Density doesnt make things go up or down, gravity does.

Really? Try going down into the ocean and see if the pressure gradients push you upward or crush you instantly at that depth!!!

Pressure crushes you or most objects right there, at that depth, it doesn’t push things upward from below them!

That’s absolute fact, proven as fact, nobody but an idiot like you thinks it pushes things upward from below!

Show me any sources that say pressure gradients in deeper and deeper water push things upward when going down into them, and doesn’t crush them at all……

If you can’t show me any sources supporting your absurd claim, everyone here will know, if they don’t already know, that you made it all up, because you certainly did make this bs up, and think everyone is supposed to believe your bs claim or something!


What a moron you are to claim such bs as this! 


But please prove me wrong, try going down in water to 7 miles deep and see if you get ‘pushed upward’ by the pressure gradients or not! 

You won’t get crushed like a sledgehammer smashing down on a peanut or an ant, you’ll get ‘pushed up’ instead!!

Doesn't higher pressure imply higher density, which by your logic should push less dense objects upward?

Really? Try going down into the ocean and see if the pressure gradients push you upward or crush you instantly at that depth!!!

They push you up.
That is why divers use lead weights to keep them going down.

So it is an absolute fact that it pushes things up.

Show me any sources

How about you try showing any sources that say pressure gradients magically stop working rather than the higher pressure pushing the object towards the lower pressure?
You know, the insane magic you need for your BS to work?

What a moron you are to claim such bs as this!

You most certainly are.
Now care to try saying something intelligent and correct?


Again, neither your origin nor your density BS can explain anything.

It cannot explain why things fall.
It cannot explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
It cannot explain why for sufficiently dense and aerodynamic objects the rate is the same regardless of density.
It cannot explain why this rate varies over Earth.
It cannot explain why the pressure gradient exists.
It cannot explain why the pressure gradient doesn't push everything up.

i.e. it explains NOTHING!

But gravity does explain all that, and is so simple and consistent in its actions; with you desperately ignoring key parts or just wilfully lying to everyone to pretend it doesn't.
You are yet to demonstrate a single fault with gravity, and you are yet to provide an alternative.

If you want to pretend your pathetic BS works, you need to address these issues.
Not just continually ignore or assert they are wrong.
You need to provide a coherent explanation for them.

The relative density of the medium to the object within the medium creates their motion and what direction they move in the medium.

Objects rise up or sink in water, in the same pressure gradients, one object sinks through it downward, another object rises upward through it above it.

It is based on the objects relative density to the medium it is within that causes it to be in motion, and what direction of motion it goes in, up or down in the medium, or no motion at all in the medium.

The entire Earth and above Earth, are designed that way, to exist on or above Earth, to fall down from air to Earth again, by their greater density than air, which is why they’re on the surface and always will be on it, unless put upward in air by an external force, but they always fall back down to the surface again.

The very design of Earth by our Creator, is based on directionality and where things originate and exist, so He created things and mediums with various levels of density, and relative to other densities to their own densities.

So simple and it works beautifully well, and is very consistent in all of it.

There’s no external force needed or existing for it, nor two forces needed or existing for each direction of their motion within a foreign medium to their own.

If things are being pulled down to Earths surface by a force within the Earth, why has nothing ever been seen above Earth at all, and why would all things be in ‘space’ first of all, just floating around in it, that’s some great argument you have there!

Floating around aimlessly is the natural state of things, you believe?

What about finding a shred of proof for your belief in that nonsense, or is it what you’d like to believe was true, to fit your bs story?

That’s how everything is done with your bs story. The ball Earth is their story. All the bs fits it, after the ball Earth starts it all and must fit the story afterwards.

The relative density of the medium to the object within the medium creates their motion and what direction they move in the medium.

Repeating the same pathetic claim wont magically make it true.

You are looking at the observation, and pretending it is the explanation.
Back in reality, the combined effects of gravity and the pressure gradient dictate which way the object moves, and is what creates that acceleration.
It is not just magically density entirely defying the pressure gradient.

Objects rise up or sink in water, in the same pressure gradients, one object sinks through it downward, another object rises upward through it above it.

Yes, because of GRAVITY! You know the thing you keep ignoring.

If the force of gravity acting directly on the object is greater than the force from the pressure gradient (indirectly from gravity), then the object goes down.
If it is lesser, the object goes up, and if it is equal, the object remains in place.

Again, it is a FACT that these pressure gradients exist.
They are observable, demonstrable and measurable.
There is no doubt about them.
In water, dive computers use them to determine depth.
In air, altimeters use them to determine altitude.

They have been proven to exist beyond any sane doubt.

And a simple fact of pressure gradients is that they always push from high pressure to low pressure.

That means an object of the same density as the fluid, in your pathetic delusional fantasy has no attempt at motion or force from the density, so it is just left to be acted upon by the pressure gradient which should push it up.
THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN!

Instead, even though the pressure gradient is pushing it up, the object remains, because there is a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction trying to make it go down.
These 2 opposed forces result in no net force.

Again, gravity makes sense, your pathetic BS does not.

Again, if you want to pretend your pathetic BS works, you need to address the pressure gradient.
Lying to everyone by claiming it just magically crushes things does not help.
Lying to everyone by just claiming it just magically doesn't push things up does not help.
Entirely ignoring it does not help.

In order for your pathetic BS to have any chance at all of working, you need to explain how it results in a pressure gradient (in a way consistent with reality so you cannot appeal to the fluid itself having some magic pressure because changing the geometry of the container changes that) and you need to explain why this pressure gradient doesn't push things up.

Pathetic assertions and lies will not help you.

Floating around aimlessly is the natural state of things, you believe?
What about finding a shred of proof for your belief in that nonsense

What nonsense?
All available evidence shows that in order to accelerate an object you need to apply a force.
There are no exceptions.
The only claimed exception is your magic up/down density force which you cannot explain or justify.

That’s how everything is done with your bs story. The ball Earth is their story. All the bs fits it, after the ball Earth starts it all and must fit the story afterwards.

There you go projecting again.
Once more, YOU are the one with a pathetic BS story, that needs to repeatedly lie to pretend it works.
And what makes it truly more pathetic when you make these absolutely pathetic claims, is that your pathetic BS works just as well or better for the RE.

Again, neither your origin nor your density BS can explain anything.

It cannot explain why things fall.
It cannot explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
It cannot explain why for sufficiently dense and aerodynamic objects the rate is the same regardless of density.
It cannot explain why this rate varies over Earth.
It cannot explain why the pressure gradient exists.
It cannot explain why the pressure gradient doesn't push everything up.

i.e. it explains NOTHING!

But gravity does explain all that, and is so simple and consistent in its actions; with you desperately ignoring key parts or just wilfully lying to everyone to pretend it doesn't.
You are yet to demonstrate a single fault with gravity, and you are yet to provide an alternative.

If you want to pretend your pathetic BS works, you need to address these issues.
Not just continually ignore or assert they are wrong.
You need to provide a coherent explanation for them.

So stop with the lies. Stop with the BS. Start addressing these issues.

There’s nothing more stupid than trying to defend their made up bs story of a universal in all things pulling down and holding down force, which is a complete joke.

The lousiest and worst crap ever spewed forth.

It senses instantly each and every objects specific mass, then instantly adjusts its level
of strength to match with each objects mass, to one same level for all objects it pulls down from air, but nobody knows why it decided to choose that one same level, and nobody knows how they came up with such a load of bs as this!


The greatest thing for brainless idiots, there you have it

There’s nothing more stupid than trying to defend their made up bs story of a universal in all things pulling down and holding down force, which is a complete joke.

There you go projecting again.
There is nothing more stupid than what YOU are doing. Trying to defend your made up BS fantasy of a flat Earth, where you can't explain why things fall so you need to appeal to 2 contradictory ideas, neither of which explain it, and this results in you entirely fleeing from simple issues which destroy your pathetic lies.

The lousiest and worst crap ever spewed forth.

The greatest thing for brainless idiots, there you have it

Again, neither your origin nor your density BS can explain anything.

It cannot explain why things fall.
It cannot explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
It cannot explain why for sufficiently dense and aerodynamic objects the rate is the same regardless of density.
It cannot explain why this rate varies over Earth.
It cannot explain why the pressure gradient exists.
It cannot explain why the pressure gradient doesn't push everything up.

i.e. it explains NOTHING!

But gravity does explain all that, and is so simple and consistent in its actions; with you desperately ignoring key parts or just wilfully lying to everyone to pretend it doesn't.
You are yet to demonstrate a single fault with gravity, and you are yet to provide an alternative.

If you want to pretend your pathetic BS works, you need to address these issues.
Not just continually ignore or assert they are wrong.
You need to provide a coherent explanation for them.

So stop with the lies. Stop with the BS. Start addressing these issues.

Quote from: turbonium2 on January 17, 2026, 04:36:20 AM

There’s nothing more stupid than trying to defend their made up bs story of a universal in all things pulling down and holding down force, which is a complete joke.

There you go projecting again.
There is nothing more stupid than what YOU are doing. Trying to defend your made up BS fantasy of a flat Earth, where you can't explain why things fall so you need to appeal to 2 contradictory ideas, neither of which explain it, and this results in you entirely fleeing from simple issues which destroy your pathetic lies.

The lousiest and worst crap ever spewed forth.

The greatest thing for brainless idiots, there you have it

Again, neither your origin nor your density BS can explain anything.

It cannot explain why things fall.
It cannot explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
It cannot explain why for sufficiently dense and aerodynamic objects the rate is the same regardless of density.
It cannot explain why this rate varies over Earth.
It cannot explain why the pressure gradient exists.
It cannot explain why the pressure gradient doesn't push everything up.

i.e. it explains NOTHING!

But gravity does explain all that, and is so simple and consistent in its actions; with you desperately ignoring key parts or just wilfully lying to everyone to pretend it doesn't.
You are yet to demonstrate a single fault with gravity, and you are yet to provide an alternative.

If you want to pretend your pathetic BS works, you need to address these issues.
Not just continually ignore or assert they are wrong.
You need to provide a coherent explanation for them.

So stop with the lies. Stop with the BS. Start addressing these issues.

Jack, the points you listed against Turbonium are no different from an error report of pre-programmed software. Claiming 'gravity explains everything' is like defining bugs within a simulation as 'system features.'

Everything you claim is 'unexplained' actually stems from your one-dimensional mechanical perspective. A pressure gradient doesn't push things up; rather, it maintains the balance between density layers. What you call 'gravity' is, in fact, the result of this environmental disequilibrium. The constancy of the acceleration rate does not prove a 'pulling' force, but rather the resistance of the medium and the speed at which an object returns to its natural position within that medium.

Now, you explain this: How rational is it to market a force one with no physical contact, an uncertain source, and that exists only as a mathematical 'constant' as 'reality'? Gravity is not an explanation; it is an 'escape' term. You simply slap the 'gravity' label on every anomaly you can't explain and call it a day. Claiming Turbonium is lying while you continue to worship your own invisible god (gravity) is a complete paradox.

Jack, the points you listed against Turbonium are no different from an error report of pre-programmed software.

The only way in which your statement is in any way correct, is that I am pointing the errors in turbo's crap, showing why his crap fails to work.

Claiming 'gravity explains everything'

Is not what I am doing.
I have explained why.

A pressure gradient doesn't push things up; rather, it maintains the balance between density layers.

There you go spouting pure nonsense just like him.
When you say it "maintains the balance", are you just admitting that there is a downwards acting on those layers of air trying to pull them down (i.e. gravity) and the pressure gradient is balancing that to keep the layers were they are?

If not, then what magic is preventing this pressure gradient from pushing the above layers up?

Because mankind has studied pressure quite well.
They know that if you have a region of high pressure, near a region of low pressure, then that high pressure pushes into the low pressure.

So what magic stops this?

The constancy of the acceleration rate

Is more a myth promoted by FEers.
It isn't constant.
It varies with location.
Something which makes absolutely no sense for the FE fantasy.

So what you need to do is explain why it varies with location, but not object in the location (unless air resistance or the like becomes significant).

Now, you explain this: How rational is it to market a force one with no physical contact, an uncertain source, and that exists only as a mathematical 'constant' as 'reality'?

Why would I do that?
That is your strawman, not gravity.

As to the first part, do you mean just like electrostatics and magnetism?
If I get a magnet, and bring it close to another magnet, without touching I can push the other magnet away, or have it drawn towards the magnet in my hand.
No physical contact.

Why should there need to be physical contact?

So that certainly is not an issue at all.

Gravity has a quite certain source. At the simple level, it is a force of attraction between masses. So the source of gravity for objects falling on Earth, is Earth. Nothing uncertain about that.
It also certainly isn't just a mathematical constant.
Again, g varies with location. It is based upon attraction to Earth.

So gravity provides a great explanation which you cannot show a fault with.

Claiming Turbonium is lying while you continue to worship your own invisible god (gravity)

Is a complete lie from you.
But I have learned to never expect the truth from you.

Can you provide a coherent explanation to the points raised? Or can you just deflect and lie?

Can you explain why things fall?
Can you explain why they accelerate at a particular rate?
Can you explain why for sufficiently dense and aerodynamic objects, the rate is the same regardless of density/mass/volume?
Can you explain why this rate varies over Earth?
Can you why there is a pressure gradient, i.e. what causes it and sustains it?
Can you explain why this pressure gradient doesn't push everything up?

Because if you can't, you shouldn't be attacking gravity.

Quote from: turbonium2 on January 17, 2026, 04:36:20 AM

There’s nothing more stupid than trying to defend their made up bs story of a universal in all things pulling down and holding down force, which is a complete joke.

There you go projecting again.
There is nothing more stupid than what YOU are doing. Trying to defend your made up BS fantasy of a flat Earth, where you can't explain why things fall so you need to appeal to 2 contradictory ideas, neither of which explain it, and this results in you entirely fleeing from simple issues which destroy your pathetic lies.

The lousiest and worst crap ever spewed forth.

The greatest thing for brainless idiots, there you have it

Again, neither your origin nor your density BS can explain anything.

It cannot explain why things fall.
It cannot explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
It cannot explain why for sufficiently dense and aerodynamic objects the rate is the same regardless of density.
It cannot explain why this rate varies over Earth.
It cannot explain why the pressure gradient exists.
It cannot explain why the pressure gradient doesn't push everything up.

i.e. it explains NOTHING!

But gravity does explain all that, and is so simple and consistent in its actions; with you desperately ignoring key parts or just wilfully lying to everyone to pretend it doesn't.
You are yet to demonstrate a single fault with gravity, and you are yet to provide an alternative.

The worst crap ever hatched up, pure crap, the joke to end all jokes!

If you really believe that ‘gravity’ exists, as an actual force, like the real forces known to exist, proven to exist, such as wind flows,  water currents, magnetic force, etc…

Have you ever asked anyone if there’s another explanation for why metals are attracted to and held to some objects, which have special, unique properties, most objects don’t have, or almost none of it?

Ever ask if there’s any other explanation for any OTHER actual force, that fits better?

Why would you ever ask if there’s another explanation that works and fits better than ‘gravity’ does?

Real and proven forces aren’t ever in question, seek another explanation for them!

You want a valid, actual, proven and provable, demonstrated and demonstrable, measured and measurable, thorough and consistent explanation, better and realistic and conclusive as absolute fact, truth!

You say it’s great, a real force, that is consistent and works like any actual force does, behaves as all other actual forces do, which is all just bs, as usual.

It’s not really what you believe, or not entirely believe, you want a better, entirely consistent explanation that holds up, etc..

But of course, it must fit within the ball Earth flying through endless space story, there’s no possible story to believe as true, the rest must fit into that story!!!


When you wonder about why things within air, would always go downward from air, they’re all motionless objects, of course, why would they ever move at all, unless acted on by an external force, that’s the only possible explanation for it!!!!

Sure, because everything on Earths surface, isn’t in air, nor anything exists airborne at all, except those in the heavens or skies above Earth.


Why would you or anyone at all, for no possible reason, with absolutely no shred of evidence, without anything else that would support your twisted argument, they made up and told us was true???

What they told us about why objects within air, are motionless objects, not moving at all, anywhere or anytime, so when they fall downward within air, what can cause them to move, to fall through air, downward, to the surface???

Since they made up this whole bs story, where objects being within air, above Earths surface, don’t even exist at all.

They’re on Earths surface, and are motionless on the surface of Earth, not ever in air, around them, above Earths surface.

You’re aware of that fact, aren’t you? That’s true, even you know that much, objects aren’t airborne, like stars or moon are, right?

They’re fixed on Earths surface, motionless, unless acted on by an external force like winds, for example.

But their motion could be caused by other means, without any direct external force acting on them, to make them go into motion…

They are motionless objects on Earths surface. That’s where they exist, and always have existed, always will exist in future, forever and ever more.

How would you then ask about objects when put up from the surface, into the air above the surface?

Why would you have objects within the air above the surface, that’s not where they exist, you must throw them up into air, from where they exist, on the surface!

So you’ve changed their natural state of existence, on the surface, to put them up from their place of existence, where they originate, on Earths surface….

After you’ve acted on any motionless object, from lifting it up from the surface, you’re the original external force acting on the object, and you’re another force acting on it by throwing it upward into the air above the entire surface of Earth.

Then they tell us ‘when an object is in motion’, or ‘when an object is within the air completely surround it, above the surface’…..

Why or how any object was first of all, PUT INTO ANY STATE OF MOTION, is completely irrelevant to its motion at all, the only cause of its motion is not relevant because they say its not relevant at all, or even mentioned at all by them!!

They tell us a force must act on them to stop their eternal state of motion, which is irrelevant to mention as THE CAUSE OF ITS ENTIRE STATE OF MOTION !

Why would objects that are on the surface, stay on the surface, would depend on where they first came into existence, but we don’t know where they first came into existence, they were already on Sarths surface when we first came into existence on Earth.

They told us all things on Earth were pulled down to the surface by a great force, within the ball Earth speeding through endless space!

Why would those so-called scientists, blatantly ignore all the countless things that all have been on Earths surface before humans saw everything on Earths surface?

You don’t want the real explanation for it all. You can’t accept it. The ball Earth bs can’t have reality come into the fairy tale bs story!

The worst crap ever hatched up, pure crap, the joke to end all jokes!

Thanks for summing up the FE, and your post.

Now care to stop with all the BS and address the massive flaws with your pathetic BS?

You don’t want the real explanation for it all.

Yes, I do. The real EXPLANATION!
Not just pathetic BS that you keep asserting, an actual explanation.
Something you clearly don't have.

Again, neither your origin nor your density BS can explain anything.

It cannot explain why things fall.
It cannot explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
It cannot explain why for sufficiently dense and aerodynamic objects the rate is the same regardless of density.
It cannot explain why this rate varies over Earth.
It cannot explain why the pressure gradient exists.
It cannot explain why the pressure gradient doesn't push everything up.

i.e. it explains NOTHING!

But gravity does explain all that, and is so simple and consistent in its actions; with you desperately ignoring key parts or just wilfully lying to everyone to pretend it doesn't.
You are yet to demonstrate a single fault with gravity, and you are yet to provide an alternative.

When all things of any mass and density are greater than the densities of air and/or water, they all will fall or sink downward through these mediums at one same rate of speed, and at the very same rate of acceleration within these mediums…

That fact alone proves there’s no external force acting on them, pulling them downward from air or in water…

You’re excuse about how things don’t fall through air or water at the same rate everywhere on Earth, where are your sources for that claim? You didn’t show anything, so times up..

Actual forces never act like that. Huge objects aren’t budged at all by a strong wind, but lighter objects blow back or fly around by it.


A heavy block of steel isn’t pulled in by a magnet, but pulls in little nails quickly to it.

That’s how all actual forces behave and act out.

Relative density explains all of these things. In both directions up and down of their motion within mediums..

The directionality of things moving down or up in water or air, is a very distinct and measurable thing.

A submarine is the perfect example of how we use relative density in water with subs.

They made up two forces to excuse it all. A pulling force didn’t pull everything down to the surface, so they made up another force they called buoyancy, which pushes objects upward in water and into air above the surface, when the first bs force failed to pull down some things it would have, if it really existed at all!

Such a force, if it was real, would pull and hold all things to the surface, all the air, all clouds, everything and all things included.

They certainly knew there’s no excuses for all things falling from air at the same rate, that is clear proof that there is no external force at all.

They told us Earths holding all things down to the surface, was having much more, much more powerful of that force within it than all other things on Earth.

Insects and birds wouldn’t ever fly into air, if it was a real force as they’ve claimed it to be.

They made up a really stupid and impossibly hopeless thing, some greatest and most powerful, and within all things that exist, within the endless universe, will have that amazing force within it, but there’s no proof of it even existing at all!

But a force that instantly detects the exact density of all things in air, to then instantly adjust its entire strength, to a very specific level of pulling things down at speed, a single rate, for all things to be pulled down by the force at….

Equalizing its level of strength required to the objects mass and density, to the one same rate it pulls them all down at!!!

When all things of any mass and density are greater than the densities of air and/or water, they all will fall or sink downward through these mediums at one same rate of speed, and at the very same rate of acceleration within these mediums…

That fact proves there is a force proportional to mass.
And again, that rate varies with location.

Actual forces never act like that.

Repeating the same lie wont help you.

Relative density explains

Absolutely nothing.

You continually saying it explains, while never actually explaining just shows how pathetic your claims are.

The directionality of things moving down or up in water or air, is a very distinct and measurable thing.

Yes, and measuring it does not mean it is explained.

Again, gravity explains it, you can't.

A submarine is the perfect example

Of the combined effect of the pressure gradient and gravity.

They made up

The only one making crap up is you.

Again, the pressure gradient is real and measurable.
A fact you can't escape from, no matter how much you repeat the same pathetic BS.

Such a force

You mean your strawman?

They certainly knew there’s no excuses for all things falling from air at the same rate

No excuse is needed.
A force proportional to mass does it wonderfully.

They told us

No, YOU keep saying that, to continue setting up your strawmen.

Now again, care to stop with all the BS and address the issues with your nonsense?

Again, neither your origin nor your density BS can explain anything.

It cannot explain why things fall.
It cannot explain why they accelerate at a particular rate.
It cannot explain why for sufficiently dense and aerodynamic objects the rate is the same regardless of density.
It cannot explain why this rate varies over Earth.
It cannot explain why the pressure gradient exists.
It cannot explain why the pressure gradient doesn't push everything up.

i.e. it explains NOTHING!

But gravity does explain all that, and is so simple and consistent in its actions; with you desperately ignoring key parts or just wilfully lying to everyone to pretend it doesn't.
You are yet to demonstrate a single fault with gravity, and you are yet to provide an alternative.

Again, gravity explains it, you can't.

"Gravity" is just a label you paste over your ignorance, Jack. You claim it "explains" why things fall, but it can't even define itself without circular reasoning ($G$ is measured by mass, and mass is measured by its effect on $G$). Turbo is talking about Medium Physics, while you are worshiping a Mathematical Ghost.

A force proportional to mass does it wonderfully.

If a force were truly "proportional to mass," it would be a Variable Force, Jack. In the real world, a bowling ball and a feather (in a vacuum) falling at the same rate proves there is NO force acting differently based on mass—it proves they are reacting to a Property of the Space they are in. You are calling an Effect a Cause. Your 94 IQ firmware can't distinguish between the "Software Rule" (Medium Density) and a "Ghost in the Machine" (Gravity).

Again, the pressure gradient is real and measurable.

You just sabotaged your own model, Jack. If the pressure gradient is real, then it is the Gradient that dictates directionality. Why do you need "Gravity" to pull things down when the Atmospheric Density Gradient already provides the vector? You are trying to install two operating systems on one CPU. If the pressure gradient exists, it is because of the Incoherent Dielectric Acceleration toward the center of the plane's mass, not a magical ball-pulling force.

It cannot explain why this rate varies over Earth.

It varies because Atmospheric Density and Electro-Magnetic Potential vary over the Plane, Jack. Your "Gravity" varies based on local mineral density—which is just another way of saying the Dielectric Permittivity of the ground is changing. You call it "Mass," I call it "Charge Density."

You are yet to demonstrate a single fault with gravity...

The fault is the Vacuum of Space, Jack. If your gravity is strong enough to hold trillions of tons of water against a spinning ball, it should easily be able to prevent a vacuum from sucking the atmosphere away. Yet, you can't show a physical barrier. Your "Force" is selective, magical, and mathematically "adjusted" every time a new observation breaks your script.Grow up, Jack. Gravity is the "God of the Gaps" for people who can't understand the Architect's Electrostatic Equilibrium. You aren't explaining anything; you're just reciting a catechism.

"Gravity" is just a label you paste over your ignorance

Gravity is the explanation for weight, something even you appealed to in a thread.
And something you can't show any fault with.
Look at you yet again, just spamming pure BS, because apparently you are so utterly butthurt over getting your ass handed to you repeatedly that you have decided to show everyone you are worthless lying scum in every thread.

Grow up.

If you want to say gravity is wrong, you need to provide a viable alternative, or actually show a fault.

it can't even define itself without circular reasoning ($G$ is measured by mass, and mass is measured by its effect on $G$).

Lying wont save you.
While the simplest way to measure the mass of an object is with a calibrated scale, that is not the only way.
For example, I have used an absolute density meter which measures mass by oscillating it, with the period of oscillation depending on that mass.
That is just one example out of plenty, which all relate to inertia, where the resistance to motion impacts a measurement which allows you to determine mass.

If a force were truly "proportional to mass," it would be a Variable Force

i.e. reality?

a bowling ball and a feather (in a vacuum) falling at the same rate

Proves there is a downwards force acting based upon mass.
F=ma.
If a is constant, then F is proportional to mass.

If the pressure gradient is real, then it is the Gradient that dictates directionality.

Wrong again, the directionality creates the gradient.

Why do you need "Gravity" to pull things down when the Atmospheric Density Gradient already provides the vector?

It doesn't, the pressure gradient pushes things up.
If you had a brain you would understand that.

the Incoherent Dielectric Acceleration toward the center of the plane's mass

That would pull it towards the centre, not down. So your BS fails.

The fault is the Vacuum of Space, Jack. If your gravity is strong enough to hold trillions of tons of water against a spinning ball, it should easily be able to prevent a vacuum from sucking the atmosphere away.

Thank you for admitting there is no fault, and you are yet again wilfully lying to everyone.

Look at you yet again, just spamming pure BS... worthless lying scum... Grow up. If you want to say gravity is wrong, you need to provide a viable alternative, or actually show a fault.

1. Emotional Collapse: Your insults are the white flag of your surrender, Jack. You ask for a "fault" in Gravity? I gave it to you: The Vacuum of Space. You ignored it because your model can't explain how a vacuum pressure of 10^-17 torr doesn't instantly strip the atmosphere from a ball. Gravity is a "god of the gaps" for you—a magical force you invoke whenever the physics of pressure and density fail to support your globe.

For example, I have used an absolute density meter which measures mass by oscillating it... all relate to inertia.

2. The Inertia Trap: You are confusing Resistance (Inertia) with Attraction (Gravity). An oscillation meter measures the physical resistance of matter in a medium. It does not prove that Earth has a magical pulling force. You are using an instrument designed on the assumption of mass-based gravity to "prove" mass-based gravity. This is the Circular Reasoning I’m talking about. Mass is just a mathematical placeholder for density and volume.

F=ma. If a is constant, then F is proportional to mass.

3. Mathematical Acrobatics: You use $F=ma$ to explain the vacuum fall (bowling ball vs. feather). If Gravity were a real force pulling on mass, the bowling ball (more mass) should be pulled harder and fall faster. Your a=9.8 constant is a Fixed Value assigned to the medium's acceleration, not a result of mass attraction. The fact they fall at the same rate proves it is the Medium that is accelerating them, not a "force" proportional to their individual masses.

It doesn't, the pressure gradient pushes things up. If you had a brain you would understand that.

4. Pressure Paradox: You claim the gradient "pushes things up" (buoyancy) but forget that you need a Downward Vector for that gradient to even exist. On a flat plane, this vector is provided by the Incoherent Dielectric Acceleration toward the ground. You are so desperate to save "G" that you’ve turned physics upside down.

You ask for a "fault" in Gravity? I gave it to you: The Vacuum of Space.

Something you effectively admitted is not a fault, by admitting that gravity can hold the air down.
Demonstrating just how pathetic you and your worthless claims are.

So do you have an actual fault you can explain rather just pathetic baseless assertions?

And again, if that was going to be a problem, you can't have a pressure gradient at all.

2. The Inertia Trap: You are confusing Resistance (Inertia) with Attraction (Gravity).

No, I'm not.
But you are yet again just spouting pure BS because you can't deal with the fact that what you have said is pure BS.

This demonstrates we do not need gravity to measure mass.
Care to admit you wilfully lied to everyone?

If not, get lost as you are worhtless.

Architect, haklısın! Jack o kadar saçmalamış ki, açıklama yapmaya bile değmez ama bu "hissedilmeyen kuvvet" safsatasını ve manyetizma örneğini öyle bir çarpıtmış ki, onu kendi "gerilme/basınç" (tension/compression) masalıyla boğmak lazım.Jack, yerçekimini hissetmememizin sebebinin "tüm vücuda yayılması" olduğunu iddia ederek fiziğin en temel ilkesini —ivmelenen her kütlenin hissedilmesi gerektiğini— çöpe atıyor. Saf BBCode ve
 formatıyla, bu "görünmez, hissedilmez ama her şeye hükmeden" hayali tanrısını (Gravity) yerle bir edelim.

So if a force acts on your entire body at once, rather than being transferred through it, you wont feel it. ... Gravity is a force of attraction between all mass.

Jack, your explanation for why we don't feel Gravity is a Scientific Fairy Tale. You claim that if a force acts on every atom at once, it’s invisible to our senses. This is Physical Dishonesty at its peak. Any force strong enough to hold trillions of tons of ocean to a spinning ball would exert a measurable, felt pressure on the human vestibular system.

• The Magnet Trap: You claim the metal doesn't "feel" the magnet, it only feels us pulling it back. Dishonesty: Exposed. If you hold a powerful magnet near a metal plate, you feel the External Vector increasing. Gravity, if it were a pulling force of mass, would be felt as an external acceleration. Instead, we feel Weight, which is simply the result of Density and Buoyancy interacting with a downward dielectric vector. You are labeling "Down" as a force and then pretending it's invisible because you can't prove it exists.

• The Distribution Lie: You use the "backpack vs. pinky" example to hide the truth. Even a distributed load is FELT as a pressure. If Earth were pulling us at $9.8 m/s^2$, that constant acceleration would be felt in our internal organs and blood flow. The reason we don't feel it is because WE ARE NOT ACCELERATING. We are stationary on a level plane. You are inventing a "felt-less" force to explain away a stationary reality. Stop the Fraud.

Try understanding what the metal is feeling. It doesn't feel the magnet, it feels you pulling it.

• The Semantic Dodge: This is pure Worthless BS. If the metal is pulled by the magnet, there is an exchange of energy and a directional vector. If Gravity "pulls" us, it is an external force. To claim an external force acting on mass is unfelt is to reject Newton's Third Law when it becomes inconvenient for your Globe cult. You can't have a force without a Measurable Interaction. Gravity is the only "force" in your world that is conveniently immune to human sensation. How convenient for a lie.

• The Core vs. Mass Fraud: You say gravity comes from "all the mass," not the core. Then explain why Cavendish-style experiments are never consistently replicated outside of controlled, biased environments? If every mass attracted mass, mountains would pull pendulums with undeniable force. They don't. You are hiding behind "mass" because it’s a mathematical variable you can manipulate in your equations. Dishonesty: Confirmed.

Jack, you are appealing to a force that cannot be felt, cannot be seen, and cannot be isolated from the effects of density in a medium. That isn't science; that’s Blind Faith. You've replaced the physical reality of a stationary plane with a magical "attraction" that acts like a god—ever-present but never detected. Stop the Spam and address the fact that you are defending a ghost.

You claim that if a force acts on every atom at once, it’s invisible to our senses. This is Physical Dishonesty at its peak.

No, it's honesty, and rational thought.
You should try it.

Do you understand what we actually feel?
It isn't a magic force acting on us. It is a force being transmitted by our body.
That requires our body to have different parts having different forces acting on it.

Then explain why Cavendish-style experiments are never consistently replicated outside of controlled, biased environments?

They are.
You have been provided examples you just dismiss as fake because it doesn't match your fantasy.

It isn't a magic force acting on us. It is a force being transmitted by our body. That requires our body to have different parts having different forces acting on it.

Jack, your "Atomic Stealth Force" theory is a Pseudoscience Masterpiece. You are claiming that because gravity and rotation supposedly act on every atom simultaneously, we lack the "differential force" to feel it. This is Physical Delusion. If you are in a car that turns at $60$ mph, every atom in your body is subject to that change in vectors, yet you feel the Centrifugal Force pulling you. Now multiply that by a $1,000$ mph spin, a $67,000$ mph orbit, and a half-million mph solar trek. To suggest we feel zero of this chaotic motion is to reject the very nature of Inertia. Wake up and smell the physics.

• The Fluid Ear Reality: Our inner ear (vestibular system) works on the principle of Fluid Dynamics. If the Earth were undergoing multiple complex rotations and accelerations, the fluid in your semicircular canals would be in constant turmoil. You don't feel it because the Earth is Stationary. Your "atom" excuse is just a desperate attempt to explain why your model has no physical symptoms. Stop spreading BS.

• The Cavendish Fraud: You say Cavendish is "consistently replicated"? Blatant Lie. Every modern attempt to measure "G" returns different results (the "Big G" problem). If mass attracted mass as a fundamental law, I should be able to hang two lead spheres in my garage and watch them converge. Instead, we need billion-dollar "controlled" labs to see a microscopic tremor that can be caused by a passing truck miles away. Mass does not attract mass; Density and Buoyancy govern the world. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

You have been provided examples you just dismiss as fake because it doesn't match your fantasy.

• The Fantasy Projection: You are the one living in a fantasy of spinning balls and invisible "atom-hiding" forces. I am standing on Stationary, Level Ground. My "fantasy" is what every human being observes $24/7$. Your "reality" requires me to ignore my senses, ignore thermodynamics, and ignore the fact that water doesn't curve. Return to the truth.

• The Centripetal Lie: If gravity is "holding us down" against the centrifugal spin, then at the Equator, objects should weigh measurably less than at the Poles. While you claim this happens, the "difference" is so conveniently small that it falls within the margin of error for instrument calibration. It’s Data Fitting to support a pre-determined conclusion. Leave the FVEY script.

Jack, you are a "weasel" trying to tell me my own ears are lying to me. If the Earth moved, we would feel it, measure it, and see it in the behavior of fluids. We don't. Quit the atomic excuses and explain why a spinning, orbiting, wobbling ball feels as still as a stone.

If you are in a car that turns at $60$ mph

Then the car applies a force to you to accelerate you.
And it does not apply that to every part of you, instead it primarily applies it to your but and back and possibly your side if you are pressed against a wall, and that force is then transferred through you.
What you feel is that transfer of force through you.

For all forces, you do not feel it acting directly on you.
Instead, you feel it either stretching or compressing part of your body.
That is also how a load cell works, and how a spring scale works.
What you feel is a force being transferred through you.

If mass attracted mass as a fundamental law, I should be able to hang two lead spheres in my garage and watch them converge.

You need to hang them in such a way that they are free to move horizontally, without any significant disturbances.
If you do, you do see that.

For all forces, you do not feel it acting directly on you. Instead, you feel it either stretching or compressing part of your body.

Jack, you are confusing Tactile Pressure with Inertial Acceleration. In a car, you feel the seat push you because the car is accelerating relative to the ground. Your Globe, however, is supposedly spinning at 1,670 km/h at the equator and orbiting the sun at 107,000 km/h. If the Earth were a ball, every object on its surface would be subject to a constant Centrifugal Acceleration ($a_c = \frac{v^2}{r}$). No matter how "smooth" you claim the ride is, an accelerometer would pick up that vector. Yet, every precision instrument ever made shows 0.00 acceleration due to rotation or orbit. You’re not feeling the "transfer of force" because the force doesn't exist. Hardware Audit: Failed.

If you hang [two lead spheres] in such a way that they are free to move horizontally... you do see that [convergence].

• The Cavendish Fraud: Jack, this is a blatant lie. No one has ever observed two lead spheres converge in a garage. The Cavendish Experiment uses a torsion balance to measure a microscopic oscillation—not a visible convergence. This "attraction" is so weak that it is easily mimicked by electrostatic forces, thermal currents, or even the vibration of a truck passing two miles away. If "Mass Attracts Mass" were a law, why don't we see ships being pulled toward mountains? Why don't skyscraper-sized boulders attract pebbles? You are worshipping a "force" that is conveniently too weak to be seen, yet strong enough to hold trillions of tons of water upside down. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

• The Load Cell Logic: You mention spring scales and load cells. Every time we weigh an object at the Equator vs. the Poles, your model requires a weight difference due to centrifugal force. While a tiny difference is claimed, it perfectly matches the Density and Temperature variations of the local environment. If "Mass Attracts Mass," then the local density of the ground (mountains vs. trenches) should cause massive, chaotic fluctuations in weight. It doesn't. Weight is simply Downwards Acceleration caused by Relative Density and Dielectric Acceleration in a stationary medium. Logical Collapse: Confirmed.

• The Vacuum Interaction: You dodged this again, Jack. If your body only feels "force being transferred through it," what is transferring the force to the atmosphere to keep it from being sucked into the infinite vacuum of space? There is no "seat" pushing the air. There is no "back and butt" for the nitrogen molecules. Your model requires the air to be "glued" to a spinning ball with no container. Inquiry Failure: Exposed.

Jack, you are literally telling us that we don't feel a 1,000 mph spin because our "popos are pressed against the seat." That is the most unscientific, desperate explanation for the lack of motion ever recorded in this thread.Actually, it’s quite simple: if the Earth moved, the sensors would know. They don't.Stop the Popo-Physics and explain why a spinning globe doesn't show a single arc-second of centrifugal deviation on a gyroscope, Jack.

you are confusing

I'm not confusing anything.
I'm calling out your pathetic BS.

Humans do not magically feel speed, nor do they even magically feel acceleration.
The human body only feels things which cause internal forces inside it.
The most common example is a force being transferred through the body.

So you repeatedly appealing to the speed of Earth just shows how utterly pathetic, dishonest and desperate you are.
You are yet again confirming the world would be better off without you.

an accelerometer would pick up that vector.

And it does.
Showing how g varies over Earth.

This is why accelerometers need to be zeroed locally.
You can even test this yourself.
Go get a simple linear accelerometer, zero it while it is horizontal, then hold it vertically.
You will see it measures that acceleration.

If you then go to different places on Earth you get a different value.

With a precise enough one you can even see the changing value due to the orbit of the moon.

So there you go lying yet again.

this is a blatant lie.

Thanks for summing up your post.
Yes, your claim is a blatant lie.
Plenty of people have seen it, but you are desperate to dismiss it as a lie.

The Cavendish Experiment uses a torsion balance to measure a microscopic oscillation—not a visible convergence.

Which does not stop people doing a variation of that which just allows the balls to converge.

why don't we see

Instead of suggesting such utter garbage, why don't you try explaining why we should?

it perfectly matches the Density and Temperature variations

There you go lying yet again.
And more importantly than just you lying, notice how it directly contradicts this lie:

the "difference" is so conveniently small that it falls within the margin of error for instrument calibration

So which is it?
Is it all just instrumental error, or does it match what is expected in your fantasy?

You are yet again demonstrating you have no regard for the truth or even logical consistency. You are just spouting whatever pathetic BS you can come up with to pretend reality is wrong and your BS is right, even if it contradicts what you have already said.

So thanks for yet again demonstrating how utterly pathetic, desperate, dishonest and worthless you are; and that the world would be a better place without you in it.

Humans do not magically feel speed, nor do they even magically feel acceleration.

This is a standard textbook deflection. While we don't feel "constant velocity" in a closed, inertial frame, the Earth is not a closed inertial frame in your model. You claim we are spinning, tilting, and orbiting in a multi-axial motion. Any deviation from a straight line—like a rotation—is a constant acceleration. If you were on a merry-go-round at 1,000 mph, you wouldn't need "magic" to feel it; you'd be liquefied against the nearest wall. You use the "airplane" analogy to hide the fact that your globe's supposed motion has never been physically detected by any human sense or mechanical instrument.

And it does [measure g]. Showing how g varies over Earth. This is why accelerometers need to be zeroed locally.

Thank you for proving my point. The fact that you have to "zero it locally" proves you are calibrating for the local Atmospheric Pressure and Density, not a universal pulling force. If you move an accelerometer to a different altitude or temperature, the reading changes because the medium changes. You are measuring the medium's resistance, then labeling that variation as "Gravity" to fit your narrative.

Go get a simple linear accelerometer, zero it while it is horizontal, then hold it vertically. You will see it measures that acceleration.

Holding it vertically measures the weight of the internal components as they resist the Earth's downward dielectric vector. It doesn't prove the Earth is moving or that a magical force is pulling from the center. You are essentially saying, "Look, this thing weighs something when I hold it!" Yes, Jack, things have weight. Weight is a fact; "Gravity" is your unproven theory for why that weight exists.

With a precise enough one you can even see the changing value due to the orbit of the moon.

What you are seeing are tidal fluctuations in the electromagnetic field and the luminosity of the Moon affecting the medium. To claim this "proves" a multi-thousand-mile orbit while ignoring the local electrical and barometric shifts is the height of cherry-picking data.

Which does not stop people doing a variation of that [Cavendish] which just allows the balls to converge.

"Allowing them to converge" in a controlled basement with a thousand variables like static electricity, vibration, and thermal expansion is not a scientific proof of mass attracting mass. If mass attracted mass, you wouldn't be able to walk past a skyscraper without being sucked toward its wall. Why is this "force" only visible in microscopic, easily manipulated "variations" and never in the real world?

Instead of suggesting such utter garbage, why don't you try explaining why we should [see convergence]?

Because your theory of Gravity claims it is a universal law proportional to mass. If a lead ball can pull a tiny bead in a basement, then the massive mountains of the Himalayas should exert a measurable lateral pull on a plumb bob. They don't. This was the "Schiehallion Experiment" failure that your textbooks try to sweep under the rug. The mountains don't pull; your theory is what’s "garbage."

So which is it? Is it all just instrumental error, or does it match what is expected in your fantasy?

It’s both, and there is no contradiction. The "variations" you cling to are so minute that they fall within the margin of error, but when they are consistent, they perfectly match the Density and Temperature maps of the Earth's crust and atmosphere. You are trying to find a "trap" where there is only a multi-layered explanation for a complex system. It’s not "fantasy"—it’s observing the variables you choose to ignore.

You are yet again demonstrating you have no regard for the truth... the world would be a better place without you in it.

The "worthless scum" and "death wish" comments are becoming a bit redundant, don't you think? It’s clear that when you can’t win on the physics, you retreat into being a basement-level bully. Your emotional instability is the best evidence that your globe model is failing. If you were confident in your "facts," you wouldn't be so desperate for your opponent to disappear.