When it is harder to ride a bike up a hill, we are still ON the Earth, right? Why would your made up force resist us more going up a hill, than on level ground, and offer LESS resistance when going DOWN a hill, than ON level ground, or up a hill?
Not a made up force, a very real force, doing the exact thing you claim real forces should do, resist things going against them.
Again, gravity is not some magic glue that holds you to the surface. That is your delusional BS, not gravity.
Gravity is about mass.
And that means for Earth that is the entire mass of Earth, not just the tiny bit you are standing on.
So that means if you are going up, you are going away from the vast majority of the mass of Earth, that means you are opposing the force of gravity, and thus it will resist. It will more than if you were to remain level, and if you go with it, such as by going down, then it is very easy to do as you are no longer directly opposing the force.
Why do you continue with this dishonest BS?
Objecting to gravity being, with the blatant lie that it doesn't offer resistance, only to pull this dishonest BS when you are given a clear case of resistance; where now you switch tunes and claim it shouldn't.
Incredibly dishonest of you.
Is it that your made up force is 'stronger' when we are NEARER the Earth's surface, or 'core'?
Not the surface, not the core, the entirety of the mass of Earth. This can be approximated as a point with all the mass at the centre.
But the change in force is negligible, as already explained repeatedly.
What matters is if you are going with it or against it.
If so, why do we have no problem going down a side of canyon, which is BELOW the ground? It should be harder, being CLOSER to the ball Earth 'core', and made up force within it, right?
Why should it be harder going down?
Yet again you spout pure garbage with no logical sense at all.
If you are going down, so you are going with the force, then it should be easier not harder.
It is EQUALLY as hard to do, at both places, because it is due to having more mass and density than the air, at both places, no matter WHERE it is on Earth, or ABOVE the Earth.
And more delusional BS.
It is not EQUAL. It is approximate.
Have you ever bothered doing the math?
Of course not, because that would so easily demonstrate your dishonest BS is just that.
Treating Earth as a perfect sphere, that difference you appeal to, a mere 0.8 km represents 0.01% of the radius of Earth.
I.e. if we take the lower part to be at the radius of Earth, then the upper part is at a distance of 100.01% of the radius of Earth.
As gravity, following an inverse square law, means the change in force should be proportional to the inverse of the square of that ratio.
That means you would expect the force at the higher point to be roughly 99.97% of the strength, or 0.03% weaker.
You are not going to notice that unless you use very precise equipment.
You aren't going to be able to tell by riding a bike.
Additionally, it isn't simply a matter of distance. Inside a valley you have the mass of Earth above you as well.
For example, if Earth was a perfectly uniform, stationary sphere, then the strength of gravity, for a certain distance from the centre, assuming you are on the surface or below the surface, would actually be F=G*rho*(4/3)*pi*r*m, where rho is the density, so when you go down a hole, the strength decreases.
But to really nail down your delusional BS, you are again appealing to density, as if the density of air should matter. But guess what? The density of air varies with altitude, just like its pressure (assuming a constant temperature, the density is proportional to pressure.
The air pressure at sea level is ~101.3 kPa. At 1200 ft it drops to 87.5 kPa.
That is a change to 86%.
So if air density was going to make things fall you should expect a significant difference.
The difference should be far more significant than a change due to gravity.
When you claim 'gravity' is stronger or weaker at areas of Earth, than elsewhere, you never show ANY evidence for it, no VALID evidence, that we can CONFIRM true or not.
You have made it clear that you are unwilling to accept any evidence that demonstrates you are wrong, so there is absolutely no point in me providing you with any evidence.
Regardless, the burden is not on me to provide it. YOU are the one claiming gravity is exactly the same everywhere. So the burden is on YOU to prove that it is the same, rather than just continually asserting the same delusional BS.
Of course, it's nonsense, and we can PROVE it's nonsense, at any time, with such a test as I've mentioned above.
Except you can't. You come up with an entirely useless test and don't even bother checking if it would have enough precision to be able to tell.
Conversely, plenty of people have accurately measured variations in gravity and found it does vary.
On a mountain, 2000 feet above sea level, you claim it would be 2000 feet FURTHER AWAY from the strongest point of 'gravity', than at a point on level ground, AT sea level, and that's why objects on a mountain, when pushed off it, fall to the ground below, or the CLOSEST point to Earth's 'core', where 'gravity' is strongest, within the ball Earth.
No. Once more, that is your delusional BS, not mine.
It doesn't really matter where it is strongest.
You could have a much more complicated type of gravity where it is stronger higher up.
What matters is the directionality.
Gravity is an attractive force, so it is attracted towards Earth.
Even on a hypothetical infinite plane, where the strength of gravity would not vary with altitude at all, things would still fall down as it is an attractive force.
So what would you say is the difference in 'altitude', or difference to the Earth's 'core', at the poles, compared to at the 'equator'?
This would be...
Why bother asking a question if you are just going to provide the answer?
And in doing so utterly fail at basic math.
6378-6356 = 21, not 31.
This would be a difference of about 31 km to the 'core', or 'center of Earth', from the two points, you claim have more or less 'gravity', more and less acceleration/speed of fall in air, at those two points, and not the same as ELSEWHERE on Earth, where it is much like the CONSTANT rate which is always mentioned, all the time, over and over again, like it were the ONLY rate of fall, and acceleration of objects in air or something!
Again, it isn't just a magical special location.
The acceleration due to gravity varies across Earth.
It is not constant.
Repeating the same blatant lie, especially with no evidence at all, does not help you.
When a 2000 km difference doesn't change the rate, we know this is just another one of your BS stories, and that's ALL it is!
What 2000 km difference?
You were appealing to a change in height of less than 1 km.
Do you know just how 2000 km compares to 21 km and how each of those compare to 2600 ft (your 2 lots of 1300 feet)?
When you are just making up numbers like this, numbers you have had no way of measuring, and the only way you ever could is by accepting space is real and that we have objects in space to perform such a measurement, it shows you are spouting dishonest BS you can to try and prop up your failed fantasy.
Edit: fixed a typo (26000 ft vs 2600 ft)