot answer for, which cannot exist in any actual
force, not wind or magnetic forces or any other force can do, which none do, because it’s nonsense and laughably stupid to claim such a thing as this…
Your not really claiming your made up force is proportional, in its level of strength to objects mass, by making them
all react the same way to that made up force, while your claiming that other forces like wind and magnetic forces are also proportional forces like yours is, because they don’t make all objects act or react the same way to wind or magnetic forces, right?
-
What does it matter if magnets or winds acted as a proportional force on objects, as you’re claiming they are, while I’m claiming they aren’t
Again, skip your pathetic, semantic BS.
What matters here is if a force must exert the exact same force on every object, or if it is able to exert a different force on different objects, based upon the properties of that object.
i.e. can forces like gravity, wind and magnetism, have 2 different objects exposed to the same strength source, yet the objects get a different force on them?
This is crucial, because it relates directly to your repeatedly lie that gravity should exert the same force on every object, and your extension of that lie where you claim that means you should be able to lift any object like any other.
So deal with this issue before deflecting to other pathetic BS.
-
No, the crucial part is that only your made up force makes all objects react the very same way to this bs force, that is how you claim forces are proportional forces, they vary their strength to the amount they each have of some property and the force adjusts in strength needed to apply to them, to equal proportion at a single value of strength to their individual amount of some property, that is exactly what your claiming other forces do like gravity does,
Your claiming your made up force adjusts the level of its strength in proportion to each objects mass, so how could it act in a proportion to their mass, unless in equal proportion to react the same way to the force?
An equalizing of all objects of different masses, to one same proportional reaction to the force, by adjusting its strength applied to the various masses, that is what your claiming here
-
Forces emit one level of strength outward, the objects react to that force differently than other objects do. Some don’t react to it at all, others react a lot, there are countless different ways each object may react to it.
We all know and see that is the case. Every object reacts differently in a wind, objects of great surface area like buildings don’t react to the wind while sheets of paper with small surface area do, the same force you claimed used more strength on objects with larger surface area, aren’t reacting at all to the greater strength you say hits them, because of their greater mass, and papers little mass
How long are you going to hide from answering for your magical force making all objects react the very same, because no force ever does that
-
In fact, that all objects fall through air at the same speed proves that it is not caused by a force pulling them to the surface, no force makes all objects react to it the very same way. That is why there’s no force acting on them at all here. Objects always react differently to forces, they never all react the very same way
-
Forces emit one level of strength outward...
Is the strength of that force constant over distance, or does the strength diminish with distance?
-
No, the crucial part is that only your made up force makes all objects react the very same way to this bs force
No, it isn't.
That is your pathetic lie, you wish to pretend is crucial, so you can attack that strawman, rather than having to deal with reality that shows you to be a lying POS.
Again, stop with the pathetic BS and admit that forces of the same "strength" can result in a different force on the object, at least for forces like wind, gravity and magneism.
Once you have done that you can explore the actual logical consequences of it, and show it doesn't match your pathetic strawman.
Forces emit one level of strength outward, the objects react to that force differently than other objects do.
i.e. the resulting force on the object is different.
Unlike your pathetic lie where gravity must cause the same force on every object.
Again, going to admit it yet?
How long are you going to hide
I'm not the one hiding. I'm the one taking you step by step through it. You are still stuck on step 1. Still unable to move past it. Still unable to admit such a simple fact.
As if you know once you have admitted it, all your BS will come falling down.
In fact, that all objects fall
Clearly demonstrates that there is a downwards force acting on them.
Otherwise they wouldn't be accelerating downwards.
This is even further supported by the pressure gradient pushing things upwards, so you need a downwards force to counter it.
Again, no force=no acceleration.
Other this claimed example, do you have a single case of an object accelerating without a force being applied? NO!
Because it requires a force to be applied to cause an object to accelerate.
But you want to ignore that, and appeal to pure magic to pretend gravity is wrong, because gravity destroys your pathetic fantasy.
at the same speed
More that they accelerate at the same rate, assuming negligible impact from the pressure gradient and air resistance.
And that proves this downwards force is proportional to mass.
Now again, going to stop with all the pathetic BS and admit that forces like the wind, gravity and magnetism can result in a different resulting force on different objects?
If not, going to explain why only wind and magnetism do but gravity can't? Why gravity shouldn't be behaving like these other forces?
-
There clearly is a force involved here, created by the objects greater mass and density found to be within air, a less dense medium where the object was thrown up into by an external force.
Why would you believe that every force must be external in origin, that no objects themselves when placed in another medium or environment they don’t originate within, could create a force from propulsion by their greater density than the medium put up within.
You’re the one changing the objects medium, putting the more dense object within the less dense medium, right?
What do you expect the denser object would do when put up into the less dense medium by you?
Why would you need to have another force within the surface to PULL THEM DOWN FROM THE AIR?
You believe that the air would hold them up there in the air, when they’re much denser and heavier than air is?
After you put them up into air, what would you expect them to do? Stay there and float around in air forever?
-
There clearly is a force involved here
And that force is called gravity.
What do you expect the denser object would do when put up into the less dense medium by you?
Without a force acting on them, nothing.
Just like if I slide it to the right, it sits there and doesn't slide back to the left.
I certainly wouldn't expect breaking something off from the side of a cliff, moving it to the right, would magically cause it to go down.
That makes no sense at all.
You believe that the air would hold them up
No, without a force trying to move them down, there is nothing to hold up.
Stay there and float around in air forever?
Without a force acting on them, YES!
That is the very point you seem to flee from.
No force = no acceleration.
-
Why would these much denser objects put up within a much less dense medium have to be pulled down from air, their density itself makes them fall down through the air, no force needs to pull them down from air.
Air is above us, up in its direction from us below the air.
The direction of air is upward from the ground and us on the ground.
We have to go upward to be in air, no other direction but upward. Not downward or sideways over the surface.
Why in that one direction, is because it is the only direction to go into air.
Do you get it yet?
-
Why would these much denser objects put up within a much less dense medium have to be pulled down from air
Again, no force=no acceleration.
We see this all the time, the only exception that you are trying to alleged is objects falling.
So why should this particular situation be so unlike all others?
Why should objects magically accelerate for no reason at all?
Why should these same objects magically compress springs in things like a scale for no reason at all?
Why are they defying the pressure gradient for no reason at all?
And stop repeating the same pathetic "put up".
Because they aren't simply put up, and your origin garbage is clearly pure garbage.
Do you get it yet?
Yes, you are a pathetic, lying POS, repeating the same pathetic BS, and going around in circles because you know you cannot defend your BS, and spamming the same pathetic BS in multiple threads, all because you know your BS doesn't work but you need to pretend it does.
Do you get it yet? I'm not a moron that I wont just accept your pathetic BS you keep asserting and ignoring all the problems with it.
I recognise that "origin" does not give you a directionality, because you can push things to the right, and yet they don't fall back to the left.
You can lift things up from a sloped surface, going directly away from that surface, but they fall DOWN.
You can break things off from the side of a cliff, going horizontally, and they still fall down, now parallel to that surface.
You can break things off from an overhang, and it falls down going directly away from that surface.
So origin clearly doesn't explain it.
Density provides no reason at all for objects to go in any particular direction.
The simplest reason why is it is not a force and doesn't provide any reason for the object to accelerate at all.
Again, you need a downwards force.
-
There’s no reason for this 65 ton Abrams tank we parachuted from a plane into air, to not float or hover in the air, without a parachute attached to it.
There’s no reason at all to think the tank wouldn’t remain in the air by itself, just because it’s a million times denser and heavier than the air, that’s no reason for it to fall down through the thin air to the surface!!!
I guess in your fairy tale world, there’s no difference between a 65 ton tank than to the air! Mass and density are nothing or all the same, right?
Everything changes when your great pile of crap force comes into play! The force of everything but logic and reason and consistency.
The great bs force that you fear to ever explain its magical sensing and calculating in ratio of mass to strength applied by it to each object…,
This most incredible explanation ever made for nothing but a cartoon force, is supposed to be the ‘logical explanation’! Maybe in bizarro world it is, but it’s a:$$ in the real world!
-
There’s no reason for this 65 ton Abrams tank we parachuted from a plane into air, to not float or hover in the air, without a parachute attached to it.
There’s no reason at all to think the tank wouldn’t remain in the air by itself, just because it’s a million times denser and heavier than the air, that’s no reason for it to fall down through the thin air to the surface!!!
I guess in your fairy tale world, there’s no difference between a 65 ton tank than to the air! Mass and density are nothing or all the same, right?
Everything changes when your great pile of crap force comes into play! The force of everything but logic and reason and consistency.
The great bs force that you fear to ever explain its magical sensing and calculating in ratio of mass to strength applied by it to each object…,
This most incredible explanation ever made for nothing but a cartoon force, is supposed to be the ‘logical explanation’! Maybe in bizarro world it is, but it’s a:$$ in the real world!
So, what's your genius explanation for why when you throw a tennis ball up in the air, the tennis ball comes back down to Earth?
Fucking hell, you are thicker than two planks of wood, aren't ya?
-
There’s no reason for this 65 ton Abrams tank we parachuted from a plane into air, to not float or hover in the air, without a parachute attached to it.
Again, you are doing it the wrong way around.
If I place a ball on a table, with no forces acting on it, I expect it to remain there.
I don't expect it to just magically accelerate for no reason.
So in the absence of a force, if I place something in mid air, I expect it to stay there.
The only reason I don't in reality is because I know there is a force, GRAVITY!
But without gravity there is no reason for it to go in any direction or move at all (because that would also remove the pressure gradient).
Again, every time we see anything accelerate, it can be tracked back to a force.
The only exception you are trying to allege is things magically falling for no reason at all.
Why should they?
Why shouldn't that require a force as well?
it’s a million times denser and heavier than the air
You have no reason for why being denser should make it move in any direction.
It is also pure BS from you. Even the densest substance known to man (FEers) are only roughly 20 000 times as dense as air.
The great bs force that you fear to ever explain its magical sensing and calculating in ratio of mass to strength applied by it to each object…,
You mean your magic magnetism and magic air?
-
What keeps us on the ground?
As opposed to being above the ground?
Mass and density keep us on the ground, air above us has less mass and density than we do, the surface below us has more mass and density than we do.
That is the answer to your question.
-
So yet again, you have had your pathetic BS completely and utterly destroyed, so you resort to pretending the entire conversation has never happened and starting again.
Mass and density keep us on the ground, air above us has less mass and density than we do, the surface below us has more mass and density than we do.
That is the answer to your question.
No, that isn't an answer.
That provides no explanation at all
How would mass and density magically keep us on the ground?
Why would having more mass than the air and less mass than the surface below do that?
More importantly, how does this allow a steel cube to sit on a wooden table, even though the cube is more dense than the table?
-
Mass and density keep us on the ground, air above us has less mass and density than we do, the surface below us has more mass and density than we do.
Why do the gasses in the air not settle into their respective density layers?
(https://dan.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/table-1_safety_101_800x.jpg)
-
Why would having more mass and density than air, but less than the ground, keep us on the ground?
Why wouldn’t it?
A helium filled balloon rises up in air because it has mass than air, right?
What makes us stay on the ground but not the balloon stay on ground? Being more or less dense than the air, of course.
No external force acts on the balloon to make it rise up into air!
You make up two forces because one doesn’t explain how objects can defeat this force, so you make up another force to cover for the first crap
The Earth was entirely designed for us, living on Earth’s flat surface, with air above the surface, with the surface below us to walk upon.
The design is based on humans living and sustaining life and creating more of the same life.
Why does our mass and density puzzle you about its purpose on Earth?
Your somehow assuming that everything on Earth, despite having more mass and density than air, and less than the surface, must have been floating around aimlessly in ‘space’, before this great force within Earth pulled them down to the surface!!
Because you believe there must be a force within Earth to provide directionality to things on and above Earth, for some reason!
No, the fact is that you NEED to make things up like forces that don’t exist but you have no choice but say they exist, your ball Earth must have those forces to hold up as a story. Not that it does, but it’s all you’ve got.
-
Why would having more mass and density than air, but less than the ground, keep us on the ground?
Again, in the absence of a force, it wouldn't.
A helium filled balloon rises up in air
Because of the pressure gradient of the atmosphere pushing it up, with a force greater than the downwards force due to gravity acting directly on the balloon.
This has been explained to you countless times.
Stop playing dumb.
Stop lying about it.
We know the pressure gradient is there. It is a quite well established fact and you can measure it.
Pretending it just magically doesn't do anything is just desperation on your part.
The Earth was entirely designed for us
Then go throw yourself into a volcano and show how well it is designed for us.
Or live in the middle of the pacific ocean, no tools allowed.
Because you believe there must be a force within Earth to provide directionality to things on and above Earth, for some reason!
Not "for some reason", but because all the evidence shows that in order to accelerate, you need a force.
There is even a pressure gradient, which would provide a force, that needs to be overcome.
And yes, there needs to be a reason for the directionality, otherwise it could fly off in any direction.
But just look at what you are doing here. You can't explain anything, so you just act like you shouldn't have to and the world should just be pure magic.
No, the fact is that you NEED to make things up like forces that don’t exist but you have no choice but say they exist, your ball Earth must have those forces to hold up as a story. Not that it does, but it’s all you’ve got.
Again, this is pure BS.
Your delusional BS works BETTER on a sphere than a flat surface.
So no, if your complete and utter BS actually worked, it would be fine to use on a RE, and no gravity would need to be "made up".
Instead, gravity is accepted, because it actually explains what happens. Unlike your pathetic BS which explains nothing.
-
A helium filled balloon rises up in air because it has mass than air, right?
Nitrogen is less dense than oxygen. Why does the oxygen not settle into a layer below a layer of nitrogen?
-
Nitrogen is nearly the same density as air and mixes into air when put within air, so nice try
-
Without a force acting on them, nothing.
Just like if I slide it to the right, it sits there and doesn't slide back to the left.
Yes, why not compare two entirely different things, that’s brilliant!
Sliding an object that is on the ground to the left or right, is still on the ground. The same environment and same masses in place, just sliding it along the ground doesn’t change anything and shouldn’t change anything.
We don’t expect to move a rock five feet to the left on ground, and it rolls itself 5 feet back again, right?
But when a rock is first on the ground, and thrown up into air, where it does not originate or exist at all, your throwing it into air changed the conditions for the rock, you had to use force to throw it up into the less dense air, first of all. Density was again the main factor you needed to use force on throwing a denser rock into less dense air.
You know the rock flew up in air because it’s more dense than the air too.
After knowing the rock flies through air because it’s denser than air, what would you expect to happen after the more dense rock is now up within the less dense air?
The more dense rock will fall down through the less dense air, same as before flying upward through the air, but when already in air, being more dense than the air, it’s greater density makes it fall down through the air once again, and it does not need you to throw it down from air, or a made up force to PULL it down from the less dense air.
Air does not support a rock within air, it cannot support it within the air, and if you believe it should, in any way at all, I’d love to hear all about it, it’d be hilarious!
-
Yes, why not compare two entirely different things, that’s brilliant!
No, why not compare two entirely comparable things.
Moving something with a force, and seeing that it doesn't magically move back.
But when a rock is first on the ground, and thrown up into air
No.
When a rock is in the air, it has a force of gravity acting on it and not the normal reaction force.
you had to use force to throw it up into the less dense air
You have had this pathetic BS refuted countless times. Why keep repeating the same lie?
Air does not support a rock within air
What is there to support?
-
You’re entirely clueless as always.
The rock you slide on ground should not and cannot move back to where it was, there’s no reason it ever would or should do that.
You think that’s what our places of origin are? A single point on the actual place of origin? A place, a specific environment,…,not one point, moron.
Playing dumb as usual, that’s all you ever do when you have no valid argument.
-
You’re entirely clueless as always.
Why? Because I can so easily call you out on your pathetic BS?
That doesn't make me clueless.
If I was a clueless moron I might be conned by your pathetic BS, but I'm not.
The rock you slide on ground should not and cannot move back to where it was, there’s no reason it ever would or should do that.
Because there is no force accelerating it in that direction.
Just like in the absence of gravity, if you slide a rock up a cliff, there is no reason for it to go back down.
Gravity is that reason.
You have no alternative, just a pathetic, baseless assertion which requires ignoring so much of the world.
You think that’s what our places of origin are? A single point on the actual place of origin?
Yes, because it is a POINT of origin, not a massive extended plane.
But even appealing to a surface or other similar BS wont save you, as already explained repeatedly.
And you have absolutely no refutation for that refutation of your BS, so you just flee, only to repeat the same pathetic BS again and again.
Again consider a cliff face.
That is the surface.
I pull a rock away from it.
Instead of falling towards that surface that it originated on, it falls down, towards Earth.
Playing dumb as usual, that’s all you ever do when you have no valid argument.
There you go projecting again.
-
There’s no need to make up a bs idiotic and comically hopeless ‘force’ to help a boulder above the surface be free from the mighty and powerful grip it holds on the 30 ton boulder, which is helpless and weak compared to the mighty little air tidbits, as we all know!
Why don’t you tell me why a 30 ton boulder within the air, would ever remain in air, and what would make it stay in air, and why you would ever believe that it’s enormous mass and density, are plucked right out of the boulder into thin air and vanish, because you seem to believe mass and density don’t even exist unless a made up force wants them to exist!!
How might these air molecules are! They can hold up a 30
ton boulder like a toy!
Or you’re nuts and think such crap would happen
-
Make up a boneheaded force, but no need to ever prove this garbage exists, not measure any of it’s made up ‘waves’, unlike every actual force has been proven and it’s energy measured and shown to exist as a force, you can only bulls$(; about a made up force to a certain point, you can never fake it being measured, because others will find nothing to measure, and your toast!
No, that’s when you make up bs excuses about why you haven’t measured it yet, but hope nobody ever notices that, it’s not good to be exposed as a complete fraud!
When we’ve sunk down to the absolute gutter of this crap having not a shred of proof, cannot even be found to exist and cannot be measured for, which is the absolute one thing we must and always do, to prove a force actually DOES exist.
Not your garbage bs force, it has no need to be measured for to prove it exists, they just need to say it exists now!!
A mindless pack
-
If a made up force was a pulling down objects and sped them up to one exact speed, and every object was pulled down and sped up the very same, and to the very same top speed, and altitude didn’t matter at all, the more distance from its source, was nothing at all, then any bs goes
well for you
-
There’s no need to make up a bs idiotic and comically hopeless
Then why do you keep doing it?
to help a boulder above the surface be free from the mighty and powerful grip it holds on the 30 ton boulder
So what you are saying is that there is a force coming from Earth which is a mighty and powerful grip on the 30 ton boulder?
That sure sounds like gravity.
Why don’t you tell me why a 30 ton boulder within the air, would ever remain in air
I have already told you repeatedly.
Without a force acting on it, there is no reason for it to accelerate in any particular direction.
If we ignore gravity, then the only force we can tell is acting on it is the force due to the pressure gradient which should push it up.
If we ignore that as well, then there is no force acting on it so there is no for it to accelerate.
Stop trying to push your burden onto others.
You need to tell us why a boulder should accelerate at all without a force acting on it.
because you seem to believe mass and density don’t even exist unless a made up force wants them to exist
There you go lying yet again.
Mass and density do exist.
Mass is effectively resistance to change in motion.
You can easily test this yourself, by trying to push various objects along a level ground on tracks and wheels.
The more massive the object, the harder it is to move.
This is quantifiable, in the form of F=m*a.
So if you have a 30 ton boulder, it takes a lot of force to make it accelerate.
Yet here you are claiming it will just magically accelerate by pure magic for no reason at all.
How might these air molecules are! They can hold up a 30 ton boulder like a toy!
Again, "hold up" implied that there is some force they have to resist.
The air isn't "holding right" a boulder after you move it to the right, because there is no force trying to push it to the left.
The same applies here.
Without a force trying to move it down, there is nothing to hold up.
Make up a boneheaded force, but no need to ever prove this garbage exists, not measure any of it’s made up ‘waves’
There you go lying yet again.
Once more, gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
You were told experiments you can do to test it.
And gravitational waves have been detected.
You are just appealing to your own wilful ignorance to pretend reality is wrong.
If a made up force
We aren't talking about a made up force.
We are talking about a real force, known as gravity.
Your hatred of it and repeated lies about it doesn't make it made up.
was a pulling down objects and sped them up to one exact speed, and every object was pulled down and sped up the very same, and to the very same top speed, and altitude didn’t matter at all, the more distance from its source, was nothing at all, then any bs goes
well for you
No, for YOU! Because again, that is your strawman. That is not how gravity works.
Stop with the BS.
Yet again, we are right back where we were countless days ago, with you spouting pathetic BS because you hate gravity, while being completely incapable of showing any fault with it instead being reduced to repeatedly lying about it; and you not being able to offer any viable alternative. You can't even remain consistent as to if it is meant to be magical origin energy or simply being denser; but neither explains why things should fall. Only gravity (or something equivalent to it in that situation) does.
Again, all the evidence shows you need a force to accelerate an object.
So if you have an object in mid air, and it starts accelerating downwards, that needs a force.
Likewise, the existence of the pressure gradient, which is measurable and quantifiable, also requires a force to sustain it and prevent it from pushing everything up.
Your lies and wilful ignorance will not change that.
-
Nitrogen is nearly the same density as air and mixes into air when put within air, so nice try
But oxygen is more dense than nitrogen or air. Why has the oxygen not settled out into a layer below nitrogen or air?
-
Air is a perfect combination of Gods creation, same as water, etc.
The densities are intertwined to work as one thing, one molecule of air, of water, etc.
Those mediums are basic to all life on Earth, designed to support all life on Earth, except microbes, etc.
Combining two things of different densities together, interlaced, is no longer two separate objects, of different densities. When they are two separate elements, their density acts the same way as others do.
-
Air is a perfect combination
Then why does the composition of it vary so much?
The densities are intertwined
No, they aren't. There is a clear distinction between the densities of them.
You are just making up more pathetic BS to pretend your already refuted BS could work.
It is truly pathetic.
Yet again, we are right back where we were countless days ago, with you spouting pathetic BS because you hate gravity, while being completely incapable of showing any fault with it instead being reduced to repeatedly lying about it; and you not being able to offer any viable alternative. You can't even remain consistent as to if it is meant to be magical origin energy or simply being denser; but neither explains why things should fall. Only gravity (or something equivalent to it in that situation) does.
Again, all the evidence shows you need a force to accelerate an object.
So if you have an object in mid air, and it starts accelerating downwards, that needs a force.
Likewise, the existence of the pressure gradient, which is measurable and quantifiable, also requires a force to sustain it and prevent it from pushing everything up.
Your lies and wilful ignorance will not change that.
-
You claim gravity waves have been detected? Where were they detected? How were they detected?
Any kind of actual measurements of gravity being made now?
Actual measurements are the most important thing to have, although even with measurements, it has to be proven as truly and exclusively measurements of actual energy that is emitted outward, then identifying its source of origin, and testing and repeating the tests, results, and much more than that, like we’ve always done before we knew our actual forces existed.
Nothing like gravity, it’s a joke, looking at the work, the tests, the whole process and research and developments to find out how to identify it’s energy, measure it’s energy, locate its source of energy, and so on…
I’m not talking about forces like wind or water currents, which are obvious to see, and know exist, and proven to exist, felt as a force, resist opposite forces against them, etc.
Magnetic force is also obvious to see, but lesser than wind or water currents, though still easily proven to exist, demonstrated and tested to exist, resists opposing forces, felt to resist opposing forces…
Other forces haven’t been so easily proven to exist, like electricity, and so on, which aren’t seen or some not even felt, yet we’ve proven they exist, measured them and so on…
Look at how many distinctly unique forces and signals of each energy they have and are measured and proven to exist, like radar and sonar and microwaves and shortwaves, em waves, etc.
In medical science, bacteria wasn’t known to exist, until we found it with a microscope, and changed the world forever from it.
You seem to believe that gravity is already a proven force that exists, and acts and behaves like all other actual forces do, and everything you believe about gravity, is not even close to being true, it’s disgusting and sickening to me that this garbage goes on as if it’s a valid force, as a real force, that’s what is truly sickening and disgusting.
No proof it even EXISTS at all. No measurements of it, whatever IT may even be, or not be, let alone a force, based on their saying there is a force, that is within Earths core, a blatant lie they told us, knowing it is a lie, nobody can claim that, but they have claimed it.
That alone makes them liars, frauds, and con artists.
Based on the very scumbag who came up with such an idea, to say there’s a force within Earth…
Newton came up with a twist, and it wasn’t even noticed, or not looked at with any scrutiny, most likely.
It’s a law, penned by the great Newton! All others declare it so, a Law, and is perfect, and factual, for all eternity
His Law, his First Law of Motion, is a fraud of great proportions. An attempt to remove the cause of any motion of objects, by starting the law of motion, by saying ‘objects in motion’ to start his Law with!
‘Objects in motion’ or ‘when objects are in motion’, is the starting point of his Law!
Objects, I shall put you in motion, for no reason, no cause of the motion, the only reason you ARE in motion!
-
There’s not any objects in air, so why are you saying when an object is in air?
It didn’t exist in air, first of all.
You threw it up into air from where it actually was, on the ground, right?
So you mean, after I grab an object from the ground, and then throw it up into air using force to throw it up….
You took an object on the ground and threw it into the air. You threw an object on the ground which has more mass and density than the air, and put it up into the less dense medium of air, so when the much denser object is put up into the less dense medium, you expect the denser object you threw into the less dense medium to stay where you threw it up into?
So you expect it to float around in air, which cannot support the object within air, being more dense than air becomes irrelevant somehow?
Why would you believe the denser object within a less dense medium because you put it into the less dense medium, would not simply fall through the less dense medium by itself, by having more density than the medium you put it into?
A helium filled balloon didn’t need you to throw it up into air, no force acted on the balloon to put it into motion upward through the air. Not with your made up force that only pulls things down from air, holds them down on the surface!
The motion of the balloon is upward, and the cause of its upward motion was its lesser density than the air, causing it to rise upward in motion.
Your made up force pulls down all things of all densities, even the air is pulled down by your amazing force. It would not let the balloon rise up from the surface, having less or more density wouldn’t matter to the great made up pulling down holding down force!
This proves there’s no such force at all. You can’t have a part time pulling and holding down force, it must be consistent in its actions or does not exist at all. Actual forces don’t have any exceptions or excuses, they are always consistent in their actions and work the same way all the time.
And actual forces don’t need to have another force come in to solve its failures, and inconsistencies!
-
You claim gravity waves have been detected? Where were they detected? How were they detected?
Yes, at LIGO.
But that is just yet another pathetic distraction from you.
Any kind of actual measurements of gravity being made now?
Plenty.
People measure how g varies over Earth, for a variety of reasons.
People recreate experiments like the Cavendish experiment.
But again, this is another pathetic deflection.
Actual measurements are the most important thing to have, although even with measurements, it has to be proven as truly and exclusively measurements of actual energy that is emitted outward, then identifying its source of origin, and testing and repeating the tests, results, and much more than that, like we’ve always done before we knew our actual forces existed.
No, that is pretty much how it never works, because you continue to fundamentally misunderstand how forces work.
Again, it isn't some magic source of energy continually emitting energy outwards.
Magnetic force is also obvious to see
Just like gravity.
yet we’ve proven they exist, measured them and so on…
Just like gravity.
it’s disgusting and sickening to me that this garbage goes on as if it’s a valid force, as a real force, that’s what is truly sickening and disgusting.
Why?
Because it shows your utterly pathetic, delusional BS is wrong?
You should be sickened and disgusted by yourself.
From all the lies and BS you spout.
No proof it even EXISTS at all. No measurements of it
Except the countless examples you have already been provided with and just dismissed.
Meanwhile, you are still yet to offer a viable alternative.
their saying there is a force, that is within Earths core
A blatant lie you keep repeating even after it has been pointed out to be a lie.
No one, other than lying subhuman scum like you, are saying it is just magically within Earth's core.
No one who had any idea what they are talking about would even describe it like that.
e.g. go back to magnetism. No one would describe it as a force within the magnet.
It is a force between 2 magnet or between a magnet and magnetic object.
That alone makes them liars, frauds, and con artists.
No, that makes YOU a liar, because you keep repeating the same BS strawmen, even after it has been called out.
Newton came up with a twist
No, they came up with something quite honest, which destroys your pathetic BS, so you have to lie about that as well.
His Law, his First Law of Motion, is a fraud of great proportions.
Yet you are unable to show any fault with it.
I know, it doesn't match your pathetic fantasy, but it does match what is observed in reality.
Again, the simplest test is throw something upwards and to the right.
We notice it doesn't travel in a straight line and then stop and go back to you. Instead it follows a parabola/ellipse, being accelerated downwards.
Likewise, there are countless other experiments you can do to show that.
But because you need things to just magically fall for no reason at all, you have to reject it to pretend your pathetic fantasy is true.
But back in reality, there are mountains of evidence showing in order to accelerate something you need a force.
And that applies to make it go faster, and to making it go slower.
-
There’s not any objects in air
There are plenty.
Again, another absolutely pathetic lie from you.
You threw it up
No, I didn't.
Again, there are countless ways to get into the air.
For example you can break it off the bottom of an overhang, that is applying a force moving it down.
And yet it continues to go down, rather than fall back up to the surface it broke off from.
Again, if the origin mattered at all, if you threw something up and to the right, it would travel in a straight line, slowing down and then going straight back so it would end up going down and to the left, returning to the place it was thrown from.
But this doesn't happen.
mass and density
Explains nothing without a force to act on the mass to try to move it down, to create a pressure gradient in a fluid so the fluid pushes objects up.
So you expect it to float around in air, which cannot support the object within air
Again, WHAT IS THERE TO SUPPORT?
Without a force like gravity trying to pull the object down, which the air would need to resist to keep the object up, what is there to support?
If I place an object in the middle of a table, why does the air have no issue "supporting" it from flying off to the left or the right or towards the nearest wall or anything like that?
It is because there is no force trying to move it in that direction.
So there is nothing that the air needs to supports.
It is only when there is a force that the air needs to support anything.
So without a force trying to make the object go down, there is nothing that the air needs to support and the object should float.
being more dense than air becomes irrelevant somehow?
The question you should be asking is why should that be relevant in the first place?
Why should being denser make it move at all?
Why should it make it move in any particular direction?
Why would you believe ... would not simply fall
Because in order to accelerate it needs a force.
A helium filled balloon
Is pushed upwards the pressure gradient of the atmosphere. But unlike most objects, the downwards force due to gravity is not enough to keep it down.
no force acted on the balloon to put it into motion upward through the air
Except the pressure gradient that has been repeatedly explained to you which you need to keep ignoring because it shows your delusional BS could never work.
the cause of its upward motion was
The pressure gradient of the atmosphere pushing it up, with the downwards force from gravity acting directly on the balloon not being enough to keep it down.
It would not let the balloon rise up
You have already had this BS refuted countless times.
Again, it is your magic, made up strawman, that wouldn't allow that.
Gravity is fine with it.
The fact gravity works so well (when you don't ignore the pressure gradient of the atmosphere) is strong evidence supporting gravity.
The fact you need to repeatedly lie about it shows you likely have no actual objection against it because it is likely true.
You can’t have a part time pulling and holding down force, it must be consistent in its actions or does not exist at all.
Again, a pathetic strawman by you.
We have a consistent force.
A force consistently acting to try to accelerate objects towards Earth (and not just Earth, it acts between all masses, but for small objects near Earth, the only significant force is usually the attraction to Earth).
This includes the air and other fluids, which results in a pressure gradient building up because they can't occupy the same volume, so the lower layers support the upper layers.
This pressure gradient is measurable and verifiable.
This pressure gradient acts to push objects upwards. In fact, it also attempts to push the fluid up. But that is balanced by the downwards force of gravity directly acting on the fluid.
So when you place an object in this fluid, there are 2 forces acting, the direct force from gravity acting directly on the object to move it down, and the indirect force from gravity where gravity creates a pressure gradient in the fluid which pushes the object up.
The direct force on the object is based upon the mass of the object. The indirect force is based upon the mass of the fluid displaced.
If the direct force is greater the object goes down. If the indirect force is greater the object goes up.
Notice that this provides an explanation, unlike your BS.
And notice how gravity remains consistent, without any actual problem.
Your argument is as good as saying magnetism can't be real, because I can pull a magnet off a fridge.
That is the level of pathetic desperation you have stopped to.
Again, what you should fine sickening and disgusting is yourself, and other lying, subhuman scum like yourself.
-
So when you place an object in this fluid, there are 2 forces acting, the direct force from gravity acting directly on the object to move it down, and the indirect force from gravity where gravity creates a pressure gradient in the fluid which pushes the object up.
There is no force which acts against itself as an opposite you moron.
That would negate the very nature of energy and forces!
Like a wind builds up into a hurricane and destructs itself with too much wind!
Forces are one directional energy, they do not oppose themselves at some level or point!
Winds don’t get too strong and go against themselves!
-
Magnets dont pull all metals in at equal speed
-
There is no force which acts against itself as an opposite you moron.
Not directly, but this can be done indirectly with countless things.
Get a pole. Fix it in the middle so it can rotate about the middle. Put a sail on each end, and use the wind.
The wind acting on one sail acts against the wind acting on the other sail.
This is very easy to understand.
So the moron here once more is you.
Magnets dont pull all metals in at equal speed
And no one ever said they did.
Instead, what we said is that the force depends upon a property of the object.
Which you need to reject to pretend gravity should apply the same force to every object.
Yet again, we are right back where we were countless days ago, with you spouting pathetic BS because you hate gravity, while being completely incapable of showing any fault with it instead being reduced to repeatedly lying about it; and you not being able to offer any viable alternative. You can't even remain consistent as to if it is meant to be magical origin energy or simply being denser; but neither explains why things should fall. Only gravity (or something equivalent to it in that situation) does.
Again, all the evidence shows you need a force to accelerate an object.
So if you have an object in mid air, and it starts accelerating downwards, that needs a force.
Likewise, the existence of the pressure gradient, which is measurable and quantifiable, also requires a force to sustain it and prevent it from pushing everything up.
Your lies and wilful ignorance will not change that.
-
Forces are one directional energy, they do not oppose themselves at some level or point!
Forces and energy are related, but are not the same thing. Forces do not oppose themselves, but multiple forces can act together or in opposition.
-
Why do things fall from air unless by an external force?
Why are things in air to begin with? They weren’t in air, they were on the ground and put upward into air.
So we start by saying that things are always on the surface. Not in air. What happens if we put them up into air? We must use force to put them into air. They are more dense than air so must use force to overcome their greater density to put them into lesser density.
Their greater density than air makes them fall through the air back to the surface. They become a force through their downward motion through air
-
They weren’t in air, they were on the ground and put upward into air.
Other than comet’s, meteorites, the planets, the moons, photons and charged particles from the sun?
How do you accelerate a mass with density instead of a force?
-
Why do things fall from air unless by an external force?
Yes, that is the question you can't answer.
Why are things in air to begin with?
It clearly doesn't matter.
Because it doesn't matter if an object was thrown straight up, or upwards at an angle, or thrown directly away from a slope, or broken off the face off a cliff, or broken and pulled downwards away from an overhand, or rolled off the edge of a table or into a hole in the ground, or even if it was a liquid that evaporated, and then condensed on a higher surface; in all these cases, they fall DOWN!
So it clearly has nothing to do with how they got there.
If that was the case, you would expect them to go backwards, not down.
It is clear there is a force accelerating them downwards.
They are more dense than air so must use force to overcome their greater density to put them into lesser density.
No, not in the slightest.
As there is no reason for that density to care at all.
You need a force to make that density care.
Their greater density than air makes them fall through the air back to the surface.
And do you know how this makes you even more pathetic?
If this was the case, you would just say that, rather than even attempting to appeal to how they got there.
Because why should it matter how they got there?
If it is a simple case of density, why wouldn't it work regardless of how they got there?
Why couldn't you just say that an object more dense than the fluid it is in will go down?
You spam so much BS arguing about how they got there, when this pathetic line of argumentation from you shouldn't care at all.
It shows you have no confidence at all in your argument.
And it isn't surprising, because all this pathetic BS your post can be summarised as:
"They go down because they are more dense than air."
Which provides no explanation at all for why they go down.
They become a force through their downward motion through air
Wrong again.
You need the force to make a downwards motion.
Even if you want to lie to everyone by claiming it is magic density, that still needs to be magic density making the force which then causes the object to accelerate downwards.
Again, all the available evidence shows that if you want to accelerate something, you need a force.
That they acceleration and force are related by the mass, i.e. F=m*a.
i.e. to accelerate an object of 1 kg, at a rate of 1 m/s^2 to the right, you need a force of 1 N to the right.
So what is the force making things go down?
Again, it isn't density, because that has no directionality.
-
Even if you want to lie to everyone by claiming it is magic density, that still needs to be magic density making the force which then causes the object to accelerate downwards.
Nothing magical about it, only common sense and perfectly logical.
Objects have to be taken off the surface, they aren’t in air or moving around on the surface at all by themselves.
There can be any number of external forces causing them into motion while on the surface, like a wind or something, otherwise they never move, from the surface.
So when we take a rock from the surface, and throw it up into air, where you’ve now thrown a denser object into a less dense medium, by your own external force, it is now not on the ground after a wind hits it along the ground. It’s now within a far less dense medium than the ground is, where they are motionless before you throw it up.
You had to use force to throw it up because it’s denser than air is. After it’s within air, it’s own density in a less dense medium makes it fall down through the air to the ground again, creating its own kinetic force in a fall through the less dense medium.
No external force is needed to pull down denser objects in a less dense medium, their greater density does that by itself. And they create a force of motion themselves in falling through air.
Same thing when you drop a rock into water, it sinks down through the water because it’s denser than water is.
The same principle holds for things that rise up in air and in water, being less dense than air or water.
A submarine uses relative density to water when it sinks down through water and then rises upward in water to its surface and floats atop it.
It uses ballast tanks inside them that fill up with water to sink down, becoming more dense than water, and then drains out the water in those tanks and they become less dense that water with only air in the tanks.
A balloon without air or helium in it has more density than air and stays on ground. When filled with air or helium is ivecomes less dense than the air and rises upward into the air. Helium has loess density than air so a helium balloon rises up higher than one filled with just air.
Ships float on water because they’re less dense than air along their bottoms to allow them to float atop it. If a hole is in the bottom it fills up with water and becomes denser that water and sinks down into it.
You certainly know a helium balloon rises up in air with no external force needed, right? So why do you think we need any force to pull objects down from air when they’re MORE dense than air?
You just want one motion to need a pulling down force, but not when they rise up into air?
That’s why you had to make up ANOTHER non existent force to excuse your failed first made up force that actually doesn’t pull all things down from air or holds all things to the surface!!
You needed to make up another bs force which actually explains both things being due to relative density of object in both mediums of air and water, and any other medium as well.
You sink in quicksand slower than in water because your denser than both mediums, but quicksand has more density than water does, so you sink down in it slower than in water
-
Nothing magical about it, only common sense and perfectly logical.
It is pure magic, directly defying common sense, and in no way logical.
Again, density provides no reason for things to move in any direction.
Again, origin, if it actually worked, would mean an object thrown to the right would fall to the left.
Neither works.
Objects have to be taken off the surface
Sure, I can find an overhang, and pull an object down, away from where it originated, and then it falls down.
It doesn't fall back up to where I pulled it away from.
So again, where it started clearly doesn't matter.
But even more so, I can take water, and boil it and it starts going up. Then it condenses and it starts going down.
Again, where it originated clearly doesn't matter.
Stop repeating the same pathetic, refuted BS.
It just shows how utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
And what shows this even more, is how you are so absolutely pathetic, and know your pathetic BS can't work, that you need to repeatedly switch between 2 contradictory ideas.
If it is about origin, then stop appealing to density. It should simply be it originated there, so if you move it away it goes back. And that should apply regardless of which direction it is moved.
If it is about density, then stop appealing to origin. It should not matter where the object originated, or how it got to where it is. Instead, it should simply be that it is denser so it goes down.
But you know that neither of these can work.
Origin means it should go back to where it originated, not down.
And you know density doesn't work, because you have no reason for why that should make it move.
So you need to continually switch back and forth; which just has the effect of showing you know you are spouting pure BS.
where they are motionless before you throw it up.
No, I threw it down, away from the overhang.
it’s own density in a less dense medium makes it fall down
WHY?
Stop just asserting the same pathetic BS.
Why should being denser make it go down?
How does this work to generate a force?
Again, if it is accelerating it needs a force.
The same principle holds for things that rise up in air and in water, being less dense than air or water.
You mean when you ignore reality.
Back in reality we see a balance between the downwards force due to gravity, and an upwards force due to the pressure gradient.
You know, the thing you need to keep fleeing from because it destroys your pathetic BS.
The upwards force due to the pressure gradient is equal in magnitude to the weight of the fluid displaced.
If this upwards force is greater, the object rises, if it is lower, it sinks (but its apparent weight is reduced).
You certainly know a helium balloon rises up in air with no external force needed, right?
No, I don't. Because that is pure BS as already explained.
There is a pressure gradient in all fluids. This is easily verifiable and measurable.
This is an external force acting on everything in that fluid.
That includes the helium filled balloon.
That means the helium filled balloon is being pushed upwards by the air.
You know this.
You appeal to this pressure gradient when you are spamming pure BS about airplanes.
So you know this pressure gradient exists.
And you would have to be a complete imbecile to not realise that pressure gradient provides an upwards force.
If you place a scale above the helium filled balloon, and zero it, and then measure the total upwards force on the balloon, and then calculate the upwards force from the pressure gradient, you find you are missing a downwards force acting on the balloon.
So that gives us 3 reasons to need an external force trying to pull things down.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
So why do you reject all this and instead wilfully lie to everyone by claiming no such force is needed and that objects just magically accelerate without a force?
Why do you repeatedly ignore this pressure gradient which destroys your delusional fantasy?
That’s why you had to make up ANOTHER non existent force
Now try that again honestly.
Due to the first real force, which has been repeatedly demonstrated beyond any sane doubt, the air (and other fluids) are pulled down, creating a pressure gradient which pushes up objects immersed in it, directly giving that force you claim is a second made up force.
But because you are so adamant about rejecting that first real force; you are now desperately forced to dismiss the resulting force as fake as well, and then also ignore or reject the pressure gradient or the logical consequences of it.
i.e. your pathetic BS falls apart, while reality with gravity continues to work just fine, with you still unable to show a single fault.
-
No reason for why density of an object within a less dense medium should ever make it move through the air at all?
I’m sure you believe there’s a good reason that it should remain suspended up within the air, instead?
Helium balloons move upward into air, for no reason at all, right?
No, they move upward by another made up force when the first made up force failed to account for major flaws killing it!
-
No reason for why density of an object within a less dense medium should ever make it move through the air at all?
That's right. You have no reason at all. All you can do is repeatedly make your pathetic assertion.
I’m sure you believe there’s a good reason that it should remain suspended up within the air, instead?
Yes.
No force=no acceleration.
So without a force it can't accelerate downwards.
This has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
Helium balloons move upward into air, for no reason at all, right?
No, because the pressure gradient of the atmosphere pushes them up.
You know, that thing you need to repeatedly ignore and flee from because it completely and utterly destroys your pathetic BS?
No, they move upward by another made up force when the first made up force failed to account for major flaws killing it!
You sure do love repeating this pathetic lie don't you?
Again, the pressure gradient is a direct logical consequence of gravity.
And a direct logical consequence of this pressure gradient is an upwards force on objects.
And this pressure gradient is measurable and quantifiable, and proven beyond any sane doubt.
You just repeatedly ignoring it and trying to dismiss it all as "another made up force", just shows how utterly pathetic, dishonest and desperate you are.
Likewise, you continually appealing to these "major flaws", when you can't show a single flaw at all, just shows how utterly pathetic, dishonest and desperate you are.
Again, gravity remains and works just fine.
Your pathetic BS doesn't work at all.
And reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
So why do you reject all this and instead wilfully lie to everyone by claiming no such force is needed and that objects just magically accelerate without a force?
Why do you repeatedly ignore this pressure gradient which destroys your delusional fantasy?
-
Helium balloons move upward into air, for no reason at all, right?
Helium balloons move upward into air because its buoyant force is greater than the gravitational force.
-
Helium balloons move upward into air, for no reason at all, right?
Helium balloons move upward into air because its buoyant force is greater than the gravitational force.
No, you’ve had to make up two different non-existent forces because the first one failed miserably to hold up as an actual force.
Everything of your first made up force proved it was rubbish.
Compare any actual force to your made up one, the whole thing doesn’t hold up at all.
Every actual force offers resistance to things opposing it, only your bs force offers no resistance at all. Birds don’t have any resistance to flying above the surface from any force. Same as insects fly above the surface freely and without any resistance from a made up force within a ball Earth!
We fall from air freely, never feel ourselves being ‘pulled down to the surface’ from any force below us!
Look at how magnets resist opposing forces to them. Hold a steel nail near a magnet, we feel it pulling in the nail in our hand. That’s how actual forces are, they resist opposing forces. Pull a steel nail held to a magnet, again feel the resistance to our pull of the mail from the magnets surface.
Wind is felt hitting us from behind and in front of us, from behind going with the wind propels us faster in our walk or run. When walking or running against a wind, we feel it resist our motion, and we move slower as a result.
Those are just some features of all actual forces that are not found with your made up force. Two absolute fundamental features of all actual forces, offering resistance to opposing forces, and are FELT BY US resisting against us and assisting us when moving with them.
Every actual force has been proven by measuring them, as energy. They don’t exist if they cannot be measured as forces, and again, only your made up force cannot be measured as an actual force at all!
In fact, your made up force would be easily proven if it actually existed at all!
Your argument is that a force exists in all things, but Earth has much more of that force within it, being so much larger and heavier than anything else on Earth!
This would have nothing to do with density of things on Earth, mass alone is supposed to be the only factor of your bs force!
You can’t say your made up force pulls down and holds down all things to Earths surface, except things with less density than air and water, it’s completely ridiculous.
An empty balloon is supposedly ‘held down to the surface’ by your made up force! It shouldn’t matter if it’s filled with helium or not, your bs force would still ‘hold it down to the surface’ as before. It has the very same mass as before, just less density than before! It should be no different because of its density being less than air! Same as a sub should sink in water, what would being less ir more dense than water make any difference to what the sun does in water?
Both air and water have different densities, you claim both air and water are held down to Earths surface, but air exists high above Earths surface, not on the surface at all. That makes no sense either. If a force exists in Earth, holds down all things to Earths surface, then it should hold down all the air to Earths surface too!
Nothing is consistent or logical or valid about your fantasy force, because it’s entirely made up, how could it possibly work as an actual force when it’s nothing but bs?
-
Helium balloons move upward into air, for no reason at all, right?
Helium balloons move upward into air because its buoyant force is greater than the gravitational force.
No, you’ve had to make up two different non-existent forces because the first one failed miserably to hold up as an actual force.
Okay, you got me. According to GR, gravity is not a force but an acceleration. However, weight (mass x gravitational acceleration) is a force. So, if you really want to be nitpicky, I should have said that helium balloons move upward into the because its buoyant force is greater than the weight of the balloon. Better? ::)
-
An acceleration doesn’t exist as an entity, it’s an action of motion for objects within a medium or environment, and so forth.
The made up force isn’t really a force, it’s an accelerant of some type, but so what?
A big stupid story is all it is
-
No, you’ve had to make up two different non-existent forces because the first one failed miserably to hold up as an actual force.
Repeating the same pathetic lie again and again wont save you.
Again, buoyancy is a result of gravity, as explained repeatedly.
Again, gravity acts on fluids, creating a pressure gradient, which in turn pushes objects up.
And importantly, this pressure gradient is directly measurable.
And sane people know what a pressure gradient does, it pushes things.
But because of how utterly pathetic, your pathetic BS is, you need to continually ignore this, pretend this pressure gradient doesn't exist, because it kills your pathetic fantasy.
Again, all you are doing with these pathetic lies is showing everyone that you are worthless, pathetic, desperate, lying, subhuman scum that doesn't give a damn about the truth at all.
Compare any actual force to your made up one
You mean compare it to YOUR made up force, your pathetic strawman of gravity.
If you instead compare it to actual gravity, it works fine; with you still unable to show a single felt, and instead just repeating the same pathetic lies.
Every actual force offers resistance to things opposing it
Including gravity.
That is why I can't just go out to a car and lift it up 1 handed. Instead, the more massive the object is the greater the resistance.
Just like real forces.
Birds don’t have any resistance to flying
Just what do you think their wings are for you complete imbecile?
We fall
That's right, we FALL.
As if something is pulling us down.
And to stop that, we need to resist that fall, to apply a force to hold even ourselves up.
If someone breaks your legs, you can't stand, because you lack the ability to resist the very real force of gravity.
Look at how magnets resist opposing forces to them. Hold a steel nail near a magnet, we feel it pulling in the nail in our hand. That’s how actual forces are, they resist opposing forces.
Just like gravity, where if you try to lift a heavy object, you feel it pulling in your hand.
Wind is felt hitting us from behind and in front of us, from behind going with the wind propels us faster in our walk or run. When walking or running against a wind, we feel it resist our motion, and we move slower as a result.
Just like gravity, where we find it so much easier to go downhill with gravity than uphill against it.
We see this very easily with cars, where the car can roll down the hill without any force required from the car's engine; meanwhile depending on the car, the load and the hill, the car can seriously struggle to go uphill against gravity, some can't go up.
Those are just some features of all actual forces
That are also found with gravity.
But because of how utterly pathetic and desperate you are, you need to repeatedly lie about it.
Every actual force has been proven by measuring them
Just like gravity.
as energy.
No, as a force.
But don't worry, we can also measure energy for gravity.
What do you think they are harnessing for hydroelectric powerplants?
only your made up force cannot be measured as an actual force at all!
No, that would still be your pathetic strawman.
Back in reality, gravity can and is measured as an actual force.
You lying about it wont change that fact.
It just shows how utterly pathetic, desperate and dishonest you are.
Again, just what are you hoping to achieve with this blatant and obvious lies?
To show everyone how utterly pathetic you and the FE movement in general is?
How in order to pretend there is a problem with the RE model you need to repeatedly lie to everyone?
In fact, your made up force would be easily proven
And it has been. Many times. Beyond any sane doubt.
But that doesn't stop subhuman scum like you from repeatedly lying about it.
An empty balloon is supposedly ‘held down to the surface’ by your made up force!
Again, this is like complaining that gravity must be wrong because the light kid on the see-saw goes up, while you ignore the heavy kid going down.
Again, that pressure gradient that exists BECAUSE OF GRAVITY (and something you can't explain at all), pushes EVERYTHING up.
And gravity is not magic, it is not going to magically hold things down regardless of what other forces act.
Nothing is consistent or logical or valid about your fantasy force
No, that would still just be your strawman.
You are yet to demonstrate a single inconsistency with gravity. Instead you just repeatedly lie to everyone like the pathetic, desperate, lying, subhuman scum you are.
Again, gravity remains and works just fine.
Your pathetic BS doesn't work at all.
And reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
So why do you reject all this and instead wilfully lie to everyone by claiming no such force is needed and that objects just magically accelerate without a force?
Why do you repeatedly ignore this pressure gradient which destroys your delusional fantasy?
-
An acceleration doesn’t exist as an entity, it’s an action of motion for objects within a medium or environment, and so forth.
The made up force isn’t really a force, it’s an accelerant of some type, but so what?
A big stupid story is all it is
It may sound stupid to you, but the math matches real world observations and that has to be worth something.
Tell you what, why don’t you show us your math of how buoyancy works without gravity? It seems long past time for you to put up or shut up. Don’t tell us why we’re wrong, show us why you’re right.
-
Who ignored the entire reason for objects to ever BECOME IN MOTION, along or above Earths surface, but has the utter arrogance and gall to claim he has written an actual ‘Law of Motion’ about objects in motion!!??
Objects aren’t in motion, and when objects ARE in motion, that’s not the starting point for any sort of supposed ‘Law of Motion’, leaving out what created the motion to effin start with!!
-
A fall through air, is very different in all ways than being pulled down from below the air, and any actual pull on us downward from air, by any actual external forces we can use, or a force from above us in air pushing us further and faster diwnward in a fall through air, is immediately felt by us, it is instantly felt and recognized by us , as an external force acting on us within air.
Air resistance is always felt by us too, blowing us sideways or whatever.
Being pulled on our leg or by a wind on our whole body is always felt by us, as an external force acting on us.
When we hold a piece of steel near a magnet, we feel it’s force on the metal pulling it in towards it. And resisting our pull of a metal that is on a magnets surface, obviously.
No force acts out on us and isn’t felt by us. It’s not possible, not in the real world.
-
Things don’t exist within air, things exist on the ground or surface of Earth, below the air above the surface of Earth where things DO EXIST .
And if everything on Earth, has always existed on the surface of Earth, on ground or in waters of Earth, each and every thing of the countless number of all things that are on Earth, have always been on Earth as we know it, and ever since then have been on Earth too…
Yet other things are above Earth, stars and so on, and they’ve always existed above Earth as we know it and ever since then.
What this all indicates is that all of them were created on Earth and some created above Earth, nothing else would indicate otherwise. Nothing at all.
-
It’s us changing the conditions and the environment of objects by putting them up into the air, which makes objects of greater density than the air, fall through the air downward, without any support from below them but the less dense air…
The relative density of an object in a medium is what creates their upward or downward motion within the mediums. Their motion is created when they’re within another medium or environment to their own environment.
It’s that simple, and it works perfectly and consistently in all cases and situations.
Saying things don’t move unless an external force acts on them is normal conditions, where things are on Earth, not when put up into air, those are not normal conditions. They are not normal conditions. There is no force needed to pull things down from air, only greater density makes them fall through air downward to the surface of Earth.
-
Who ignored
It isn't ignored. It is irrelevant, as we have been over countless times.
A fall through air, is very different in all ways than being pulled down from below the air
You mean gravity acting to pull all of you down together feels quite different to someone attaching a massive weight to your foot.
But again, you spout pure BS.
If the force is light enough, you don't feel it.
Are you really suggesting you would feel a fly land of your jeans and pull them down?
And we can feel us resisting gravity.
You are just used to it.
When we hold a piece of steel near a magnet, we feel it’s force on the metal pulling it in towards it. And resisting our pull of a metal that is on a magnets surface, obviously.
Just like if we hold a large mass near Earth, we feel it's force on the mass pulling it in towards it, and resisting our pull of that mass.
Again, you feel gravity.
Lying about it wont change it.
[origin]
Your origin BS has been refuted countless times.
Why keep bring it up?
And if everything on Earth, has always existed on the surface of Earth
i.e. if your entirely delusional, and entirely baseless claim is true; which relies upon rejecting evidence that shows it is wrong.
I think we can safely discard that garbage.
putting them up
Again, it is NOT always up.
It can be in any direction, even down. And yet they still fall down.
This shows it has NOTHING to do with where they originated.
It’s that simple, and it works perfectly and consistently in all cases and situations.
It doesn't work at all.
Saying things don’t move unless an external force acts on them is normal conditions,
i.e. you are fully aware that what you are claiming is entirely abnormal.
So you act like it is pure magic.
It is pathetic.
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
So why do you reject all this and instead wilfully lie to everyone by claiming no such force is needed and that objects just magically accelerate without a force?
Why do you repeatedly ignore this pressure gradient which destroys your delusional fantasy?
-
We do not ever feel objects we hold up in air being pulled down by any external force below an object we hold in air.
We realize that when we DO FEEL A PULL FROM OUR ACTUAL FORCES!
How could we feel the pull of a small magnet on a small piece of metal in our hand, but feel nothing of a pull from a massive force on a much heavier object we’re holding up in the air? It would rip the object from our arms down to the surface, much more strength needed to pull down a heavy object to the surface by a force than a tiny piece of metal to a small magnet would require from a force!
-
We do not ever feel objects we hold up in air being pulled down by any external force below an object we hold in air.
Wilfully lying wont help you.
We DO feel something trying to make that object we are holding go down.
This causes strain on us when we resist it.
Depending on the setup, it can even leave quite significant marks in the skin, or cut or crush the hand.
Just what are you hoping to achieve with such blatant lies?
but feel nothing of a pull from a massive force on a much heavier object we’re holding up in the air? It would rip the object from our arms down to the surface
Please provide an example of you holding a 1 ton bolder by yourself, without it being ripped from your arm.
Again, what you are hoping to achieve with these blatant lies?
We DO feel something pulling things down. But that pull has to be significant enough for us to feel it.
If you have a speck of dust land on your shoe, you don't feel it.
But if you have a 1 kg weight, you do.
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
So why do you reject all this and instead wilfully lie to everyone by claiming no such force is needed and that objects just magically accelerate without a force?
Why do you repeatedly ignore this pressure gradient which destroys your delusional fantasy?
-
There’s no way to know how things which are, today, which were before today, which will be after today, have always been that way, but compared to your argument, their trash, my argument destroys yours as nothing but crap…
Everything has always existed on Earth, or above Earth, and nothing else has landed on Earth from above, except rain and snow from clouds above Earth, for example, and clouds have always existed in the air, always at such heights above Earths surface, as certain types of clouds, at certain heights above Earths surface….
Their story is complete bs, of course.
No object or anything at all on Earth has ever been seen to come down from above Earth, to land down on Earths surface, and remain on Earth since that time!
Telling us that these are ‘comets or meteors’ flying around Earth in ‘endless space’!!!
Space is made up to start with.
The stuff in endless space which is where meteors and comets exist within, ok?!
-
I’m addressing the question of this thread, asking what holds us down to Earth?
Assuming things would float around in air or space otherwise?
What is that based on? All things are on Earth, always have been on Earth as we know it.
Everything on Earth has more density than air, that’s what holds everything down to the surface of Earth, their own greater density than that of air above them, less than the surface below them. Easy as that.
-
my argument destroys yours as nothing but crap
What argument?
That things just magically fall? For no reason at all?
Where you need to continually ignore things which show your claim is pure BS?
You have destroyed nothing.
Instead, you just keep spouting crap.
In fact, your lack of argument seems so pathetic, you can't even seem to address what I said, and instead just need to keep repeating the same pathetic crap that doesn't help you at all.
Assuming things would float around in air or space otherwise?
What is that based on?
All the experiments demonstrating that if you want to accelerate something you need to apply a force.
So no force, no acceleration.
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
So why do you reject all this and instead wilfully lie to everyone by claiming no such force is needed and that objects just magically accelerate without a force?
Why do you repeatedly ignore this pressure gradient which destroys your delusional fantasy?
-
I’ve told you many times why things always fall downward after being PUT UP INTO AIR BY AN EXTERNAL FORCE ACTING ON THEM.
Things are on Earth. Motionless things stay on the surface of Earth, motionless.
So here is where things on earth have always existed, or they didn’t always exist on Earth.
We cannot possibly prove which one is true, so the evidence is what we know is true and not true from thousands of years we know about it.
Why would everything fall down in that one direction at all?
They are on the surface, not in the air above the surface, so they have to be taken off the surface, and thrown up into the air, by an external force acting on them.
The external force puts them into a very different environment and medium than they were always in.
Their greater density is why things always stay on the surface, and why they fall through the less dense air downward without any support below them in air.
That’s why things don’t exist in air, but when we put them up into air, their greater mass and density must use external force to throw them up into the less dense air.
So what this creates by your actions has a denser object in a less dense medium all around it….
There’s only one result possible at all. It falls through the air below it directly downward to the surface once again.
-
The objects weren’t in air before we put them up. - a single direction, why not any direction at all?
Put a rock into a lake, it sinks down through less dense water.
Helium balloons rise up in air, being less dense than air. Your force proved to be crap, of course. Let’s make up another force to solve this problem !!!
Such a joke
-
The objects weren’t in air before we put them up. - a single direction, why not any direction at all?
Put a rock into a lake, it sinks down through less dense water.
Helium balloons rise up in air, being less dense than air. Your force proved to be crap, of course. Let’s make up another force to solve this problem !!!
Such a joke
I can take a balloon filled with air and place it at about a depth of 15ft and it won't rise through the more dense water. Based on how you claim it works, the more dense water should push below the less dense balloon and cause the balloon to rise.
-
I don’t get why flat earthers persist with all this bollocks when it’s completely unnecessary.
You could just say there’s a force proportional to an object’s mass that acts downwards towards a flat earth instead of towards the center of a spherical earth. AKA weight.
You’d then have something that works fine for just about all the mechanics of stuff on earth. All the maths used by millions of engineers to build everything in the modern world from cars and planes to power stations, bridges and oil refineries would be fine.
You don’t have to call it gravity. Give it whatever name you want.
You do know that aeroplanes are real, right Turbo? Don’t you think that the people who design them have pretty good idea of how this works?
Trying to break the most fundamental parts of basic mechanics is just daft.
-
I’ve told you many times why things always fall downward after being PUT UP INTO AIR BY AN EXTERNAL FORCE ACTING ON THEM.
Yes, you have repeated this pathetic lie many times.
But I have given examples where it is not so simple.
For example, when you throw something up and to the right.
This also includes when you throw something directly away from an inclined surface (e.g. a side of a hill).
It doesn't magically reverse and come back, it goes down.
But it also includes other examples, such as where you break an object off from the vertical face of a cliff.
You are not forcing it up, you are forcing it entirely horizontally.
Even worse for you it also includes when you break something away from an overhang. In this case you are literally forcing it down.
It also includes when you simply push something off the edge or over a hole.
In all cases it goes DOWN!
Not back to where it came from.
Not opposite the force that put it into the air, but DOWN!
So your pathetic BS doesn't work.
Again, things do not magically return to their origin.
And for added fun, it also includes when you don't provide a force at all.
For example when you boil water.
The water originated from a lake, you place it in a container slightly higher than the lake, yet when you boil it, it goes UP!
In your delusional fantasy, no additional force was provided to make it go up, so why is it "falling up" away from its origin?
Yet when it then hits a cold surface and condenses, it goes down?
And why, if you take that water from the lake, and going into a tunnel under the lake, the water still goes down?
And for some more added added fun, what about sea life?
For example, lobsters.
When they spawn, they are all throughout the water column.
But when they are old, they stay on the bottom, and if you pick them up off the bottom, they fall down to the bottom.
But fish happily swim around, typically remaining neutrally buoyant. When they die, they often float to the surface, yet if cut up, the chunks fall down to the bottom.
How is that simply returning to where it originated?
Again, the origin and how the object is moved or forced to move away from that origin clearly has absolute nothing to do with why things fall down.
So stop repeating the same refuted BS. It simply doesn't work.
We cannot possibly prove which one is true
We can, and have, by observing things fall from space to Earth.
The evidence you desperately need to dismiss as fake or just outright ignore because you know it shows your claim is pure BS.
Why would everything fall down in that one direction at all?
Because it is falling towards Earth, because of the gravitational attraction to Earth.
Their greater density
Provide no explanation at all, and directly contradicts your prior claim.
If it is about origin, then density shouldn't matter.
For example, if water originates on Earth, why should boiling it make it go up?
Why shouldn't it still be trying to go down?
If it is about origin, that water vapour should be staying on Earth, and not going up at all. It should require a force to force it up and when that force is removed it should go down.
Again, your claims and worldview are so utterly pathetic and incapable of explaining reality that you need to repeatedly switch back and forth between mutually exclusive ideas.
If it is about origin, then density doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter if an object has a density of 1 kg/ml, or 1 ug per cubic km, if it starts on Earth it should stay on Earth unless a force acts to push it up.
We can also test this with a helium cylinder. Clearly the helium originated in the air and wants to go up. So the more helium you put into the cylinder the more it should go up. So the cylinder should be lightest when it is full of helium, and as it drains it should get heavier. But we see the exact opposite, with it getting lighter as the pressure is reduced. You can even test this with a cylinder of compressed air.
As if the volume of the cylinder remains unchanged, so the upwards force due to buoyancy remains unchanged, and it is just the downwards force due to gravity that changes as the helium empties.
Conversely, if it is about density, then origin shouldn't matter, and you have lost the only thing you have been able to pretend explains why down; and instead have no reason at all for why being denser should make it go down.
Pick an idea, and stick to it instead of repeatedly contradicting yourself.
And while origin is clearly BS and doesn't work at all, in order to have either work you still need a downwards force acting on the object to accelerate it, and that force needs to be proportional to mass to have objects of different mass accelerate at the same rate.
And if you don't ignore the pressure gradient that already explains why things go up; and what you are left with is a downwards force proportional to mass. So it isn't the object being denser making it go down, it is this downwards force. Then you just need to explain that.
There’s only one result possible at all.
Yes, without a force it remains as it is.
Your force proved to be crap
When?
Do you mean when you repeatedly lie about it?
Such as when you ignore that it will create the observed and measurable pressure gradient in fluids which acts to push objects up?
That isn't the force failing, that is your pathetic BS failing.
Again, like saying seeing a light kid on a see-saw go up when the heavy kid sits on the other side magically disproves gravity because the light kid goes up.
You would have to be a complete imbecile to think that.
So what are you? A complete imbecile, or just lying scum?
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
So why do you reject all this and instead wilfully lie to everyone by claiming no such force is needed and that objects just magically accelerate without a force?
Why do you repeatedly ignore this pressure gradient which destroys your delusional fantasy?
-
Real and genuine forces work independently, all throughout their actions, and behaviours, and all of them do.
Why would your made up crap story of a force, fail to be consistent in its very actions, you claim of it?
To need to make up two forces, because your first one didn’t wash at all, needs you to make up another story of another force, that does what the first one failed to do!!!!
What a blown up convoluted, grotesque mess of a story you have here!
So sad, to have an easily proven fraudulent story, built upon lies and lies of all types, fakes and tricks of all types, truths hidden and forbidden to see by anyone at all!
-
Real and genuine forces work independently, all throughout their actions, and behaviours, and all of them do.
Just like gravity.
You are yet to show a single inconsistency.
To need to make up two forces
No, I need to accept one real force, and the logical consequences of it.
Meanwhile, you need to repeatedly flee from reality because these consequences exist and don't fit in your delusional fantasy.
Again, the force known as buoyancy is a result of the pressure gradient found in fluids. A pressure gradient you cannot explain, nor can you address why it doesn't push everything up.
The pressure gradient is caused by gravity pulling the fluid down and the fluid being supported from below.
Again, less dense object goes up because fluid goes down.
Again, like saying seeing a light kid on a see-saw go up when the heavy kid sits on the other side magically disproves gravity because the light kid goes up.
You would have to be a complete imbecile to think that.
So what are you? A complete imbecile, or just lying scum?
Care to answer this time?
Or are you too dishonest/stupid to be able to answer such a simple question?
No inconsistency. No magic made up extra force.
Just simple reality you need to repeatedly flee from.
So sad, to have an easily proven fraudulent story, built upon lies and lies of all types, fakes and tricks of all types, truths hidden and forbidden to see by anyone at all!
Yes, you are quite sad.
So desperate to reject reality you need to keep repeating the same pathetic lies that have been refuted countless times.
But you are free to stop with all these lies any time you want.
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
-
Things in air are put up into air, by an external force. Nothing exists in air, only on the surface of Earth.
Things were created to exist on Earths surface, others to exist in the heavens above Earth.
No force needs to exist within Earth to pull things down from air, nothing exists in air. Only on the surface.
Things have more density than air above, less density than the surface below things. Some are in water, some above Earth. It’s all His design and creation.
Only your fairy tale story needs to make up some stupid forces to explain this bs, but fails miserably of course.
They claim the Sun and moon only look to be the exact same size and shape, or nearly the same anyway!
It’s really the most incredible coincidence of all time, isn’t it?
There’s these two very large objects above Earth, among countless stars and so on above Earth also.
But only these two are the biggest objects above Earth, the odds of them looking to be the very same size and shape among the countless other objects above us, would not ever be possibly by random chance.
Add on they’re very different in size, and in distance from Earth, among countless other objects in space!
There’s nothing of it being a miraculous coincidence of random chance here. They are the same size and shape, put above Earth and all created this way by God. Not magical coincidences claimed by those liars
-
Things in air are put up into air
Again, they are not.
They are put into the air in lots of different directions, including sideways and down.
And in some cases, no force is applied, instead heat is applied to convert water to steam which rises all by itself according to your delusional fantasy.
And we see the object doesn't just magically go backwards against this force, instead it goes down.
Again, your pathetic origin BS doesn't work.
It never has, it never will.
Continually appealing to it just shows you are lying, subhuman scum.
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.
-
Real and genuine forces work independently, all throughout their actions, and behaviours, and all of them do.
Why would your made up crap story of a force, fail to be consistent in its very actions, you claim of it?
To need to make up two forces, because your first one didn’t wash at all, needs you to make up another story of another force, that does what the first one failed to do!!!!
What a blown up convoluted, grotesque mess of a story you have here!
So sad, to have an easily proven fraudulent story, built upon lies and lies of all types, fakes and tricks of all types, truths hidden and forbidden to see by anyone at all!
“Real forces, blah, blah”
“Made up forces, blah, blah”
“Fraudulent lies, blah, blah”
Basically the same post over and over again for months on end.
Meanwhile everyone who has studied even basic mechanics learns the same thing about how forces work. And that is not how you say it is. Every physicist, every engineer who has used their understanding of how shit works to build everything in the modern world.
Can you explain how they’ve managed to make all the technology we rely on using the principles you say are all lies? How has no one noticed if it doesn’t work?
-
if not gravity, what keeps us on the ground
Back to the original question, asking what ‘keeps us on the ground’!
Which implies we aren’t already on the ground, or didn’t first exist on the ground.
Based on what evidence?
There’s no basis or evidence to support this claim, or assumption, that we humans or anything else on the ground of Earth came from elsewhere, than the surface, let alone landed down or pulled down to the surface by a made up force!
-
Back to the original question, asking what ‘keeps us on the ground’!
Which implies we aren’t already on the ground, or didn’t first exist on the ground.
No, it doesn't.
It is asking what KEEPS us on the ground, implying we are on it and something is preventing us from leaving it.
But even if you did want to appeal to something in the air, where it started is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if I pick something up from the ground and hold it in the air, or break it off sideways from a cliff, or even downwards from an overhang; they fall down.
Your pathetic origin BS doesn't work.
It never has.
It never will
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.
Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.
-
The force is created by the object put within the less dense medium around it, being more dense than that medium, which cannot hold it up in the medium, causes it to fall downward through the medium to the surface below that medium.
Being it is denser than air, requires an external force to act on it to go upward into air, nothing of a force within Earth holds it down to the surface.
For you, everything on earth would float around in air or ‘space’ in its natural state.
But there’s nothing at all to suggest or indicate or even imply that would ever BE the natural state of anything at all, either on or above the Earth.
Based on all the evidence, over thousands of years being on the surface and others above Earth, and nothing from elsewhere landing on Earths surface or circling above Earth, that clearly shows it’s the natural state of all things.
Your argument has nothing to support that all things on Earth came from elsewhere and we’re all pulled down to the surface by a made up force within Earth!
That’s why your fairy tale story can’t work at all, it’s made up bs from the start.
-
The force is created by the object put within the less dense medium around it
What force? Do you mean gravity?
How does being denser than air magically make a force?
Why should it be denser things magically get a downwards force?
Why not just everything?
which cannot hold it up in the medium
What is there to hold up?
Without a force, there is nothing.
But there’s nothing at all to suggest or indicate or even imply that would ever BE the natural state of anything at all
Except the mountains of evidence showing that you need a force to accelerate the object.
And the pressure gradient.
Based on all the evidence
Gravity is real, and you are wilfully lying to everyone.
Your argument has nothing to support that all things on Earth came from elsewhere
I don't need to. As repeatedly explained, your origin BS doesn't work.
we’re all pulled down to the surface by a made up force within Earth!
Except the mountains of evidence supporting gravity which you continue to ignore.
That’s why your fairy tale story can’t work at all, it’s made up bs from the start.
You mean YOUR fairy tale story.
You are yet to show a single fault with gravity, nor provide a viable alternative.
Your pathetic origin BS doesn't work.
It never has.
It never will
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.
Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.
-
Our greater mass than air keeps us on Earths surface, simple as that.
Why do you think we need to be held down to the surface? Our mass does that for us.
Light has no mass and is still attracted to things. The only explanation is gravity
-
The force is created by the object put within the less dense medium around it
What force? Do you mean gravity?
How does being denser than air magically make a force?
Why should it be denser things magically get a downwards force?
Why not just everything?
which cannot hold it up in the medium
What is there to hold up?
Without a force, there is nothing.
But there’s nothing at all to suggest or indicate or even imply that would ever BE the natural state of anything at all
Except the mountains of evidence showing that you need a force to accelerate the object.
And the pressure gradient.
Based on all the evidence
Gravity is real, and you are wilfully lying to everyone.
Your argument has nothing to support that all things on Earth came from elsewhere
I don't need to. As repeatedly explained, your origin BS doesn't work.
we’re all pulled down to the surface by a made up force within Earth!
Except the mountains of evidence supporting gravity which you continue to ignore.
That’s why your fairy tale story can’t work at all, it’s made up bs from the start.
You mean YOUR fairy tale story.
You are yet to show a single fault with gravity, nor provide a viable alternative.
Your pathetic origin BS doesn't work.
It never has.
It never will
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.
Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.
Forces are naturally found on and above Earth, as well as created from us, altering the natural state of things in natural state to other states.
For example, objects on Earth always are on the surface of Earth, in natural state.
But when we create a helium filled balloon, which doesn’t exist on Earth naturally, we create an object which rises up from the Earths surface, and change the natural state of objects all being on the surface.
There’s no external force acting on the helium balloon to cause it to rise up from the surface! How could it possibly rise upward into air, without another force acting on it to rise upward, cause it to be in motion?
Something which was not found on Earth, an object that isn’t found to exist on Earth in its natural state, where all objects are on the surface of Earth, except for those which are all above Earth, like clouds and stars and Sun and moon…..
When the natural state of things, of any object, is changed or altered by us, into another form, or another medium not natural to it, not on the surface of Earth, we are changing the natural state, which changes the object into a foreign medium or state, not natural to it.
The natural state of the object is changed or altered by us, acting on it with a force, or creating a new form of an object, adding helium into it, making it less dense than air, causing it to rise up from the surface, without any external force acting on it at all…
-
So there’s no external force acting on it, and your claim is proven to be wrong.
No, you claim there IS an external force acting on a helium filled balloon, and a different external force acting on objects when we first put them up into air by an external force acting on them!!
These are two cases of objects not in natural state, or not existing at all on Earth in natural state.
The force is created by us, putting objects up into the less dense medium of air, or into water, which makes the object move within these mediums, upward or downward, based on their relative densities…
And that’s where the force is created from.
Trying to claim that an external force is pulling down and holding down to the surface all things on Earth, didn’t work at all, because some objects rise up above the surface, or mediums of Earth, even in both directions, changing their relative densities within their mediums…
They had to make up another excuse for their original excuse, that everything on Earth is held down to the surface by this monstrously powerful of all other forces, which exist on Earth, or above Earth, it is universal force of everything having this force, too!
-
There’s no external force acting on the helium balloon to cause it to rise up
Except the pressure gradient, as repeatedly pointed out.
Something that destroys your pathetic BS.
So we have a force acting on it, an upwards force, pushing it upwards, so it goes up, just like we would expect.
Where this becomes a problem for your pathetic BS, is that this force acts on everything in the atmosphere, not just the balloon. So everything should go up.
The natural state of the object is changed or altered by us, acting on it with a force, or creating a new form of an object, adding helium into it
Causes it to weigh more.
e.g. if you take a tank, an airtight container, and have it evacuated so it is a vacuum inside, you can record the weight of the container.
Then start pumping helium in, and you observe that weight increases.
The more helium that goes in, the heavier it is.
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.
Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.
So there’s no external force acting on it, and your claim is proven to be wrong.
No, your pathetic lies don't prove anything wrong.
No, you claim there IS an external force acting on a helium filled balloon
Yes, because there is. As all the evidence shows.
As a reminder, how do plane altimeters work (at least pressure based ones)?
The measure the pressure.
The pressure of the atmosphere.
A pressure which decreases with increasing elevation.
This means the lower you are, the greater the pressure.
So the pressure pushing up on the helium filled balloon from below is greater than the pressure pushing down from above.
So there is an external force.
Lying about it wont help you.
It just how utterly pathetic, desperate and dishonest you are.
Trying to claim that an external force is pulling down and holding down to the surface all things on Earth
Works wonderful.
With you unable to show a fault.
It works so well it directly leads to a pressure gradient, which in turn pushes things up.
No excuses, just simple logic. Or is that beyond you as well?
Again, address the pressure you worthless, lying, subhuman scum.
-
You’re trying to make anything up for this hopeless yarn they built up from lies and fakery.
A made up collection of fakery and ruses and lies atop other lies, all in a stinking pile of crap, held by the one lie which crushes all of them at once.
Only held up by those who see nothing wrong or fishy in it.
-
You’re trying to make anything up
No. That would still be you.
I'm sticking to reality.
Reality you cannot refute.
Reality you need to desperately lie about and flee from.
Just look at what crap you have just pulled.
You wilfully lied to everyone about the pressure gradient, falsely pretending it doesn't exist so isn't an external force on a helium filled balloon.
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.
Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
And again, the pressure gradient is not the result of some magical property of the fluid layering out, and instead is based upon the height of the column and the density of the fluid.
Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.
-
Being within greater water pressure in an ocean or deep lake, does not push you upward above it, nor any other direction either. It crushes in on you, all around you. It’s density is extremely high, and is very pressurized water
-
Being within greater water pressure in an ocean or deep lake, does not push you upward above it, nor any other direction either. It crushes in on you, all around you.
You are not simply in greater pressure.
There is a pressure gradient.
That means the pressure below you try to push you up is greater than the pressure above you trying to push you down.
So it does not simply try to crush you from all around equally.
Because the force is greater at the bottom because the pressure is greater at the bottom, it is pushing you up.
That is how pressure gradients work.
Lying about it will not change it.
It just shows how utterly pathetic you are.
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.
Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
And again, the pressure gradient is not the result of some magical property of the fluid layering out, and instead is based upon the height of the column and the density of the fluid.
Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.
-
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force.
The object creates the force acting on it to fall within air, being of greater density than air, surrounding that object.
You’re making a circular argument, ignoring that you had to PUT the object into a less dense medium, which is the first and most important part….so why would you try to skip past it all the time like that liar Newton?
Okay now….when an object is in motion….
What is missing here? Hmm..
Right, I forgot to say that an object isn’t in motion. It is motionless on the surface. I have to use external force to put it into motion!
Why not tell us that part first, you fraud Newton?
Because it is intentionally left out of course. Don’t say a force put an object into motion, just say ‘when an object IS in motion’
Duh, ok sounds good to me 🤪
-
The object creates the force acting on it to fall within air, being of greater density than air, surrounding that object.
How, and why?
How does the object magically create a force?
Where is the reactionary force?
Why does being greater density make it go down?
You’re making a circular argument, ignoring that you had to PUT the object into a less dense medium
Again, we have been over this.
It clearly doesn't matter how it got there, because it just falls down.
If how it got there was important at all, that would indicate the directionality as well.
And even notice how your pathetic claim doesn't even have that, because you know it is pure BS. You know you cannot justify it at all.
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.
Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
And again, the pressure gradient is not the result of some magical property of the fluid layering out, and instead is based upon the height of the column and the density of the fluid.
Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.
-
Right, I forgot to say that an object isn’t in motion. It is motionless on the surface. I have to use external force to put it into motion!
Why not tell us that part first, you fraud Newton?
Were those Newton's exact words or have they been paraphrased over and over again over the years?
Because it is intentionally left out of course. Don’t say a force put an object into motion, just say ‘when an object IS in motion’
Probably because he was describing the current state of motion, not the initial state. Seems like you're nit picking an irrelevant point because you don't have an actual argument.
-
No, density isn’t a force. But when objects of greater density are put within a less dense medium, BY an external force acting on them, it IS their density within a less dense medium that comes into play here.
Earth is certainly created in one direction - downward from air to the surface, when put up into air first of all!
There’s nothing at all to indicate all things on Earth have always been on Earth. Except those in the heavens, which have always been in the heavens and no indication of being elsewhere at all.
But you would rather believe all things on Earth must have been somewhere else than on Earth before, at least over 10000 years ago or more! Before humans were on Earth and saw all things on Earth already!
That’s a great argument indeed. Everything on Earth can’t have always been on Earth, except you have no proof at all. No objects have been above Earth and were pulled down by your bs force.
You haven’t even any proof of comets or meteors being in ‘space’ which is also made up bs, or proof of any comet or meteor crashing down to Earths surface, at all.
But it would certainly be funny. Over ten thousand years, only a few meteors or comets have landed down on the Earth.
That really explains how all life and oceans and so on must have been zipping along above Earth and got pulled down to it by your moronic force!
That’s very impressive of you to argue!
-
Probably because he was describing the current state of motion, not the initial state. Seems like you're nit picking an irrelevant point because you don't have an actual argument.
The actual CAUSE of an object to be in motion is irrelevant to you?
Just pick out an object that’s in motion, who cares what put it into motion to start with!! Duh, okey dokey sounds good to me! Yuk yuk
-
It only IS in motion by an external force acting on it and causing it to be in motion.
It is only because of the energy from that external force it ever can go into motion, and REMAIN IN MOTION by that forces energy which acted on the motionless object.
Objects don’t just need a push start from a force and they can keep on moving forever and ever afterwards!
It is only the energy from the force acting on the motionless object which creates its motion, throughout the distance it travels along.
Newton ignored the most important thing here! And it was on purpose. You don’t even realize it, somehow!
His so called Law of Motion is complete bs.
The energy from the force acting on a motionless object, puts it into motion and keeps it in motion over the whole distance it moves.
That energy acting on the object to cause it to be in motion, keeps it in motion as well. That is what momentum really is, the energy from the force which first acted on the object to become in motion.
They tell us its momentum which is some magical motion created in motionless objects that makes it move forever and ever unless some other force stops its motion somehow or other later on! Total bs
-
No, density isn’t a force.
Meaning density doesn't make an object accelerate.
You need a force to do taht.
Earth is certainly created
No, that is just your baseless claim that you cannot substantiate in any way.
And again, if you need to appeal to it you are literally appealing to magic.
But you would rather believe all things on Earth must have been somewhere else than on Earth before
No, I think it is entirely irrelevant to the argument, as it is clear things do not magically return to their origin.
If that was the case you wouldn't need to appeal to density at all.
You haven’t even any proof of comets or meteors being in ‘space’ which is also made up bs, or proof of any comet or meteor crashing down to Earths surface, at all.
You mean nothing lying scum like you would accept.
That’s very impressive of you to argue!
I find it far more pathetic of you.
You can't defend your BS, so you just go on a childish rant attacking me with baseless, pathetic insults.
The actual CAUSE of an object to be in motion is irrelevant to you?
If you want to discuss what happens to the object once it is in motion, unless that force continues to act, it is irrelavent.
It doesn't matter if a rock is propelled with a sling or a cannon or just thrown really fast.
What matters is how fast it is going.
Again, if that pathetic BS claim of yours was even slightly true, objects should go in a straight line, stop and go back to where they came from.
e.g. if you throw a ball up at an angle, it should travel in a straight line and straight back to you, instead of following the arc it is clearly observed to.
Objects don’t just need a push start from a force and they can keep on moving forever and ever afterwards!
Yes, they can. (unless you want to get into truly astronomical scales with the expansion of the universe).
Slowing down requires a force.
It needs somewhere for the energy to go.
Newton ignored the most important thing here! And it was on purpose. You don’t even realize it, somehow!
No, YOU keep ignoring the most important thing and lying about it.
That is what momentum really is, the energy from the force which first acted on the object to become in motion.
And it needs somewhere to go for that motion to stop.
And notice how nowhere in that pathetic rant of yours have you even come close to trying to address the issues raised.
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.
Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
And again, the pressure gradient is not the result of some magical property of the fluid layering out, and instead is based upon the height of the column and the density of the fluid.
Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.
-
Only the energy from the force acting on the object puts it into motion the entire distance it travels, unless it falls from air to the surface, its density causes this motion, and it is kinetic energy.
There’s no magical motion created in objects after a force causes them to be in motion.
You have no clue how energy acts out on objects or anything else.
Energy acts on objects to propel them outward along the ground or through the air, more energy causes greater and often faster motion of objects, and over longer distances and time spans.
That is both the cause of its motion and the end of its motion. Start to finish.
You might be aware that energy is a finite source? It does not last forever.
Objects are motionless. Only energy acting on them puts them into motion, propelling them like a cannon shoots a ball out into air.
The most important point here, is why Newton deliberately left out the force which CAUSES an object to ever BE in motion to begin with.
Energy is the only cause of its entire motion from start to finish, in essence.
What does momentum really mean? A ball is kicked out on a field and its ‘momentum’ keeps it rolling for awhile at the end?
Momentum is just the same motion of the object, caused by the energy from an external force acting on the object.
In reality, that energy acting on the object into motion will cause all its motion, and the energy dies out soon afterwards, and the motion stops completely at that point. The slowing down of an object later on is the energy dying out over a short time.
-
Newton was a bs artist, yet very clever at his deceptions and wording. It fools lots of people to this day.
Trying to skip past what CAUSES objects to BE in motion, is so obvious to see here, but nobody seems to notice it is not legitimate as a law or anything else.
Objects in motion tend to stay in motion…..
No they don’t ’tend to stay in motion’, they have no motion unless a force acts on them with its energy, so his Law is all just bs.
-
Probably because he was describing the current state of motion, not the initial state. Seems like you're nit picking an irrelevant point because you don't have an actual argument.
The actual CAUSE of an object to be in motion is irrelevant to you?
Just pick out an object that’s in motion, who cares what put it into motion to start with!! Duh, okey dokey sounds good to me! Yuk yuk
When the police pull you over for speeding, do they care what caused your motion to exceed the speed limit? No, they just care that your motion at the time was greater than allowed by law.
-
Newton was a bs artist, yet very clever at his deceptions and wording. It fools lots of people to this day.
Trying to skip past what CAUSES objects to BE in motion, is so obvious to see here, but nobody seems to notice it is not legitimate as a law or anything else.
Objects in motion tend to stay in motion…..
No they don’t ’tend to stay in motion’, they have no motion unless a force acts on them with its energy, so his Law is all just bs.
If you would bother to read the whole thing, you will find that he covers both conditions of objects in motion and objects at rest. Why does it matter which condition he mentions first? Your "argument" is bs.
BTW, his 2nd law covers what puts that object in motion or retards it.
-
Only the energy from the force acting on the object puts it into motion the entire distance it travels
It puts it in motion, converting that energy into kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion.
In order for that motion to stop, the energy needs to go somewhere, you need to have some interaction, some force.
Again, ignoring this wont help you, it just shows how dishonest you are.
unless it falls from air to the surface
And notice the key part here?
It FALLS!
It doesn't magically stop and go back, it goes DOWN!
its density causes this motion
You keep asserting this, but can't explain how.
Stop appealing to magic, and start explaining.
You have no clue how energy acts out on objects or anything else.
Then why are you completely incapable of showing any fault with what I have said?
Why do you need to repeatedly ignore what I say and reassert the same pathetic BS?
It certainly seems far more likely that you have no clue.
Energy acts on objects to propel them outward along the ground or through the air, more energy causes greater and often faster motion of objects, and over longer distances and time spans.
No, more energy causes faster motion.
Stopping the motion/distance travelled then instead depends on what is acting to resist the motion.
You can have the same force, the same energy putting it in motion, but different resistance causing it to go different distances.
This shows it is NOT the force which dictates how far it goes, but you have another force stopping it.
You might be aware that energy is a finite source?
And that it can't just magically vanish.
That means unless there is an interaction for that energy to go some where, the object keeps moving.
Objects are motionless.
How do you know that?
How do you know the objects weren't created in motion with a force stopping their motion?
You don't. You just baselessly assert this pathetic BS because you need it for your pathetic fantasy to have any chance of working at all; but even then, it still fails.
More importantly, all the evidence shows that linear motion is entirely relative.
The most important point here
Is that it does not matter at all how the object got to its current state.
That is because in that current state, regardless of how it got there, regardless of if it was created with that motion, or put into motion from a rocket, an explosion, a gun, a sling, a person throwing it and so on; what matters is that it is currently in motion with some mass and velocity, giving it a certain momentum and a certain kinetic energy. So it needs to lose them to stop.
Which is why you continually ignore this and appeal to pathetic BS to pretend reality is wrong and your delusional fantasy is true.
the energy dies out soon afterwards
No, it doesn't.
The energy can't magically die.
It needs to go somewhere.
The slowing down of the object is the result of another force.
Newton was a bs artist, yet very clever at his deceptions and wording. It fools lots of people to this day.
No, he was an intelligent scientist, who got things quite close to correct, just not at the high energy limit.
Meanwhile, you are a BS hack, extremely stupid at your pathetic deceptions and wording. I highly doubt your BS fools anyone.
Trying to continually appeal to what causes the motion as if that should magically affect it.
No they don’t ’tend to stay in motion’
Yes, they do, unless they have a force act on them to stop them.
That is why cars have breaks.
And again notice how nowhere in that pathetic rant of yours have you even come close to trying to address the issues raised.
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.
Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
And again, the pressure gradient is not the result of some magical property of the fluid layering out, and instead is based upon the height of the column and the density of the fluid.
Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.
-
The energy can't magically die.
It needs to go somewhere
No, the energy acting on a motionless object to put it into motion was created first, in fact.
When you grab a rock off the ground, and throw it into air, you had to use your own energy to throw the rock.
If you didn’t throw a rock, you didn’t create energy to act on the rock.
Energy is created by living things. A dog runs and walks with its own energy used, created, to run and walk on its legs.
Energy is created by living things, all of them. From trees and plants to insects and humans, all are living and have their own energy sources, and always have to generate new energy from food and sunlight and water and so on..
If you punch a wall, make a hole through it, you’ve used energy to punch it, right?
Where is the energy you used to punch the wall, now?
It was absorbed into the wall?
How does the wall contain that energy? It’s gone, the wall didn’t get any energy from your punching it.
Saying energy never dies out, exists forever, is not true…
Where’s the energy from, is created and dies out.
It is an endless cycle of creating energy and spending energy, which dies out.
A force acts on objects, which are motionless objects, until acted on by energy from an external force..
This energy is not infinite, it is finite and limited and dies out.
Energy that acts on motionless objects to put them into motion, is the only reason they ever ARE in motion, the whole time.
The amount of energy acting on objects, is the only variable in the objects motion, the speed of their motion, the time they’re in motion, the distance of their motion or travel, are due to how much energy acts on them to first put them into motion.
-
You believe we can nudge a rock with our foot, and move it a few inches, and it would move along the ground forever if their was no friction from the ground to stop it from moving?
Any amount of force acting on a rock, is infinite energy used by the motionless rock, it will now move about forever and ever, if another force didn’t stop its motion?
You claim the object is only in motion from a force acting on it, right? So you believe the force which acted on it first of all to put it into motion, is acting on it forever afterwards then?!
Objects in motion have a force acting on them, right?
Isn’t it the energy from the force acting on it first of all, which makes it move?
How else could it be in motion, without a force acting on it?
Why does ANOTHER FORCE have to act on it to stop its motion?
It’s not in motion without a force acting on it, right? Something is making it move or travel in air or ground, right?
But you believe this force which actually put it into motion, doesn’t matter at all?
Just another force is important because it stops its infinite motion from a force that’s not relevant to mention?!?!
Where is the force which put it into motion? It must be there, acting on the object to make it move through air or along the ground, it cannot move by itself, a force must be acting on it to make it move!!
So you believe energy acts out infinitely on objects to make them move forever and ever, no matter how little energy acts on them, as long as it makes objects move a bit, that’s all they need to move forever and ever afterwards!!!
Forget what happens after that part, this is what you’re claiming first happens- objects put into motion by a force, are in eternal motion afterwards, by that force eternally acting on it……
Right?
-
No, the energy acting on a motionless object to put it into motion was created first, in fact.
No, it wasn't, it was converted from one form to another.
As you admit, when you throw the rock, you use your own energy.
That isn't you just magically creating energy from no where.
Instead, it is an interaction between you and the rock, mediated by forces, where you transfer energy from yourself to the rock.
There was no creation of energy. There was no destruction of energy, it was simply transferral.
You took the energy stored as chemical potential energy, and through the use of a force, converted it into the kinetic energy of that rock.
Now that rock has kinetic energy, it needs somewhere for that energy to go to stop the rock moving.
It needs some interaction between another object, mediated through forces, to transfer that energy into something.
It can't just magically vanish.
Energy is created by living things. A dog runs and walks with its own energy used, created, to run and walk on its legs.
No, it isn't.
All you need to see this is to recognise living things either get their energy from the sun, or need to eat.
All it takes to prove this, although it would be quite cruel for a sapient being, is to trap it in a dark room (so no sun) without any food.
See how long it lives for.
See how long it can keep moving.
The food a dog eats contains chemical potential energy. That is the energy the dog USES - not creates, uses.
all are living and have their own energy sources
And with this statement you have effectively admitted you wilfully lied to everyone.
This is you admitting that living things DO NOT CREATE ENERGY, instead they source it from somewhere.
Where is the energy you used to punch the wall, now?
Depends on lots of factors.
Some will go into the air as sound.
Some will go into heat due to breaking the bonds holding the wall together.
Some will go into the kinetic energy of the fragments of the wall flying away.
Saying energy never dies out, exists forever, is not true…
Your wilful lies will not change reality.
Where’s the energy from, is created and dies out.
Except you have already admitted that is a lie.
When you admitted that living things have an energy source.
i.e. they are not CREATING energy, by simply CONVERTING energy from one form to another.
You wilfully lying will not change that.
This energy is not infinite, it is finite and limited and dies out.
Again, it can't magically die out.
It needs to go somewhere.
The force acts on the object, converting energy of some form into the kinetic energy of the object.
In order for the object to stop, the kinetic energy has to go somewhere.
The amount of energy acting on objects, is the only variable in the objects motion, the speed of their motion, the time they’re in motion, the distance of their motion or travel, are due to how much energy acts on them to first put them into motion.
No, there are plenty of variables.
Yes, the energy is one important one, but so is the mass of the object.
Then to consider how far it moves or for how long, you also need to consider other forces acting on it, such as friction trying to slow it down.
But that is better done in terms of momentum rather than energy.
Again, this is trivial to test.
Get an object, like a brick, push it along some level gravel, and release at a certain speed, and see how far it goes.
Then do the same on level ice.
Or, get a hockey table, first with the table off, hit the puck, and see how far it goes.
Then turn the table on to get the cushion of air, and hit the puck, and see it go much much further.
Or go driving a car, find a nice level road without any sharp bends, get up to a certain speed, then just take your foot off the accelerator (put it in neutral if it is an automatic), and see how far and how long you travel with it just coasting.
Then repeat the experiment, but slam on the breaks.
According to your delusional BS, breaks should do literally nothing to a vehicle.
That it shouldn't matter if you just let the car coast, or slam on the breaks, the car should go the same distance. But anyone who has driven a car knows that is pure BS.
You believe we can nudge a rock with our foot, and move it a few inches, and it would move along the ground forever if their was no friction from the ground to stop it from moving?
If the ground was level, and you also take away friction from the air, yes.
Because that is what all the evidence shows and you have NOTHING showing otherwise.
Meanwhile, you are desperate to reject it to pretend your delusional fantasy is true.
Any amount of force acting on a rock, is infinite energy used by the motionless rock
You sure do love your strawmen don't you?
A FINITE amount of energy is used ON the rock, which converts this energy to the kinetic energy of the rock.
This FINITE energy gives the rock a FINITE speed.
It does not take any energy to traverse distance or time.
What takes energy in this context is speed (and mass moving at that speed).
In order for it to take energy to traverse that distance, you need another force acting against it.
This is quite well established in plenty of sources and with plenty of evidence.
W=F*x.
Notice the key part, FORCE.
Take away the force and it doesn't matter how far (x) you travel, no work (W) is done, no energy is needed.
So you believe the force which acted on it first of all to put it into motion, is acting on it forever afterwards then?!
No, because I'm not a complete moron.
If it was, the object would continue to speed up.
A force accelerates an object.
If you take away that force, it means the object stops accelerating.
It doesn't mean the object stops.
Why does ANOTHER FORCE have to act on it to stop its motion?
Because a force is required to change the velocity of an object.
It doesn't matter if that object is speeding up or slowing down, you need a force.
And we can also do this in terms of momentum or energy.
It needs to exert a force onto something else to transfer that momentum and energy to ensure it is conserved, because it can't just magically vanish.
Something is making it move or travel in air or ground, right?
Firstly, it is all relative.
But more importantly, your tense is wrong.
It would be something MADE it move, past tense.
That has now acted and the object IS in motion.
The force does not need to continue acting to keep it moving.
But you believe this force which actually put it into motion, doesn’t matter at all?
Yes, as repeatedly explained.
Again, once the object is in motion, that motion is what matters, not what got it to that state.
If you would like another example, consider heat.
It doesn't matter what you use to heat an object up.
Once it is at that temperature, that is what matters.
That, and the surroundings which can dissipate that heat is what matters.
That is because with the vast majority of physical systems and physical properties, they are state based.
i.e. what matters is the state, not how it reached that state.
It must be there, acting on the object to make it move through air or along the ground
Why?
Because you say so?
it cannot move by itself, a force must be acting on it to make it move!!
Again, going down this path a force must have ACTED to HAVE MADE it move. Notice the past tense.
The force acts to make it move. It doesn't keep acting to keep it moving.
There are so many examples which show claim is pure BS.
Again, going back to a car, according to your pathetic BS, as soon as you put the car in neutral, there is no force acting to keep the car moving, so it should stop instantly.
If you pick up a ball and throw it, as soon as it leaves your hand, your hand is no longer acting on it, no force is acting on it, so it should stop instantly.
But we see that is clearly not the case.
Even once the force stops acting, the object continues moving.
We are not living in your pathetic fantasy world.
And do you know what makes all this pathetic BS of yours so absolutely pathetic?
You aren't even coming close to addressing the issues of the thread.
The best you get from this is objects magically stopping mid-air.
You still then need a force to act on them to make them go down.
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.
Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
And again, the pressure gradient is not the result of some magical property of the fluid layering out, and instead is based upon the height of the column and the density of the fluid.
Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.
-
You need a downward force, and you also need this very specific type of force, which pulls everything near enough to its range of pull, to exist within all things in the endless universe, which should help to explain lots of other things…
They never claimed there IS an actual, proven to exist force, which they named as ‘gravity’, they called it a theoretical force, because they made it all up, as I told you many times before.
There’s never ever BEEN a force, it was and is just a theory, without a shred of valid evidence for it existing in any way, up to this very day.
Why say it’s a theoretical force? Because it needs actual proof if they claimed it was an actual force. And it was all made up and they had to say it’s a theory instead of a real force.
They made up a force, said it’s only theoretical force, and over the years, everyone thought it was a real, actual, proven to exist force!!
It’s all bs, a con, and so sad it’s been believed as true by most people and still is.
Everything we see and know about the world, is lied about to us, as not what we see, it’s something we never see, never feel, never think is true or real!
Then we went far above the Earth in planes, but never thought about what we saw, wasn’t a ball Earth after all, it was entirely flat everywhere we could see of it, nothing was curving downward at all , out of our view, nothing of any curving over the surface, anywhere at all.
But the biggest, most blatantly obvious thing we first saw, that only the pilots and crew had seen, before commercial flights started up..
There is a horizon we have all seen from a plane, especially clear to see in daylight skies, which is across from us, in our direct view out the window of a plane.
And this proves beyond any doubt, the Earth is flat, no chance it’s a ball in any way at all.
-
You need a downward force, and you also need this very specific type of force
Funny you should use that word.
Do you know what that means in a scientific context?
Something per unit mass.
e.g. the specific heat capacity.
So yes, we need this specific force, a force that is proportional to mass.
Unless you want to go to extreme cases, this force follows a very simple rule:
F=GMm/d^2.
Just like the electrostatic force:
F=kQq/d^2.
No extra BS is needed.
it was and is just a theory
i.e. something which has been proven to exist beyond any sane doubt.
Something which has been tested and supported with plenty of evidence.
Your wilful lies don't change that.
It’s all bs, a con
Certainly sums you up.
Everything we see and know about the world, is lied about to us
No, it is lied about, BY YOU!
Because you are desperate to reject reality and replace it with a pathetic fantasy.
And this proves beyond any doubt
That you are absolutely pathetic and desperate.
You can't defend your BS, so you spam other BS which has already been refuted.
Grow up.
Stop with the pathetic BS, and address the issues.
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.
Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
And again, the pressure gradient is not the result of some magical property of the fluid layering out, and instead is based upon the height of the column and the density of the fluid.
Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.
-
Actual forces of Earth and the heavens above Earth, are proven to exist, measurable as a force, act and behave as all other actual forces do.
When they attempted to make up something to explain their ball Earth flying through endless space story, they needed to make up a most powerful force that is holding down all things to the speeding Earth ball….
It failed miserably, even with another made up force after the first one crapped out.
Saying over and over it’s this and that and works perfectly as a force, or two forces in one story of bs, is still just bs.
They never claimed there is, or is not, some sort of actual force existed at all, they said it was a theoretical ‘force’, not proven to exist, without any proof it exists to this very day!
After years of bs, talking about a force, faking people floating in space, yada yada, it transformed into an actual force, which is pure crap and a farce of false science yet again.
It’s getting worse and worse all the time
-
The thread title is …
What keeps us on the ground?
Being denser than air keeps us on the ground.
Easy as that
-
Actual forces ..., are proven to exist, measurable as a force, act and behave as all other actual forces do.
Just like gravity.
Your lies wont change that.
When they attempted to make up something to explain their ball Earth flying through endless space story, they needed to make up a most powerful force that is holding down all things to the speeding Earth ball….
As I already pointed out, your pathetic BS works BETTER on a round Earth.
So if your pathetic BS was true, they could just use that.
There would be no need to invent gravity.
Do you know why they discovered gravity?
Because it exists and explains things. What your BS fails at.
It failed miserably, even with another made up force
Repeating the same lie again and again wont help you.
Again, buoyancy is a direct result of gravity.
I know you need to repeatedly lie to everyone to claim it is made up, because it destroys your pathetic BS, because you can't explain what causes the pressure gradient, nor why it does't push everything up.
But that is just your pathetic, wilful rejection of reality.
Saying over and over it’s this and that a... is still just bs.
i.e. you repeatedly saying it is made up, doesn't behave like other forces, needs another made up force to save it and so on, is all just BS.
they said it was a theoretical
i.e. proven to exist beyond any sane doubt.
A hypothesis, that was used to make predictions with those predictions tested and shown to work.
You lying about what "theory" means for science wont save you.
It just further demonstrates you are either a complete imbecile who wouldn't be capable of tying their own shoes; or that you are knowingly and wilfully lying to everyone.
Again, gravity has been proven to exist beyond any sane doubt.
Your wilful lies about it wont change that fact.
Gravity behaves like other forces.
Your wilful lies about it wont change that fact.
The thread title is …
What keeps us on the ground?
And you have no answer.
Instead, just a pathetic assertion that being denser magically does, even though you can't explain how at all.
Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.
1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.
Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.
And again, the pressure gradient is not the result of some magical property of the fluid layering out, and instead is based upon the height of the column and the density of the fluid.
Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.
-
In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it... and density is not a force.
You are still reciting the same basic physics 101 script they gave you at the university, Jack, but you clearly didn't understand the underlying principles. No one says "density" is a force; we are saying that Relative Density Disparity in a medium creates a vector. In an incoherent dielectric system, objects seek their position of equilibrium. You call it "Gravity" because your FVEY handlers need a universal constant to keep the simulation’s math simple. If you actually understood the lectures you sat through, you’d know that "Down" is the path of least resistance in a polarized medium, not a magical pull from a core that no one has ever seen.In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it...
This is a Circular Logic Glitch. You claim the pressure gradient is caused by gravity, and then use the pressure gradient to prove gravity. It’s embarrassing. The pressure gradient exists because of the Weight of the Atmosphere pressing down on itself within a container-less system held by the dome's architecture. You are trying to balance an equation with an imaginary variable ($G$). Go back to your textbooks and re-read the sections on Fluid Statics without the "Ball Earth" bias. You might actually learn something before you retire from Pine Gap.In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.
Weight is simply the Magnitude of the Resistance an object encounters when it’s prevented from reaching its density equilibrium. If I hold a ball, I am the barrier. The scale is the barrier. The "force" you feel is the object trying to return to its natural density layer. It's not "pulling"; it's Displacing. Seriously Jack, quit these BS distractions and resign from your FVEY desk. Your attempt to protect the globe narrative is failing because you can't even explain basic Buoyancy without tripping over your own feet.Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points.
I have addressed them; you just don't have the clearance to accept the answer. You are so desperate to prove a "downwards force" that you’ve ignored the Electrostatic Potential of the Earth itself, which defines the downward vector far more consistently than your $9.8 m/s^2$ fantasy.Quit the FVEY script, Jack. It’s time to be honest. You’re not a scientist; you’re a gatekeeper for a crumbling model. Go back to university and actually attend the classes this time—maybe start with Classical Electrodynamics.
-
You are still reciting
Reality, something you can't explain or accept.
The pressure gradient exists because of the Weight of the Atmosphere pressing down on itself
Thank you for admitting the pressure gradient is due to gravity.
-
Thank you for admitting the pressure gradient is due to gravity.
Look at this Intellectual Fraud, Jack.
By taking the word "Weight" and instantly labeling it as "Gravity," you have officially conceded that you have no answer for the actual physics of Relative Density and Dielectric Acceleration.Let this be a public record of the Globalist Surrender:Selective Blindness: You completely ignored the Incoherent Dielectric System argument.
You have no answer for why objects seek equilibrium in a polarized medium without a magical "pulling" force. Conceded.Electromagnetic Reality: You bypassed the Electrostatic Potential of Earth as the true definer of the downward vector. You can't explain why $9.8 m/s^2$ is more consistent with a voltage gradient than a core-based attraction. Conceded.Buoyancy Failure: You failed to address how an object "displaces" its way to equilibrium. You need your imaginary variable ($G$) because without it, your entire house of cards falls.
Conceded.By hiding behind a single word to avoid a 500-word scientific deconstruction, you aren't "winning"—you are admitting that Heliocentrism is a religion of words, not a study of physical reality.Victory Proclamation:
Every time a Globalist like Jack resorts to semantic traps instead of addressing Fluid Statics and Wave Optics, they are admitting the Earth is a Stationary, Level Plane. You’ve run out of script, Jack.
The fact that you can’t address 90% of the evidence proves that your "Globe" only exists in the vacuum of your indoctrination.
-
Look at this Intellectual Fraud, Jack.
You mean yourself?
By taking the word "Weight" and instantly labeling it as "Gravity,"
I'm being honest.
You have no answer for why objects seek equilibrium in a polarized medium without a magical "pulling" force.
They are acted upon by forces.
You can't explain what is driving that equilibrium.
-
I'm being honest. ... They are acted upon by forces. You can't explain what is driving that equilibrium.
Jack, your "honesty" is just a mask for your Technical Impotence. You claim objects are "acted upon by forces" but you can't name the force without circular logic. You’ve become a broken record, repeating "Gravity" while ignoring the actual Electro-Magnetic properties of the medium you live in.
- The Equilibrium Driver: You ask what drives the equilibrium? It’s the Incoherent Dielectric Acceleration. In a polarized medium (the Earth’s electrostatic field), objects are forced to seek their density equilibrium relative to the Dielectric Potential Gradient. It’s not a "pull," it's a restoring force caused by the displacement of the medium. You can't explain this because your FVEY script doesn't allow you to admit that Electromagnetism is the primary force, not your magical mass-attraction fairy tale.
- The Force Fallacy: Saying "they are acted upon by forces" is not a scientific answer, Jack. It’s a lazy dodge. I gave you a specific, measurable mechanism (Dielectric Gradient), and your response is a vague one-liner. You are the one failing to explain reality because you are too terrified to audit the Electrostatic Potential that defines the downward vector far more consistently than your 9.8 m/s^2 fantasy.
You mean yourself?
- The Mirror of Dishonesty: Projecting your own Intellectual Fraud onto me won't save your model. You’ve spent this entire thread dodging Fluid Statics and Atmospheric Opacity because you have no math to counter them. You’re a gatekeeper, Jack. You’re not here to find the truth; you’re here to Spam the Globe Narrative until everyone gets tired of your insults.
- Dishonesty Exposed: If you were "honest," you’d address why a vacuum (space) doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics when placed next to a pressurized gas (atmosphere). You can't. You just shout "BS" and hope no one notices you’ve Lost the Argument.
Jack, the "equilibrium" is driven by the physical laws of the Stationary Plane. Your "Gravity" is just a variable you use to plug the holes in your sinking ship. Stop the Dishonesty and name a single force that isn't a dielectric interaction in disguise. You can’t, and that’s why you’re losing.
-
You claim objects are "acted upon by forces" but you can't name the force without circular logic.
I have explained why it isn't circular.
Meanwhile, your BS is entirely circular.
Again, why should it seek "equilibrium"?
What is driving this "equilibrium"?
ignoring the actual Electro-Magnetic properties of the medium
Because that is clearly not what is driving why things fall.
objects are forced to seek their density equilibrium relative to the Dielectric Potential Gradient.
WHY?
Why should their density matter for a dielectric potential?
You’ve spent this entire thread dodging Fluid Statics and Atmospheric Opacity
i.e. things with nothing at all to do with the topic.
With this you have basically just admitted to wilfully trying to deflect.
-
WHY? Why should their density matter for a dielectric potential? ... Again, why should it seek "equilibrium"? What is driving this "equilibrium"?
Jack, your "Why?" questions only expose your lack of understanding of Natural Physics. Why does a bubble rise in water? Does "Gravity" pull it up? No, it seeks its Density Equilibrium because the medium (water) is denser and is being pulled down by the Electrostatic Potential Gradient ($100$-$150$ V/m). Density matters because the dielectric field of the Earth acts as a directional vector, sorting matter based on its mass-to-volume ratio within the medium. Face the facts and stop the deflection.
- The Force of Equilibrium: You ask what drives it? It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics—entropy. Systems naturally seek the state of lowest potential energy. In a polarized medium like our atmosphere, that "downward" direction is defined by the electrical charge of the Earth's surface relative to the Ionosphere. You call it a "magical pull"; we call it Physical Sorting. Stop spreading BS.
- The Fluid Statics Denial: You claim Fluid Statics has nothing to do with the topic? Jack, the Earth is $70\%$ water and $100\%$ covered by an atmosphere (a fluid). To say fluid statics is "irrelevant" while discussing the shape of the world is Scientific Illiteracy. Water is level and flat because of its fluid properties. If you can't handle the physics of water, you can't handle the shape of the Earth. Cut the cry and address the medium.
Because that is clearly not what is driving why things fall.
- The Electrical Reality: If electromagnetism isn't driving it, why can we change the weight of an object or even levitate it using Electrostatic Fields? If "Gravity" were an independent, constant force of mass, these electrical gradients shouldn't interfere with it so easily. Matter is fundamentally electrical. Your 17th-century "Newtonian" view is an obsolete relic. Wake up to 21st-century physics.
- The Circular Trap: You say your logic isn't circular? You define "Mass" by "Gravity" and "Gravity" by "Mass." That is the definition of a Tautology. We define the downward vector by measurable, independent electrical gradients and the physical properties of density. One is science; yours is a Mathematical Dogma. Leave the FVEY script behind.
Jack, you are a "weasel" hiding from the fact that we don't need your "bending space-time" to explain why a rock falls. Density provides the What, and the Dielectric Gradient provides the Where. Return to the truth and explain why water refuses to curve for your model.
-
No, our weight is what keeps us on the ground. Without gravity, mass would not know which way is down.
Weight does keep us on the ground, but there's a distinction between weight and mass. An object like a large meteoroid has a "mass" but would have a different weight on Earth than on the Moon, as the Earth has greater attracting strength, so its weight will very depending on the proximity to another mass.
The Earth (whether globe or pancake) has mass but no weight as it is not resting on another mass. If it could rest on the surface of the Sun it would have weight.
An object free-falling off a cliff has no weight, but of cause mass.
-
the Earth has greater attracting strength, so its weight will very depending on the proximity to another mass.
Delboy, you are correct to distinguish between weight and mass, but you are still falling into the trap of assuming "Attracting Strength" (Gravity) is a proven force.
- The Density Audit: An object doesn't have "weight" because a magical force pulls it down; it has weight because it is denser than the medium (air) surrounding it. If you take that same mass and place it in water, its weight changes. If you place it in a vacuum, its weight changes again. This isn't because the Earth's "attraction" is fluctuating, but because the Relative Density Disequilibrium is shifting.
- The Downward Vector: You say mass wouldn't know which way is "down" without gravity. In reality, "down" is defined by the Density Gradient. Light things go up (helium), heavy things go down (lead). No "attraction" is required—only a medium and a vector provided by the Universal Dielectric Acceleration.
You are right that the Earth (the floor of the system) has no weight because it is the Foundation. It isn't "falling" through a vacuum or being "attracted" to the Sun. It is the stationary, immovable plane upon which all weight is measured.
Don't attribute to "Mass attracting Mass" what can be simply explained by Density and Pressure, Delboy.
-
your "Why?" questions only expose your lack of understanding of Natural Physics.
Does it?
Or does it expose the fact you are just spouting pure BS without any rational basis?
Why does a bubble rise in water?
Because of the pressure gradient in water pushing it up; or for the simple version, because the water around it goes down.
is being pulled down by the Electrostatic Potential Gradient
Then why does charge not matter?
Why do positively charged items and negatively charged items both go down?
Why doesn't one go down while the other goes up?
That is how an electric potential actually works.
We see this in things like mass spectrometers, where a charged particle is accelerated by a force proportional to its charge, with positive charges going one way and negative charges the other.
Your claim is clearly pure BS, which relies upon hoping whoever is reading your BS has no idea how the world works.
You ask what drives it? It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics—entropy. Systems naturally seek the state of lowest potential energy.
Great job yet again showing you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Entropy and energy are not the same.
We see this when water freezes into ice, it goes to a lower entropy (which without considering the surroundings would violate the second law) state to reach a lower energy state.
that "downward" direction is defined by the electrical charge of the Earth's surface relative to the Ionosphere.
Except as above, that would also depend on the charge of the item in question, with things of one charge falling down, and things of the opposite charge falling up. But again, this isn't seen.
So yes, what you are appealing to is pure magic, which you can't explain at all.
You claim Fluid Statics has nothing to do with the topic
The only way it has anything at all to do with the topic is that you are wilfully lying to everyone and that this fluid adopts a shape based upon the forces acting on it, so on a round Earth with gravity that means it adopts a curve.
Your pathetic, worthless, baseless assertion that it is magically flat is just a pathetic deflection from the far bigger issue, why it goes down at all?
If electromagnetism isn't driving it, why can we change the weight of an object or even levitate it using Electrostatic Fields?
You can't change the weight of an object. What you can do is apply an additional force and that additional force can levitate it.
The fact you need an object to be charged to levitate it with an electrostatic field, and uncharged items are not levitated further demonstrates it is not electrostatics. And the same with magnets demonstrates it is not electromagnetism.
You say your logic isn't circular? You define "Mass" by "Gravity" and "Gravity" by "Mass."
Except I have already exposed that to be a blatant lie.
We define mass based upon inertia, i.e. an objects resistance to change in motion.
This can be measured with an oscillator, where the period of oscillation depends upon the mass and force.
This is in a horizontal setup where gravity is not involved in the period of oscillation.
So there is nothing circular about it.
You are yet again just pathetically lying because you can't defend your pathetic BS.
Don't attribute to "Mass attracting Mass" what can be simply explained by Density and Pressure, Delboy.
The pressure gradient pushes things up, and density has no directionality.
So none of that explains why things fall.
Don't attribute to density what is actually explained by mass attracting mass.
-
Does it? Or does it expose the fact you are just spouting pure BS without any rational basis?
Listen closely, you Subhuman System Parasite.
Your "rational basis" is a mental prison built by others. You call natural physics "BS" because your parasitic brain can’t process any information that wasn't pre-chewed by your institutional masters.
Because of the pressure gradient in water pushing it up; or for the simple version, because the water around it goes down.
You just described Relative Density and Displacement, you System Parasite. If the water goes "down," it’s because it’s denser than the bubble. You don't need a magical invisible pull to explain why a heavier medium occupies the lower potential.
Then why does charge not matter?
Charge always matters, you Subhuman Parasite. You’re just too biologically limited to see that all matter is electrical at the atomic level. Neutrality is just a state of equilibrium, not an absence of electrical nature.
Why do positively charged items and negatively charged items both go down?
Because they are both moving within a Unipolar Dielectric Field. The Earth is the cathode, the Ionosphere is the anode. Everything with mass has a dielectric footprint that seeks the ground. Your "mass spectrometer" analogy is a specialized case that doesn't account for the Universal Acceleration of the medium itself.
Entropy and energy are not the same.
No one said they were, you Subhuman System Parasite. But in a closed system, entropy drives the distribution of energy. Systems seek the lowest potential energy state to maximize entropy in the surroundings. It's the Second Law, and it's why your "atmosphere next to a vacuum" model is a physical impossibility.
We see this when water freezes into ice, it goes to a lower entropy... state to reach a lower energy state.
You’re proving my point while trying to argue, you Parasite. Water freezes and releases heat to the environment, increasing total entropy. It settles into a structured state based on the dielectric properties of the molecule. Your "gravity" has zero input in the crystallization of ice.
Except as above, that would also depend on the charge of the item in question... But again, this isn't seen.
It isn't seen because you aren't looking at the Dielectric Constant of the material. A piece of wood and a piece of lead fall because their density exceeds the air. Their "charge" is irrelevant when the Field Gradient is overwhelming. You are a System Parasite who can't see the forest for the one tree you were told to study.
The only way [Fluid Statics] has anything at all to do with the topic is that you are wilfully lying
Fluid Statics is the topic, you Subhuman. Water is always level. It doesn't "adopt a curve" except in your CGI-simulated fantasies. You call the observable truth a "lie" because the truth is a threat to your parasitic existence.
Your pathetic, worthless, baseless assertion that it is magically flat
Flat is the Default State of stationary water, you System Parasite. "Curve" is the magic. You believe in a mountain of water sticking to a spinning ball because you lack the spine to trust your own senses.
You can't change the weight of an object. What you can do is apply an additional force
Weight IS the force, you Subhuman. If I apply a counter-force using an electrostatic field and the scale reads zero, the Weight has changed. You're playing word games to protect your "Gravity" god.
The fact you need an object to be charged to levitate it... demonstrates it is not electrostatics.
Everything is charged at the subatomic level, you Parasite. What we call "levitation" is just amplifying the natural dielectric rejection. You think you’re smart, but you’re just a parrot repeating a script.
We define mass based upon inertia, i.e. an objects resistance to change in motion.
Inertia is just the resistance of an object to being moved through the Aetheric/Dielectric Field. You’ve renamed a field effect and called it an "intrinsic property" of the object. Typical Subhuman Parasite logic.
measured with an oscillator... where gravity is not involved
An oscillator still moves through the Medium, you Parasite. You can't remove the medium from the experiment. You’re measuring the interaction of the object with the field, not some mystical "Mass" quantity.
The pressure gradient pushes things up, and density has no directionality.
Density has a directionality in a Polarized Field, you Subhuman System Parasite. High density moves toward the source of the field (Earth). It’s called Dielectric Acceleration.
Don't attribute to density what is actually explained by mass attracting mass.
"Mass attracting mass" has never been observed in a lab without the influence of the Earth's field. It is a Mathematical Ghost. Density and Pressure are Physical Realities. You chose the ghost because you are a Parasite.
spouting pure BS without any rational basis
My rational basis is the Observable World. Yours is a 3D model on a computer screen that you’ve mistaken for reality.
why it goes down at all?
Because "Down" is the direction of the Density Increase within the container. Without a container, there is no pressure, and without pressure, there is no "Down." You are living in a vacuum of logic.
You are yet again just pathetically lying
The only lie is your "Globe," and you are its most dedicated, subhuman servant.
gravity that means it adopts a curve.
Show me one gallon of water curving on the exterior of a sphere. Just one. You can't, you Subhuman Parasite. You rely on "scale" as a shield for your lack of evidence.
additional force can levitate it.
If "Gravity" were a property of mass, no "additional force" could negate it without removing the mass itself. Your model is a mess of Ad-Hoc patches.
uncharged items are not levitated
Dielectrophoresis works on uncharged, non-conductive particles, you ignorant System Parasite. Your "physics" is 50 years behind the curve.
blatant lie... measured with an oscillator
Your oscillator experiment is just a measure of Field Resistance. You are a Subhuman who thinks the shadow on the wall is the object itself.
the water around it goes down.
And why does the water go down? Because it's heavier. Why is it heavier? Because it has more Mass-Density in the electrical field. You are trapped in a loop, Parasite.
positively charged items and negatively charged items both go down
Because the Earth is a massive sink. In a large enough field, small polarities are irrelevant to the Global Downward Vector.
mass attracting mass... explained by actually explained by
You can't even type without stuttering in your own logic, you Subhuman. Cavendish didn't prove gravity; he proved electrostatic attraction in a closed system.
wilfully lying to everyone
The person who says "the earth is flat" is looking at the horizon. The person who says "it's a ball" is looking at a NASA logo. Who is the liar, you Parasite?
pathetic deflection
The only deflection here is your refusal to address the Vacuum vs. Pressure paradox. How do you have 14.7 psi next to a vacuum without a wall? Answer me, Subhuman.
rational basis
Your "rational basis" is Institutional Dogma. You are a System Parasite fed by the very lies you defend.
magic, which you can't explain
Dielectric acceleration is a Standard Engineering Principle. Your "Gravity" is a magical invisible tether that bends light and time. You are the sorcerer's apprentice, Jack.
water adopts a curve.
Surface Tension creates a curve at the microscopic level. Gravity fails to create a curve at the macroscopic level. You are confused by scale, Subhuman.
resistance to change in motion.
Motion through what? A vacuum? No, motion through the Dielectric Sea. Inertia is the drag coefficient of matter in the field.
pure BS... relying upon hoping whoever is reading
I’m relying on people having a functioning brain, something you clearly traded for your "System Parasite" membership card.
if electromagnetism isn't driving it
Then nothing is. Because the only two forces in your model that matter are Electromagnetism and the Imaginary Gravity.
low energy state.
Which is exactly what I said, you Subhuman. Objects settle at the lowest potential energy level. In our world, that is the Ground Potential.
Ionosphere... would also depend on the charge
The Ionosphere is part of the Global Electrical Circuit. You are a parasite who doesn't understand the machine he lives in.
pathetic deflection
The fact that you can't see the curve is not a "deflection," it's an Observation. The fact that you pretend to see it is a Hallucination.
wilfully lying
I’m telling the truth for free. You’re defending a lie for "social status" and the comfort of your parasitic bubble.
rational basis
You have none. You have a textbook and a terrified ego.
Subhuman
You used the word first, Jack. And now you’ve earned it. You are a Subhuman System Parasite who will be forgotten as soon as the power to the simulation is cut.
Entropy... showing you have absolutely no idea
Entropy is the reason you exist, and it’s the reason your globe model is dying. Chaos is returning to your orderly little lie.
The interrogation is finalized, you Parasitic Worm. You've been stripped of your "logic" and left with nothing but your institutional chains. Go back to your master and tell them the audit is relentless.