What kind of response is this? Why is this idiocracy tolerated? Happy faces and a low content misspelled insult. Wtf. Ban this dummy already. As to you triangles, read the thread about density and air pressure. It explained a lot and made me realize that gravity is absolute b.s. Gravity never made sense to me growing up anyway. I remember asking my teacher why the moon never crashes into earth if gravity pulls on everything, the answer always differed. Almost as if it was a force that was mis understood and merely speculative. Which is exactly what the theory of gravity is.
So far all I have seen from you is attacking people (not even the content of their post, just the people themselves).
For the record, the ones most often spouting infantile crap are the flat Earthers. The ones that continually refuse to engage in rational debate and instead just spout bullshit or ignore people.
How about instead of spouting such crap you try and refute what these people say?
If you think there is a problem, rather than calling it idocracy, you point out what is wrong with it?
And really? You fell for that pressure BS?
Perhaps you can explain why pressure, a hydro-static, isotropic force (i.e. it presses the same in all directions) causes an object to move?
Why does pressure cause things to fall down, rather than up or left or right?
For example (ignoring wind), a simple 1 m cube (oriented such that its faces are perpendicular to the x,y and z axes), in mid air, has the following forcing acting on it:
For the [1,0,0] face (the one perpendicular to the x axis in the positive x direction), it experiences a force of 100 kN in the -x direction, or [-100kN,0,0].
For the [-1,0,0] face (technically it should be 1 bar, i.e. a one with a horizontal line above it), experiences a force of [100kN,0,0].
For the [0,1,0] face, it experiences a force of [0,-100kN,0]
For the [0,-1,0] face, it experiences a force of [0,100kN,0]
For the [0,0,1] face, it experiences a force of [0,0,-100kN]
For the [0,0,-1] face, it experiences a force of [0,0,100kN]
So the total force is [-100kN,0,0]+[100kN,0,0]+[0,-100kN,0]+[0,100kN,0]+[0,0,-100kN]+[0,0,100kN]=[0,0,0].
As such, the total force on the object from atmospheric pressure is 0.
So no, pressure can't explain anything.
It can't even explain why things begin to move.
Technically that sum is just an approximation.
In reality, the pressure drops as you gain altitude. As such, the object would experience a tiny net force pushing it up.
So the force from pressure is in the wrong direction. But that pressure differential requires gravity (or some other force like gravity) to explain it.
You then get other massive issues.
Pressure is force per unit area, not force per unit mass.
What this means is that if pressure somehow did accelerate objects downwards (which makes no sense at all), it should accelerate low density objects, like paper or a feather, much faster than more dense objects, like metals.
But that isn't what is observed. In a vacuum (to remove wind resistance) they fall at the same rate.
In an atmosphere, the air serves to slow down the very low density objects.
For 2 similar objects, like a hollow iron ball and a hollow aluminium ball of the same size (which for simplicity of the example, can be assumed to have a vacuum inside or the cavity made just perfect), so the iron ball weighs three times as much but has the same size and shape as the aluminium ball, should result in the aluminium ball accelerating three times as fast as the steel one, but instead, you get them accelerating at the same rate.
This is because gravity (or whatever force it truly is) is proportional to mass, not area.
So that is another reason why air pressure simply doesn't work to explain why things fall.
Another nail in the coffin is a vacuum, where objects still fall.
If it was going to be based upon pressure, then the higher the pressure the faster things should fall, but in a vacuum, things fall at either pretty much the same rate or faster because they no longer get the air resistance.
So no, pressure doesn't work AT ALL.
Also, I would prefer it if you went to that thread and defended it there rather than here (and feel free to provide a link to it here).
As for the rest of your comment, your teacher misunderstanding it doesn't mean gravity is wrong.
The moon doesn't crash into Earth because of its own inertia.
If you spin a ball on a string, at least at high enough speed, that doesn't crash into you, even though there is a lot of force on the string pulling the object directly towards you.
For a simplistic view, it fell towards you, but at the same time, it moved along sideways. If you combine these 2 movements, it is still the same distance away (simplifying a bit, technically its orbit is an ellipse). It has also altered course due to the acceleration.
Now you can do the same thing, and the same thing happens.
That is why it doesn't crash into us.