My impossible challenge for FE'ers

If we attach a fine thread to a bird, it cannot fly up into air. 'Gravity' is useless, and so weak, compared to that fine thread, which holds the bird down.

Sigh

With enough applied force, the thread can be broken.

Like if a bird flaps it’s wings and generates enough lift to overcome gravity, it can gain altitude.

If there is no gravity, why does a bird have to generate lift to fly.  Why does a large jet have to generate more lift than a bird, and harness more power to do it?

Noticed you again ignored low tide, high tide, and tidal bores…

How does your flat earth delusion account for such things?  Gravity provided by a solar system accounts for such phenomena….

It is a CONSTANT rate of acceleration, not a VARIABLE rate based on distance from the source, which actual forces have, not a made up one, like 'gravity' is.

When trying to claim 'gravity' varies in strength, you need to prove it varies, not say it does, over and over again. That's not proof, it's just BS.

If there WAS 'gravity', it would act like ALL forces do - weaken with more distance from their sources. It is a feature of ALL real forces. And is a very OBVIOUS feature, too!

It is a CONSTANT rate of acceleration,

You mean a constant rate of change?

Ok?

Why do things on earth accelerate in your flat earth delusion where there is no force to cause acceleration towards earth.  Your delusion breaks the laws of motion.

not a VARIABLE rate based on distance from the source,

I think it has been cited to you in various sites that gravity is measurable less the farther you are away from earth.

Why Gravity's Strength Is Actually Different Throughout Planet Earth

However, researchers at the University of Perth in Western Australia combined gravity data from satellites and topographic data to map gravity changes between 60 degrees north latitude and 60 south latitude. That’s about 80 percent of Earth’s landmass.

They found that gravity varies because the planet is not a perfect sphere. It’s also not uniformly dense.

In addition, gravity is weaker at the equator because of centrifugal forces produced by the planet’s rotation. Gravity is also a bit weaker at higher altitudes, being farther from Earth’s center, such as the summit of Mount Everest.

https://science.unctv.org/content/reportersblog/different-gravity

which actual forces have, not a made up one, like 'gravity' is.

And yet is demonstrably real in things like the tides, and tidal bores.


Yeah.  The rest of your rant is your usual meltdown of BS from not coming to terms with demonstrable reality. 

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 05, 2022, 04:10:34 AM

If we attach a fine thread to a bird, it cannot fly up into air. 'Gravity' is useless, and so weak, compared to that fine thread, which holds the bird down.

Sigh

With enough applied force, the thread can be broken.

Like if a bird flaps it’s wings and generates enough lift to overcome gravity, it can gain altitude.

If there is no gravity, why does a bird have to generate lift to fly.  Why does a large jet have to generate more lift than a bird, and harness more power to do it?

Noticed you again ignored low tide, high tide, and tidal bores…

How does your flat earth delusion account for such things?  Gravity provided by a solar system accounts for such phenomena….

The plates within Earth shift back and forth, causing water above it, to form waves, and tides. It's not caused by a made up force within the moon, because you also claim it is HELD IN PLACE by the Earth's made up force. You've claimed this made up force acts like all actual forces do, where they are stronger near their sources, weaker with more distance from their sources.

So where are the oceans? Almost right ON the source. And where is the moon's source? About 250,000 miles away? And which one is holding the othe one in place? Earth, of course. It has MORE of this made up force than the moon does, far away.


You're argument doesn't even make sense, does it? The far away, much weaker made up force of the moon, would NOT 'pull up' oceans which are ON the much STRONGER made up force of Earth, you cannot plug in your made up force here, much as you want to.

Logic defeats pure nonsense, every time. 

The plates within Earth shift back and forth,

So.  You believe in plate tectonics of a spherical earth over your little g god.

Doesn’t explain tidal bores.

Was in the navy.  There are no large shifts in plates that occur every twelve to 24 hours.  Plates that would be a threat to shipping and submarines.

No listing of what forces could power large plates to cycle daily over the length of cost lines.


Your plate theory is easily debunked, refuted.  With there being no proof /no source of power, no proof of what could cycle plates every 12 to 24 hours within the known plate tectonics layout.  With you providing no listed plates that could cause such a phenomenon.  With there being no record of such daily events that would be an obvious threat to shipping, fishing, diving, and submarines.  Plates that would make habitats such as coral reefs impossible.  No seismic record of plates cycling ever 12 to 24 hours to create tides.

Epic failure by you

 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 05, 2022, 05:19:22 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 05, 2022, 04:10:34 AM

If we attach a fine thread to a bird, it cannot fly up into air. 'Gravity' is useless, and so weak, compared to that fine thread, which holds the bird down.

Sigh

With enough applied force, the thread can be broken.

Like if a bird flaps it’s wings and generates enough lift to overcome gravity, it can gain altitude.

If there is no gravity, why does a bird have to generate lift to fly.  Why does a large jet have to generate more lift than a bird, and harness more power to do it?

Noticed you again ignored low tide, high tide, and tidal bores…

How does your flat earth delusion account for such things?  Gravity provided by a solar system accounts for such phenomena….

The plates within Earth shift back and forth, causing water above it, to form waves, and tides. It's not caused by a made up force within the moon, because you also claim it is HELD IN PLACE by the Earth's made up force. You've claimed this made up force acts like all actual forces do, where they are stronger near their sources, weaker with more distance from their sources.

So where are the oceans? Almost right ON the source. And where is the moon's source? About 250,000 miles away? And which one is holding the othe one in place? Earth, of course. It has MORE of this made up force than the moon does, far away.


You're argument doesn't even make sense, does it? The far away, much weaker made up force of the moon, would NOT 'pull up' oceans which are ON the much STRONGER made up force of Earth, you cannot plug in your made up force here, much as you want to.

Logic defeats pure nonsense, every time.

Moving plates in a way you suggest is pure and utter 100%BS. The movement of all the major plates on the earth's crust are tracked continually especially in regions prone to earthquakes.
Its all very well having a different view but when it comes to telling straight lies thats unacceptable.

Plus when plates moves the result is an earthquake!

https://spotlight.unavco.org/how-gps-works/gps-and-tectonics/gps-and-tectonics.html

No, it is proof objects have mass, and more force when up in air, dropping down through air, which has little mass at all.

Mass and weight are related by the equation Weight = mass x gravity.

Weight
The weight of an object is defined as the force of gravity on the object and may be calculated as the mass times the acceleration of gravity, w = mg. Since the weight is a force, its SI unit is the newton.

For an object in free fall, so that gravity is the only force acting on it, then the expression for weight follows from Newton's second law.


At the Earth's surface, where g=9.8 m/s2

And yet again you continue to flee.

Are you going to be honest for once in your life and admit that a VSI would NOT measure the curvature?
Or will you just continue this pathetic childish behaviour, fleeing from the topic only to bring it up again later to go through all this BS yet again?

It is a CONSTANT rate of acceleration, not a VARIABLE rate based on distance from the source

Again, PROVE IT!
Stop just asserting the same pathetic BS.

When trying to claim 'gravity' varies in strength, you need to prove it varies

Yet again you fail to understand the burden of proof.
If you want to claim gravity isn't a real force because it is magically constant, the burden is on you to prove it.
As you assert that without evidence, I can dismiss it without evidence.

And again, you weren't talking about gravity in this thread. You were talking about your BS claims regarding a VSI.

because you also claim it is HELD IN PLACE

No, we don't.
That is your pathetic mischaracterisation of the actual claim, so you can dishonestly pretend there is a problem.

You're argument doesn't even make sense, does it? The far away, much weaker made up force of the moon, would NOT 'pull up' oceans which are ON the much STRONGER made up force of Earth, you cannot plug in your made up force here, much as you want to.

Quite the opposite, your garbage is what makes no sense.

Because you want to pretend gravity is not a force and instead is some kind of magical glue.
Gravity is not a magical glue, it is a force.
That means it doesn't magically hold anything. It is a force which acts on the object, with other forces acting too.

The moon is also acting on Earth. They both orbit their common barycenter.
Just like the moon is accelerating towards Earth, Earth is accelerating towards the moon.
And the specific force (force per unit mass) due to gravity will vary with distance, meaning the water on Earth closest to the moon will have the greatest specific force, and then as you get further away the specific force will be weaker.
This results in Earth as a whole experiencing an average specific force resulting in one acceleration, while the water closest to the moon experiences a greater specific force causing it to bulge up towards the moon, and the water on the opposite side of Earth feels a lesser force, causing it to lag behind Earth and bulge out.

So tidal forces due to gravity causing tides makes perfect sense.

Logic defeats pure nonsense, every time.

Yes, yet again logic has defeated your pure nonsense, as it has every time.


Now again, care to address your pure BS regarding the VSI?
Care to admit you were spouting pure BS?

And yet again you continue to flee.

Are you going to be honest for once in your life and admit that a VSI would NOT measure the curvature?
Or will you just continue this pathetic childish behaviour, fleeing from the topic only to bring it up again later to go through all this BS yet again?

Talk about not being honest, you take first prize.

The VSI would measure a curved flight path AS A DESCENT in air, which it doesn't, proving Earth is NOT a ball speeding through an endless 'universe'.

Your made up non-existent force of pure fantasy, will NOT solve all your problems like a magic wand. 'Gravity' is not even comparable to any ACTUAL forces. It is proven to NOT exist, by every pbject tested on Earth, NOT attracting tp one another, by your made up force that you claim is in ALL objects. There are NO objects that attract to other objects anywhere at all.

Magnetic force DOES exist, and easily PROVE to exist, anytime at all. That's the standard to prove YOUR made up force exists, at least, because you have EVERY object on Earth to prove it exists. of ALL sizes, ALL masses.

If you suspended a 50 ton boulder and a 5 lb rock in air, set one inch apart, without any winds to cause movement, your made up force must make them attract to one another by that magical force. But they would NOT attract to one another at all, which proves 'gravity' does NOT exist, as you claim. 

The moon is also acting on Earth. They both orbit their common barycenter.
Just like the moon is accelerating towards Earth, Earth is accelerating towards the moon.
And the specific force (force per unit mass) due to gravity will vary with distance, meaning the water on Earth closest to the moon will have the greatest specific force, and then as you get further away the specific force will be weaker.
This results in Earth as a whole experiencing an average specific force resulting in one acceleration, while the water closest to the moon experiences a greater specific force causing it to bulge up towards the moon, and the water on the opposite side of Earth feels a lesser force, causing it to lag behind Earth and bulge out.

So tidal forces due to gravity causing tides makes perfect sense.

If you live in bizarro world, but is complete NONSENSE in oue real world.

You claim the moon is about 250,000 miles away, with 1/6 the magical force Earth has. And as all forces are. they are STRONGEST near their sources, weaker with more distance from their sources.  So the oceans are ON that made up force, with 6 x more than the moon has, which is only 1/4 million miles away from Earth's oceans. 

This makes your OWN argument of a made up force, look even MORE ridiculous. If that's even possible.

Try to look at it this way - let's say that a magnetic force was within Earth, holding down magnetized oceans. Hpw wpuld a magnetic force within the moon, 1/4 million miles away, 'pull up' Earth's oceans? Npt a chance in hell, that would happen.

Use common sense for once. A force that is 1/4 million miles from Earth's greater force, would do NOTHING to Earth's oceans. Get serious.

[quote author=JackBlack

The VSI would measure a curved flight path AS A DESCENT in air, which it doesn't, proving Earth is NOT a ball speeding through an endless 'universe'.

Again.  Why would it.



I’ve been on flights nothing but turbulence with the nose pitched up until landing.

How would the VSI measure curvature


And it’s still possible, if I’m not mistaken, to reduce altitude with the nose pitched up.

Now.  Again..  For the flat earth delusion with ZERO gravity.  Why does a airplane have to generate the force of lift to overcome the force that keeps pulling down on an airplane to gain altitude.

And once the jet is at cruising altitude after using lift to counter act the downward force you claim doesn’t exist.  If the power and flight controls have lift in equilibrium with the downward force the jet just fought by expelling energy to create lift you claim doesn’t exist to gain altitude, why would it change altitude.

With the jet in equilibrium with lift vs gravity maintaining altitude.  With the pressure band curving with the curvature of the earth.  How exactly would a VSI measure curvature? 

If you suspended a 50 ton boulder and a 5 lb rock in air, set one inch apart, without any winds to cause movement, your made up force must make them attract to one another by that magical force. But they would NOT attract to one another at all, which proves 'gravity' does NOT exist, as you claim. 

Oh, but they do...

Hilatious how you basically just described this:

Talk about not being honest, you take first prize.

Why? For repeatedly pointing out your delusional BS and explaining why it is wrong.

The VSI would measure a curved flight path AS A DESCENT

You have asserted this delusional BS so many times it isn't funny.
What you have repeatedly failed to do is explain why.

All you prove when you post this BS is your own dishonesty, just how far you are willing to go to pretend your delusional BS is justified.

If you want to claim a VSI will measure descent then explain why.
If you can't do that, then I will continue to dismiss your claim as the pure garbage that it is.

And when you try, remember, you need to explain why it should measure a descent, rather than the equally unlikely ascent, or an ascent followed by descent, and so on.
That alone is enough to prove your delusional BS is BS.

'Gravity' is not even comparable to any ACTUAL forces.

You have spouted that delusional BS in your other thread as well, yet you have been completely incapable of demonstrating that.
Just like other forces gravity varies with distance (following the common 1/r^2 law for monopoles), and has been repeatedly tested and confirmed to exist.

It is proven to NOT exist, by every pbject tested on Earth

There you go with more ignorant garabge.
You really don't understand how multiple forces can act do you?
This delusional BS is like saying get a massive superpowerful electromagnet, and a really weak magnet, then claim magnetism doesn't exist because an object will be ripped off the weak magnet by the much more powerful one.

If you suspended a 50 ton boulder and a 5 lb rock in air, set one inch apart, without any winds to cause movement, your made up force must make them attract to one another by that magical force.

Stop ignoring other forces, and stop pretending gravity is magic and will just magically do whatever you want.

You need to suspend them in such a way that the attraction to Earth wont prevent them from being drawn together.
This is exactly what was done in the Cavendish experiment, where they did attract.

If instead you just suspend them from a string, then you would expect the gravitational attraction to Earth to pull them down.

I already provided the math showing just how insane your idea was, and how little deflection it would create.
But of course, you don't care about the truth or reality. You just care about pretending your delusional fantasy is true.

Once more, a simple alternative claim can be made which would just as correct.
Say you have these balls initially magically suspended with Earth's gravity magically switched off, such that they are touching.
Then when Earth's gravity is switched back on, you would expect the boulder and rock to be pulled down to Earth, separating them, such that their string is perfectly straight down.

In reality, you have to consider both forces, which means you end up with a tiny deflection.
If you want your 50 000 kg boulder to be made of pure osmium, one of the densest substances known to man, with a density of 22590 kg/m^3, you end up with a boulder with a radius of 0.8 m.

If your small rock was touching that, for the maximum possible force, and had a radius of 0, to get the greatest acceleration possible, then the specific force towards the boulder (equivalent to acceleration if no other forces are acting) would be 0.000005 N/kg.
And unless you intentionally design it in such a way to prevent Earth's gravity from pulling it down, that will mean that the specific from Earth is still going to be roughly 9.8 N/kg.
This is a ratio of ~0.00000052
This means the string would deflect to go to an angle of ~0.00003 degrees or 0.1 seconds.

That is incredibly small, and you would only be able to detect it with some of the most sensitive instruments.

So have you conducted such an experiment to that required level of accuracy?
That is also the level of accuracy you need to claim that they don't attract each other at all.

Of course not. Instead you want to pretend that gravity is pure magic, and that just by bringing in this boulder Earth's gravity should magically switch off and allow the boulders gravity to pull the rock towards it.

This is why you are dishonest, you continually spout pure BS regarding gravity, which you cannot justify at all, which is based upon blatant misrepresentation of gravity (which you have already been corrected on), all to pretend your delusional BS is correct and the RE model is wrong.

If you live in bizarro world, but is complete NONSENSE in oue real world.

No, I live in the real world, where I recognise gravity is a force (or at least can be treated as one) rather than some magical super power where only one bit of gravity will apply and allow you to completely ignore everything else.

Try to look at it this way - let's say that a magnetic force was within Earth, holding down magnetized oceans. Hpw wpuld a magnetic force within the moon, 1/4 million miles away, 'pull up' Earth's oceans?

The problem is that you see it as pulling up Earth's oceans, rather than distorting them.
It isn't pulling the oceans off Earth.

Use common sense for once.

Follow your own advice. Stop using your delusional BS, recognise there are competing forces and try to consider just what they would do.
But I know, that might require you to use math.

A force that is 1/4 million miles from Earth's greater force, would do NOTHING to Earth's oceans. Get serious.

Yet you expect a force which is roughly one 2 millionth of the gravity of Earth to magically overcome Earth's gravity and cause 2 rocks to stick together?
You really do love showing your dishonesty and your pathetic double standard don't you?

It is a force, that means it can affect it, the question is how much.

On the scale of Earth, it isn't significant at all. It just distorts the oceans by a few m at most. That is virtually nothing compared to the Earth's radius of 6371 km.

Yet again, all you do to try and challenge the RE is spouting entirely unjustified BS based upon nothing more than a blatant misrepresentation of the RE model.
And you have already had all of this BS of yours entirely refuted.
But your dishonesty means you don't care that you are spouting BS, you will keep on doing it, because all you care about is pretending Earth is flat, at all costs.

A made up, nonexistent 'force', like 'gravity', cannot ever hold up to scrutiny, to the reality, to facts, have any evidence or proof, no matter who says it is true, or exists, cannot make it so.

Actual forces show it is a made up, non-existent sham, trying to support other shams as being true.

A made up, nonexistent 'force', like 'gravity', cannot ever hold up to scrutiny, to the reality, to facts, have any evidence or proof, no matter who says it is true, or exists, cannot make it so.

Actual forces show it is a made up, non-existent sham, trying to support other shams as being true.

Then why does an airplane need to create lift to overcome gravity to fly?  Then why can lift be balanced with gravity to maintain a certain altitude? 

A made up, nonexistent 'force', like 'gravity', cannot ever hold up to scrutiny,

Weird, because it has held up to scrutiny for 100's of years and is used all around the globe all the time.

A made up, nonexistent 'force', like 'gravity', cannot ever hold up to scrutiny

A real force like gravity can, and has.
If it couldn't, why are you entirely unable to show a single fault with it, and instead need to continually spout the same pathetic lies?

Just what do you think is missing?
Like real forces it varies. This is observed with both latitude, where moving closer to the equator results in you being further from the centre of Earth and thus a lower value of g; and with altitude, where being higher results in greater distances and a lower value of g. This even results in the expected orbital periods for satellites, which again are based upon that variation of g.

It has mountains of evidence backing it up, from simple everyday observations of things falling, to more exotic but still plentiful evidence from satellites in orbit (including the planets orbiting the sun); as well as lab based tests like those of Cavendish.

And like other forces, it certainly needs a force to be overcome, which results in you feeling resistance to the force, which is most commonly experiences as weight, where objects feel heavy when you try to lift them or try to push them up a hill.

Just what do you think is missing?

An no response to the exposure of your dishonest test?
Are you at least willing to be honest enough to admit that if you were to suspend 2 rocks from a string you wouldn't expect to observe them visibly being drawn to each other due to how insignificant the gravitational attraction between them would be, and thus such an observation in no way refutes the existence of gravity?

Because it would have to act the same as all of our ACTUAL forces, when it acts as the very OPPOSITE of all actual forces.

Actual forces offer resistance to opposing forces. We feel the resistance of magnetic force, when we pull a piece of metal off a magnet. That is actual resistance, we can feel from the magnet. We do not feel ourselves being 'pulled down' when in air, by any 'force' below us. But we can feel a magnet pulling on a piece of metal when we take it off the magnet, and we know it is a force within that magnet, too.

To prove your 'force' exists at all, you must prove there is resistance, which comes from it, against opposing forces. There is nothing resisting the flight of birds into air, but we can stop it from flying from the surface with a thread.

So if a thread stops a bird from flying up in air, there's no force within Earth that can't stop a bird from flying up in air, because it would be weaker than a thread is, even if it DID exist at all.

How much force would be required to hold down a 300 ton boulder to the Earth, would be much more powerful than a thread is, and it WOULD hold down birds to the surface, if it could hold down a 300 ton boulder to Earth, right?

You're trying to say there's a force which holds 300 ton boulders, but cannot hold down a tiny bird? That's simply NOT logical in any way, not POSSIBLE in any way, and you know that is completely ridiculous, because it IS completely ridiculous!

It's like saying a large magnet can hold a 4 lb piece of metal to it, but not hold a 2 g nail, because it would sound completely ridiculous, and would be totally ABSURD.


 

What if theres a 1,000,000,000kg magnet on the opposite side of the 2g nail?

Then why does an airplane need to create lift to overcome gravity to fly?  Then why can lift be balanced with gravity to maintain a certain altitude?

It doesn't, it must overcome it's greater mass and density than the air has, in order to lift up within it.

Objects have more mass and density than the AIR does, and objects all originate on the surface, not within air. Objects cannot go up into air by themselves, a force must act on them, to make them go up into air. Why would you need a force to 'hold things down to Earth', when all things have mass and density to keep them on the surface, without any other 'force' required for it.

You think all objects originate from 'space', and float around in 'space', until a massive force within Earth 'pulls them' all down to the surface? No, all objects originate on Earth's surface, from the beginning. When you find any object floating around in 'space', and gets 'oulled down to Earth by a force, at least you'd have a valid argument for it. But not when all objects have been on Earth since day one, and for thousands of years later, because that's denying the reality here. It's made up nonsense, without a shred of proof for it.

To prove your 'force' exists at all, you must prove there is resistance, which comes from it, against opposing forces. .

You mean like the formula that predicts how long an object will go up? Based on a force pulling on an object thrown up.  To slow it down faster than what is accounted for than by air resistance.  Using gravity.

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class02/notes2_freefall.html

What’s the flat earth model for calculating how long a ball thrown straight up will travel? 

Because it would have to act the same as all of our ACTUAL forces, when it acts as the very OPPOSITE of all actual forces.

How is it opposite?

Actual forces offer resistance to opposing forces. We feel the resistance of magnetic force, when we pull a piece of metal off a magnet.

Conversely, we feel the attraction when a magnet is placed near a ferrous surface/object.

That is actual resistance, we can feel from the magnet. We do not feel ourselves being 'pulled down' when in air, by any 'force' below us. But we can feel a magnet pulling on a piece of metal when we take it off the magnet, and we know it is a force within that magnet, too.

Magnetism is a "strong" force. Gravity is a "weak" force.

How much force would be required to hold down a 300 ton boulder to the Earth.

The entirety of earth. Just like everything else.

Because it would have to act the same as all of our ACTUAL forces

And it does.
Glad we cleared that up, just like we did in the previous threads.
But you seem to insist on repeating the same refuted BS all over the place.

Actual forces offer resistance to opposing forces.

And we feel the resistance to gravity.
When we try to lift an object up, including ourselves, opposing the force of gravity, we feel it.
We can even make a comparison.
Put a car on dollies with nice low friction bearings and we can easily push it around with just 1 person. That is what the inertia of the car should feel like.
But try lifting it up, try pulling it away from Earth, opposing gravity, and we can't, at least not alone. We feel a massive resistance when trying to oppose this force for an object as massive as a car.

We do not feel ourselves being 'pulled down' when in air, by any 'force' below us.

Do you mean when you are in free fall?
Well, ignoring the feeling of the air pushing against you trying to slow you down, that is because you aren't applying an opposing force.
Instead you are being accelerated by gravity.
But when you stop, you certainly feel it.

To prove your 'force' exists at all, you must prove there is resistance

And done, as above.

There is nothing resisting the flight of birds into air

Yes there is, which is why they need to flap their wings to fly.

So if a thread stops a bird from flying up in air, there's no force within Earth that can't stop a bird from flying up in air, because it would be weaker than a thread is

You mean it would be weaker than the tensile strength of the string.
If the string is too thin or weak it will snap and the bird will fly.
And it isn't just the string, it is the string and gravity.

How much force would be required to hold down a 300 ton boulder to the Earth

Who cares. This 300 ton boulder is not what is flying away, a bird is. Are you trying to attach the 300 ton boulder to the bird, because if you did, that would hold the bird down, assuming the string attaching it doesn't break.
What your doing now is just as dishonest as pulling a fridge magnet off a fridge to claim magnetism can't exist, because the force required to hold a car to an electromagnetic crane would be massive and you would have no hope of being able to overcome it.

You're trying to say there's a force which holds 300 ton boulders, but cannot hold down a tiny bird?

Are you trying to say there's a force which holds a several ton car to a crane, but can't hold a flimsily fridge magnet?

There is no reason to think the force on the bird should be the same as the force on the boulder.
In fact, with gravity we know it isn't. Instead the force is proportional to mass.
So the force on a 1 kg bird will be 9.8 N, while the force on a 300 ton boulder (assuming by ton you mean 1000 kg) will be 2 940 000 N.
That is quite a lot different.

It doesn't, it must overcome it's greater mass and density than the air has, in order to lift up within it.

This makes no sense.
Why does it need to overcome any of that?
Just what is there to overcome?
Why shouldn't it need to overcome it's greater mass and density than the air has, in order to land once in the air?

Other than some burnt fuel, the mass of the plane is the same regardless of if it is on the ground or in the air.

originate

You have had that BS refuted before. Stop bringing it up as if it provides a viable explanation. Especially when you directly contradict it by appealing to mass and density.

Objects cannot go up into air by themselves, a force must act on them, to make them go up into air. Why would you need a force to 'hold things down to Earth'

Because without a force acting to hold them to Earth, you should be able to apply a force to make them go into the air, and then as there is no force, they don't magically come back down, instead they keep going up.

when all things have mass and density to keep them on the surface

Mass and density provides no reason at all to keep them on the surface.

When you find any object floating around in 'space', and gets 'oulled down to Earth by a force, at least you'd have a valid argument for it.

But you will just dismiss it as fake.
You have absolutely no evidence that everything on Earth has originated on Earth.
Primarily because you have no evidence for anything originating on Earth. You can see things on Earth, and have no idea where they originated.

It's made up nonsense, without a shred of proof for it.

That does sum up your post quite well.
You just need to add in that you keep repeating the same refuted BS.

We feel the resistance of magnetic force, when we pull a piece of metal off a magnet.

Please Google "Magnetic Attraction". 

Yes, magnets attract.  This would be a very easy experiment to try.  You could do it if you tried.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 11, 2022, 05:44:13 AM

Then why does an airplane need to create lift to overcome gravity to fly?  Then why can lift be balanced with gravity to maintain a certain altitude?

It doesn't, it must overcome it's greater mass and density than the air has, in order to lift up within it.

Objects have more mass and density than the AIR does, and objects all originate on the surface, not within air. Objects cannot go up into air by themselves, a force must act on them, to make them go up into air. Why would you need a force to 'hold things down to Earth', when all things have mass and density to keep them on the surface, without any other 'force' required for it.

You think all objects originate from 'space', and float around in 'space', until a massive force within Earth 'pulls them' all down to the surface? No, all objects originate on Earth's surface, from the beginning. When you find any object floating around in 'space', and gets 'oulled down to Earth by a force, at least you'd have a valid argument for it. But not when all objects have been on Earth since day one, and for thousands of years later, because that's denying the reality here. It's made up nonsense, without a shred of proof for it.

Are you an idiot! There is evidence aplenty if you care to remove your blinkers.

There is CCTV and Dashcam footage of all sorts of things falling from the sky. There are dependable astronomical forecasts that predict meteor showers through out the year. Next time you are out on a dark clear night if you can squeeze through your bars on your cage and the chain holding you is long enough, lie down and look at the sky. Sure as chips you will see those tiny grains of space dust burn up in the upper atmosphere that are called shooting stars.

Or you can visit a good museum and have a look at their meteorite collection. They all fell from the sky originating way out in the solar system.


Or how about this Meteorite:-
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/16/meteorite-that-landed-in-cotswolds-may-solve-mystery-of-earths-water

Simply denying these things are real when you can physically see them falling or go to a museum an actually see one is just plain stupid behaviour. There is no rational reason for not beliving such things exist when you, if you wish and are open minded enough and not too stupid, can actually see and witness them. The only things thats holding you back is your own inherent ignorance and engrained belief. Let it go and taste reality.

And we feel the resistance to gravity.
When we try to lift an object up, including ourselves, opposing the force of gravity, we feel it.
We can even make a comparison.
Put a car on dollies with nice low friction bearings and we can easily push it around with just 1 person. That is what the inertia of the car should feel like.
But try lifting it up, try pulling it away from Earth, opposing gravity, and we can't, at least not alone. We feel a massive resistance when trying to oppose this force for an object as massive as a car.

All objects originate on the surface of Earth, or it's waters. They REMAIN on the surface, due to their mass and density being greater than that of the air ABOVE the surface.

You assume all objects did NOT originate on Earth's surface or waters, without a shred of evidence to support that assumption.

And the only reason you choose to ignore the evidence on hand, which has existed from day one, and thousands of years SINCE then, is because you NEED to ignore it, and make up a fairy tale story, that all objects were 'floating aimlessly in space', not on the Earth all along. You need a magical made up 'force' within Earth, that 'pulls in' all objects which are floating about in 'space', to fit your ball Earth fairy tale story.   

Despite knowing everything on Earth's surface and waters has always existed here, to our knowledge, which is over many thousands of years, to this very day, while NOTHING has ever come down TO the Earth, from 'space', or anywhere else, over that same several thousand year time span......but let's assume you're right, that there's 'space debris' on Earth, from comets, etc. landing here from 'space'! 

That's what you claim supports your argument that all things on Earth, originated from 'space', or wherever, and were 'pulled down to Earth's surface', by your made up, magical force, 'gravity', and has been 'holding all things down to Earth', ever SINCE that time! 

Except you haven't a clue, that what you believe supports your argument, does the very opposite, in fact.

Assume what you claim is true, that all sorts of 'space stuff' is on Earth, like comets, etc.

So HOW would they know it came from 'space', and not from Earth?

Certain features, like 'small bubbles', coloring, texture, mineral content, etc.? 

In fact, they've said that they've been able to identify 'space stuff' on Earth, that's been here for thousands or MILLIONS of years!

They claim to know these objects DO originate from 'space', unlike almost ALL OTHER OBJECTS ON EARTH, which originate ON Earth....correct?

Do you mean when you are in free fall?
Well, ignoring the feeling of the air pushing against you trying to slow you down, that is because you aren't applying an opposing force.
Instead you are being accelerated by gravity.
But when you stop, you certainly feel it.

Why would we call it a 'free fall', if we felt 'pulled down' by something below us? Because we do NOT feel anything 'pulling us down from below us', when we fall through air.

But, we certainly do feel the AIR holding us up in air, slightly, or strongly, at times, which vary, of course. That's how actual forces are - they vary, and change, in strength, and range, which we FEEL as an actual force. When we are in a free fall, we feel the air resisting our fall from being uninhibited, or 'free'.

We NEVER feel ourselves being 'pulled down' from below, when falling through air, and we WOULD feel ourselves being pulled down from below, by an ACTUAL force, if it DID exist.

Actual forces like air resistance are FELT.

Pulling is felt, pushing against us is felt, pushing us the same direction we're walking or running in, is felt. By wind, by someone acting on us, by a rope pull, a door pinching our sleeve, etc.

We live our whole lifetimes, feeling all of these things when they happen to us. They are strange feelings, not normal to us.

When you're arguing that a 'pulling down force' exists within Earth, that would be FELT AS A PULLING DOWN ON US FROM BELOW, that is NOT AT ALL FELT, it's already garbage.   

You mean it would be weaker than the tensile strength of the string.
If the string is too thin or weak it will snap and the bird will fly.
And it isn't just the string, it is the string and gravity.

No, it's just the string, cut it, and it flies, don't cut it, there's no flight at all. Simple as that.

What your doing now is just as dishonest as pulling a fridge magnet off a fridge to claim magnetism can't exist, because the force required to hold a car to an electromagnetic crane would be massive and you would have no hope of being able to overcome it.

What the ^^ now? It's a pile of gibberish, made up, no?  Yikes!

Are you trying to say there's a force which holds a several ton car to a crane, but can't hold a flimsily fridge magnet?

What next? This is getting more and more wacko...

This makes no sense.
Why does it need to overcome any of that?
Just what is there to overcome?
Why shouldn't it need to overcome it's greater mass and density than the air has, in order to land once in the air?

Having more mass and density than air, when on the ground, objects will remain on ground.
To go upward into air, their mass and density must be overcome first, by a force acting on it.

After it is PUT UP INTO AIR, it already HAS overcome it's greater mass and density, when that force acted on it, to go into air.

There's no need to 'overcome' falling downward through air, after the object has been thrown upward into the air, because THEN, the object is ABOVE air, when no longer moving upward, since the force dies out. So the mass and density of it, cause it to fall down through the air, to the ground.

You have had that BS refuted before. Stop bringing it up as if it provides a viable explanation. Especially when you directly contradict it by appealing to mass and density.

It makes perfect sense, in fact.

Everything on Earth has always BEEN on Earth, as WE know it, and nothing else, so it doesn't make ANY sense at all, to claim that all things on Earth, always seen on Earth, over thousands of years, all originated from 'space', or somewhere else.

It's ridiculous, and utter nonsense. There's no support for it, no evidence for it. All the evidence is against that claim, which makes it even worse.

You have absolutely no evidence that everything on Earth has originated on Earth.
Primarily because you have no evidence for anything originating on Earth. You can see things on Earth, and have no idea where they originated.

Why would you talk about ME having no evidence for my argument, that's the ONLY evidence we HAVE of it, and thousands of years of that AS reality!

Your case has nothing AT ALL to base it on - the 'anti-evidence' argument, basically. 

At least I'm arguing from the existing evidence, which has been here since day one, and ever since then, which is far better than arguing about how it's not 'proof' of being true, like you even HAD any evidence at all!

Turbs, if you fell down a well, you would feel something under the surface of the earth pulling you down. Guaranteed. I have no idea how your buoyancy belief explains the rise and fall of tides?

Turbs, for a guy who doesn't believe in other planets, you're on a whole other planet.

All objects originate on the surface of Earth, or it's waters.

1 - Prove it.
2 - Irrelavent.

They REMAIN on the surface, due to their mass and density being greater than that of the air ABOVE the surface.

i.e. it has absolutely nothing at all to do with any magical origin.
Instead, things that are denser than air go down.
It isn't things go towards or away from the origin, they go up or down.

So stop pretending the origin has anything to do with it.

Now what you need to do is explain why. Why should something being denser than the air make it go down? Why should something being lighter than the air make it go up?
Gravity explains this perfectly well, and in a manner which is transferable to other situations, like a centrifuge or an accelerating car.
You have nothing.

You assume all objects did NOT originate on Earth's surface or waters, without a shred of evidence to support that assumption.

No. YOU believe that all objects did originate on Earth's surface or waters, with absolutely no evidence to support that assumption, and requiring you to dismiss evidence that shows you are wrong.

Conversely, I do not accept that all objects originated on Earth's surface or waters. For the purpose of this discussion that can be that all originated off Earth's surface or that only some did.
This is backed up by plentiful evidence of meteor showers.

You need a magical made up 'force' within Earth, that 'pulls in' all objects which are floating about in 'space', to fit your ball Earth fairy tale story.

No, we need a real force like gravity to explain observations from reality, as your delusional garbage simply doesn't work.
If your delusional garbage did work, it would work just as well on a sphere.

Despite knowing everything on Earth's surface and waters has always existed here, to our knowledge

To YOUR BELIEF, based upon wilful ignorance of rejection of evidence.
That is not knowledge, and it doesn't demonstrate that it originated there.
What you are really saying is that you have no idea where anything originated but choose to believe it all originated on Earth to try to prop up your fairy tale (and failing to do so).

Except you haven't a clue, that what you believe supports your argument, does the very opposite, in fact.
Assume what you claim is true, that all sorts of 'space stuff' is on Earth, like comets, etc.
So HOW would they know it came from 'space', and not from Earth?

By observing it falling from space and colliding with Earth.

Ultimately everything on Earth, and even Earth itself is from space, as it formed in space. The only question is how long it has been here and what processes it has gone through.
But during the early stages of the formation of Earth, Earth was hot, so dense materials like iron were able to go down to the core, with only small amounts left on the surface, and typically in the form of iron oxides.
But after it arrives, the surface changes with erosion and stratification.

But again, this is just a deflection from your inability to justify your BS.

Why would we call it a 'free fall', if we felt 'pulled down' by something below us?

Because you are freely falling.
Gravity acts on the entire body at once.
As this does not apply a force across your body you would not feel it.

If you think you can, please provide an example of something you accept as a force where such a thing is felt.
Note, this cannot be something like a magnet freely flying towards another magnet, as in order to feel a force, you would need to stop the magnet from freely flying towards the other magnet.

That's how actual forces are - they vary, and change, in strength, and range, which we FEEL as an actual force.

What you feel is your body transferring a force.
You feel the air as it is pushing on one part of your body with your body then transferring the force through it to act on the rest of your body.

We NEVER feel ourselves being 'pulled down' from below, when falling through air, and we WOULD feel ourselves being pulled down from below, by an ACTUAL force, if it DID exist.

Why?
Yet again you assert pure garbage with no justification.
Just what makes you think you should feel a force?

I have already provided you with an example showing that is pure BS with 2 weights and a light spring between them, where the spring, a demonstration of the force you feel, doesn't detect the force in any significant amount, if you move both weights together. It is only if you apply a force to one of the weights, and the spring has to transfer it to the other is the force felt.

No, it's just the string, cut it, and it flies, don't cut it, there's no flight at all. Simple as that.

No, it is not just the string. If the string was pure magic you would be able to tie it to the bird, with the other end free and magically hold the bird down.
Instead, you need to tie the string to something.
And then it depends on what you tie it to.
If you tie it to a little note, such as for a carrier pigeon, it can fly away with it just fine.
If you tie to a heavy weight, then it is gravity acting on the weight which stops the bird flying.

What the ^^ now? It's a pile of gibberish, made up, no?

No, it isn't a pile of gibberish, it is a comparison to a force you believe in to show this dishonesty and stupidity of your claims.
You want to pretend that the force due to gravity on a tiny bird should be the same as on a tiny boulder.
That is just as dishonest as acting like the force on a fridge magnet should be the same as the force on a car under an electromagnetic crane.

Claiming gravity should magically hold a tiny bird down because it can hold down a 300 ton boulder is just as dishonest and stupid as claiming you shouldn't be able to remove a fridge magnet from a fridge because electromagnetism can hold a car suspended in the air.

Having more mass and density than air, when on the ground, objects will remain on ground.

WHY?
That is what you refuse to justify.

To go upward into air, their mass and density must be overcome first, by a force acting on it.

What is there to overcome? Without a force tyring to keep it on the ground any tiny force should be able to lift it.

It makes perfect sense, in fact.

No, it makes no sense at all, as clearly demonstrated by rocks falling off a ledge and the water cycle, and the fact that things don't magically go back to their origin.

All the evidence is against that claim, which makes it even worse.

What evidence? You are provide any evidence of any object originating on Earth.
Showing evidence of an object ON earth provides no evidence of where it originated.
You don't know if it originated on Earth and remained there, or if it originated elsewhere and ended up on Earth.

Why would you talk about ME having no evidence for my argument

Because as stated above, you have no evidence.
You have a baseless belief which requires wilful rejection of reality.

The fact that everything has existed on the Earth's surface or it's waters, while nothing at all has ever come down to Earth from elsewhere, over thousands of years time, would indicate they originate on Earth, no indication of being anywhere else, nor evidence of anything at all.

Everything on Earth, has always been on Earth, was created to be on Earth, which is the reason we have no NEED for a 'pulling down, holding down' force to ever exist at all, and none DOES exist at all.

Earth was created for all life to exist on it's surface, or within it's waters, but not within air, except to breathe it, and fly within it, among many other uses beyond, of course.

Why would we need a 'force' to hold things 'down' to Earth's surface, when mass and density keep us on the surface all the time?

It all depends on where all things originate from, doesn't it? And if we cannot prove where things on Earth, first came to exist, we can only look at where they are now, where they once were, and if anything comes to Earth from elsewhere, or not.

Based on all the available evidence, over thousands of years, my argument is far stronger than yours is, and it's not even close. 

It works perfectly.

The fact that everything has existed on the Earth's surface or it's waters, while nothing at all has ever come down to Earth from elsewhere, over thousands of years time, would indicate they originate on Earth, no indication of being anywhere else, nor evidence of anything at all.

That is not a fact. That is your baseless claim, which requires wilful ignorance of the evidence of meteorites.
The available evidence indicates things have fallen from space.
If you wish to disagree, then the absolute best you can get is having no idea if everything originated on Earth or not.

But regardless, the origin doesn't explain why things fall.

Everything on Earth, has always been on Earth, was created to be on Earth, which is the reason we have no NEED for a 'pulling down, holding down' force to ever exist at all, and none DOES exist at all.

Pure garbage.
Like I have explained before, even if everything did originate on Earth, that still provides no reason for things to magically fall to Earth without a force acting on it.
The fact that things have weight and accelerate downwards shows beyond any doubt that there is a force acting.
The question is what that force is.
So far gravity is the only explanation which makes sense.

Why would we need a 'force' to hold things 'down' to Earth's surface, when mass and density keep us on the surface all the time?

Because mass and density provides no reason to keep us on the surface.
Why should they.

It all depends on where all things originate from, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't.
Something originating in one location gives it no reason to magically go back there.

And if we cannot prove where things on Earth, first came to exist, we can only look at where they are now

Which just further demonstrates the origin is irrelevant and in no way helps to explain why things fall.

Based on all the available evidence, over thousands of years, my argument is far stronger than yours is, and it's not even close. 

It works perfectly.

Projecting again I see.
Your argument is based upon wilful rejection of evidence and appealing to your own ignorance.
You have no explanation at all for why things fall and instead just assert that they magically do for no reason at all.
It doesn't work at all.

But gravity does work.
It provides a justification for the directionality and the magnitude of the force.

Earth was created for all life to exist on it's surface,

Then why if you take a leaf in a cave, it drops away from the surface towards the center of the earth.  Farther away from the atmosphere and sunlight that help create it.


Ironic you say gravity doesn’t exist. But then butcher the concept of gravity to say things are motivated to “return  to the surface”.  Sounds more like mass has properties of gravity where mass attracts mass.  Specially if a leaf dropped in a deep cave is pulled towards the earth’s center of gravity.  Instead of it moving towards the atmosphere/gasses  and sunlight that help produce it. 


Then of course you have the pointed out meteorites.  Then space dust.  And then bits of the planet Mars blown off in large Martian meteorite strikes that made their way to earth…