Let's talk about gravity

All objects (other than those in the heavens above Earth), all originate on the Earth

And I as I explained to you, moving something in one direction doesn't magically make it fall back in the other direction.
If I move my mouse to the right, it doesn't magically fall back to the left.

All objects have greater mass and density than the air above Earth, which is why they STAY on the Earth's surface, and require force to lift into the air, to overcome their greater mass and density.

This explains nothing.
Mass and density does not explain why you need a force to hold it in place.
We can see what it does by pushing it around horizontally. It requires a force to accelerate it.
And when that force is removed, it continues to move.

Mass resists acceleration.

Conversely, with lifting things, a force is needed to just to hold it up in the air, with any extra force accelerating it upwards.
So it is quite clearly not just the object resisting it.

Things do not just magically go back to their point of origin.
So there is most certainly a need to explain the apparent force causing objects to move downwards.

We've NEVER seen a SINGLE object NOT originate on Earth

Except things like meteors.

How can a balloon fly above the Earth, if a force holds everything ELSE down to Earth?
Balloons have no wings, or propulsion of their own, so how can they overcome your magical 'force'?

Once again, you're side makes up a BS claim about it being 'buoyancy'

You already know the answer, but need to dismiss it as BS, because you can't handle reality.
A balloon floats in the air, just like a piece of wood floats in water.
This buoyant force is a direct result of gravity and is another thing you cannot explain.
Gravity results in fluids having a pressure gradient due to the fluid at the bottom needing to support the fluid at the top.
This means that if you place an object in a fluid it will have a greater pressure (and thus force, both from the fluid) at the bottom pushing it up than it does at the top.
This results in a net upwards force on the object from the fluid.
This makes objects appear lighter when they are in a fluid.

And note that we know this buoyant force exists.
The pressure gradient is measurable.
But without gravity, there is no explanation for it, nor any explanation for why things don't just go flying away because of this buoyant force.

Balloons should never fly into air, if your magical force existed within Earth.

No, that is only with your magical strawman; that shows either a complete lack of understanding, or wilful dishonesty.

You spew about how there's 'force' to hold all things down to Earth, pull down all things from the air, but not with our moon, which is ALSO holding it, at FIXED DISTANCE(S)! Why would your magical made up 'force', let everything 'float' above it, a few miles away, in 'space', and ALSO claim it has a powerful GRIP, on a very DISTANT object, which is our moon?

Isn't Earth supposed to hold/pull things down to it, because of it's greater size, mass, whatever you want to call it? Your magical force is completely BASED on the Earth's greater mass, having greater 'force of gravity', that's the very ESSENCE of your argument.

No, again, that is your strawman.
Gravity isn't magic. It doesn't just grab all objects and hold them pinned to Earth.

In reality, gravity tries to accelerate things to Earth, but other forces act as well.
And yet again it appears you know the answer to your non-problem, that of orbits, which are simply a natural result of moving around Earth at high speed while acted upon by gravity.

Why would you believe we'd all 'float around', without a 'force' that holds/pulls all things down to Earth's surface? How can anyone of us, here on Earth, possibly think, or claim they KNOW, without one clue about it as true or false, only proves it's all BS.

By pretty basic mechanics.
We know you need a force to accelerate an object.
We also know this because we can see how easy it is for a single person to push a car and get it to a decent speed, yet lifting a car is virtually impossible for a single person.

The logical consequence of that is that if you jump, you will keep going up unless there is a force to accelerate you back down.

The fact you need to dismiss so much as fake and dodge so many simple questions shows your delusional position is BS.

Don't try to say 'gravity' is all proven to exist, measured and tested to exist, and so on....

Sure, because why let reality get in the way of your fantasy?

As a reminder, you were the one that came here and made a bunch of grand, false claims about gravity, which you then proceeded to flee from.
But in reality, gravity has been tested, repeatedly. You not liking those tests because they show you are wrong doesn't matter.
In reality, we do feel a force when we lift objects, just like you would expect for a real force.
In reality, the force varies with location.
So gravity meets all the requirements you have set up for a real force; except the secret one you haven't provided, the requirement that it supports your delusional fantasy.

As gravity destroys your delusional fantasy, you reject it at all costs.

If I used wooden objects, of the same, or more mass, and density, as your metal balls did, would you accept the results?

Just where are you planning on getting this magically dense wood?

If you can provide a series of experiments (with proper documentation) showing that this attraction only occurs with metals, including metals that don't stick to a magnet; but doesn't occur with a comparable mass of wood at a comparable distance, I would accept the result.

You cannot be so ignorant, to not understand why you cannot use metals, or anything with magnetic properties

I understand. You need an excuse to dismiss it. So you use whatever BS you can.

And I as I explained to you, moving something in one direction doesn't magically make it fall back in the other direction.
If I move my mouse to the right, it doesn't magically fall back to the left.


Mass and density does not explain why you need a force to hold it in place.
We can see what it does by pushing it around horizontally. It requires a force to accelerate it.
And when that force is removed, it continues to move.

Mass resists acceleration.

Conversely, with lifting things, a force is needed to just to hold it up in the air, with any extra force accelerating it upwards.
So it is quite clearly not just the object resisting it.

Things do not just magically go back to their point of origin.
So there is most certainly a need to explain the apparent force causing objects to move downwards.


A balloon floats in the air, just like a piece of wood floats in water.
This buoyant force is a direct result of gravity and is another thing you cannot explain.
Gravity results in fluids having a pressure gradient due to the fluid at the bottom needing to support the fluid at the top.
This means that if you place an object in a fluid it will have a greater pressure (and thus force, both from the fluid) at the bottom pushing it up than it does at the top.
This results in a net upwards force on the object from the fluid.
This makes objects appear lighter when they are in a fluid.

And note that we know this buoyant force exists.
The pressure gradient is measurable.
But without gravity, there is no explanation for it, nor any explanation for why things don't just go flying away because of this buoyant force.

No, you've made up another non-existent 'force', because your FIRST one crapped the bed.

It's easy to make up all sorts of things that don't exist, and claim they are 'forces', it's still just BS, it's just MORE BS, than it was before.

A submarine can sink down into water, and rise up to the surface, because it can change it's DENSITY, from less than the water's density, to greater density than water.

It's exactly the same with objects that rise or fall within air, their relative mass and density is the cause in all cases, within air, and within water.

You need to make up TWO magical non-existent 'forces' to excuse it. If one magical made up force can't even work out, it's not any better when you go and make up yet ANOTHER one!

A balloon rises up into air, because it is LESS DENSE than the air is. There is NO 'force' at all.

Density and mass explain ALL THESE THINGS, fully, and consistently, and there is NO NEED to make up something that doesn't even EXIST, just to support your fairy tale story, and you need TWO made up 'forces'. How about THREE 'forces', the more the better, right?

There's no argument which works by making things up that don't exist. A made up force isn't better with another made up force that was needed to help solve problems of the first one, which is inevitable because it was made up to begin with, it will always fail to hold up, at certain points, it always does.


We can see this for YOUR fairy tale story, all over the place. Piles of lies, stacked way up high.

Lies are only supported by more and more lies, that's how it survives another day, or year, and this has lasted for centuries, but it will die, one day, it is inevitable.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 02, 2022, 02:24:18 AM

And I as I explained to you, moving something in one direction doesn't magically make it fall back in the other direction.
If I move my mouse to the right, it doesn't magically fall back to the left.


Mass and density does not explain why you need a force to hold it in place.
We can see what it does by pushing it around horizontally. It requires a force to accelerate it.
And when that force is removed, it continues to move.

Mass resists acceleration.

Conversely, with lifting things, a force is needed to just to hold it up in the air, with any extra force accelerating it upwards.
So it is quite clearly not just the object resisting it.

Things do not just magically go back to their point of origin.
So there is most certainly a need to explain the apparent force causing objects to move downwards.


A balloon floats in the air, just like a piece of wood floats in water.
This buoyant force is a direct result of gravity and is another thing you cannot explain.
Gravity results in fluids having a pressure gradient due to the fluid at the bottom needing to support the fluid at the top.
This means that if you place an object in a fluid it will have a greater pressure (and thus force, both from the fluid) at the bottom pushing it up than it does at the top.
This results in a net upwards force on the object from the fluid.
This makes objects appear lighter when they are in a fluid.

And note that we know this buoyant force exists.
The pressure gradient is measurable.
But without gravity, there is no explanation for it, nor any explanation for why things don't just go flying away because of this buoyant force.

No, you've made up another non-existent 'force', because your FIRST one crapped the bed.

It's easy to make up all sorts of things that don't exist, and claim they are 'forces', it's still just BS, it's just MORE BS, than it was before.

A submarine can sink down into water, and rise up to the surface, because it can change it's DENSITY, from less than the water's density, to greater density than water.

It's exactly the same with objects that rise or fall within air, their relative mass and density is the cause in all cases, within air, and within water.

You need to make up TWO magical non-existent 'forces' to excuse it. If one magical made up force can't even work out, it's not any better when you go and make up yet ANOTHER one!

A balloon rises up into air, because it is LESS DENSE than the air is. There is NO 'force' at all.

Density and mass explain ALL THESE THINGS, fully, and consistently, and there is NO NEED to make up something that doesn't even EXIST, just to support your fairy tale story, and you need TWO made up 'forces'. How about THREE 'forces', the more the better, right?

There's no argument which works by making things up that don't exist. A made up force isn't better with another made up force that was needed to help solve problems of the first one, which is inevitable because it was made up to begin with, it will always fail to hold up, at certain points, it always does.


We can see this for YOUR fairy tale story, all over the place. Piles of lies, stacked way up high.

Lies are only supported by more and more lies, that's how it survives another day, or year, and this has lasted for centuries, but it will die, one day, it is inevitable.

Density and mass alone CANNOT exaplin why things fall, let alone the direction that they fall. Neither of them are forces, so they cannot explain the observed acceleration of objects.

Newton's first law. "A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force."
Newtons second law: F=ma.

When an object falls, what force is causing it to move? What causes it to fall downwards rather then sideways or upwards, what causes the accleration on earths surface to always be approximately 9.8m/s^2.

What causes objects to weigh slightly more at the poles then the equator?
What causes the Eovtos effect?

Gravity has been experimentally verified, first bby the cavendish effect, then by all the various experimental on General Relativity.

You also said moving an object to the right, will not magically move back there afterwards.

No, it wouldn't move back, and it WOULD be magical, indeed!

It's not at all like objects in air, which fall down to the surface being of greater mass and density than the air, and fall down to where they DO originate. 

There is NOTHING that is 'magical' about this, in any way at all. It's so simple, so straightforward, and so completely consistent, what would you say is magical about it, from someone who makes up multiple 'forces'? I'd like to hear it, so go ahead...

Density and mass alone CANNOT exaplin why things fall, let alone the direction that they fall. Neither of them are forces, so they cannot explain the observed acceleration of objects.

Newton's first law. "A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force."

So when a body is at rest, it will remain at rest unless acted upon by a force, that is true, a force must act on it, to put it into motion.

There isn't a body in motion. unless it's motion is first caused by a force, therefore.

And that force doesn't need another force to stop it's motion, the force which caused it's motion, is not an eternal force that never stops acting on an object, and it will dissipate over time, and stop entirely, which stops the object's motion, as well.

Newton simply ignored there was a force that caused a body to BECOME in motion, and said it would remain in motion unless acted on by another force, which is complete BS.

He tries to put this BS claim that objects ARE ALREADY in motion, ignoring the force which caused it's motion, like it doesn't exist! And then he claims the object will remain in motion, unless acted on by another force, while the only force that CAUSED it's motion, will dissipate over time, and stop entirely acting on the object, and THAT ALONE STOPS IT'S MOTION, THERE IS NO OTHER FORCE NEEDED TO STOP IT"S MOTION.


Newton was a BS artist, who invented your magical 'force', so what do we EXPECT him to say, except more BS to support his magical 'force', like his so-called 'Laws' did!

The Law of how to lie, twist, and ignore the truth, he wrote the book on it! 

I've seen many people who quote Newton's 'first law' of motion, in defending this magical non-existent force which Newton also made up, which explains his so-called 'law of morons', or law of hoodwinking the ignorant masses.

He ignored the force which caused it's motion, and said it would stay in motion unless acted on by another force, and this BS worked like a charm.

It serves his magical force, BS supporting other BS, and it's endless.

And then he claims the object will remain in motion, unless acted on by another force, while the only force that CAUSED it's motion, will dissipate over time, and stop entirely acting on the object, and THAT ALONE STOPS IT'S MOTION, THERE IS NO OTHER FORCE NEEDED TO STOP IT"S MOTION.

What causes the motion to dissipate over time?

No, you've made up another non-existent 'force', because your FIRST one crapped the bed.

No, I have appealed to a particular manifestation of an already well known force to explain reality.

I know, you hate reality. But I don't give a damn about you hating reality. I'm not going to pretend reality isn't real just to baby you.

The buoyant force is a direct result of the observed pressure gradient.
Are you going to try claiming that fluids don't push things from high pressure to low pressure?
Because there are plenty of examples of that, and that is what you need to reject to reject the buoyant force.

We can also see it isn't simply gravity that causes this buoyant force.
We also see it in a centrifuge, where things are spun at very high speeds with the apparent centrifugal force acting like very strong gravity. This causes the more dense parts to go to the outside, while the less dense parts go to the inside.
We can even see it with simpler acceleration in a car with a helium balloon, showing it isn't simply "mass and density" like you want to claim:



(and this behaviour is another piece of evidence to support the equivalence principle)

A submarine can sink down into water, and rise up to the surface

Yes, by balancing the force due to gravity and the force due to buoyancy.
If gravity wasn't real, they wouldn't need to balance, they would just be able to go wherever they wanted.

their relative mass and density is the cause in all cases, within air, and within water.

As repeatedly explained, it isn't.
Mass and density have no directionality.
As such it provides no explanation at all for why a denser object should go down and a less dense object should go up.

You need gravity for that.
Even if you don't want to accept it as gravity, you need something more.
You need an origin for the directionality.

You need to make up TWO magical non-existent 'forces' to excuse it.

No, I need to utilise 2 quite real forces, as any honest person would.
2 real forces which explain quite a lot.

You not liking them because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy doesn't make them magical.
You cannot demonstrate any problems with either of these forces.

And I also notice you want to just limit it to things falling and rising on Earth, ignoring the rest that these 2 forces explain.

There's no argument which works by making things up that don't exist. A made up force isn't better with another made up force that was needed to help solve problems of the first one, which is inevitable because it was made up to begin with, it will always fail to hold up, at certain points, it always does.


We can see this for YOUR fairy tale story, all over the place. Piles of lies, stacked way up high.

Lies are only supported by more and more lies, that's how it survives another day, or year, and this has lasted for centuries, but it will die, one day, it is inevitable.

Which is why your argument are yet to work.
All you have are lied, built upon more lies.

Remember, you started this little tirade of yours based upon the outright lies that gravity is constant and you don't feel any resistance, so it's not a real force.
Yet in reality, it varies, and that is a massive problem for FEers as they can't explain why it varies, and you do feel resistance in the form of the weight of the object, which you now need to run from.

You also said moving an object to the right, will not magically move back there afterwards.
No, it wouldn't move back, and it WOULD be magical, indeed!

Which shows your claims are pure garbage.
This shows that things don't magically move back to their origin.

It shows your claims that things fall only because you lift them is garbage.
Why should moving an object up cause it to fall down if moving it right doesn't cause it to fall left?

Until you can explain that directionality, all you have is pure magic.
And again, appealing to the origin doesn't explain it, as if it did it would work with all directions, not just up and down.

The simple explanation is that there is a force acting to move things down, and this force is what causes it to fall. You lifting it up just gives it a chance to fall.

There isn't a body in motion. unless it's motion is first caused by a force, therefore.

This presupposes all objects began to exist at rest.
It also ignores that all motion is relative.

And that force doesn't need another force to stop it's motion, the force which caused it's motion, is not an eternal force that never stops acting on an object, and it will dissipate over time, and stop entirely, which stops the object's motion, as well.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of Newtonian mechanics.
And this isn't what you are describing either.

The force causes the object to accelerate.
It does not cause it to obtain some velocity.
We can see this with things like cars, where it takes a lot more force to get them up to speed than it take to have them maintain their speed due to air resistance.
And if you make it more aerodynamic, the force required decreases.
This shows that forces cause acceleration, not simply motion.
So if you accelerated an object and then removed all forces, it would continue in motion forever.

But again, that isn't what you are describing.
What you are describing is more like:
Forces are pure magic. If you apply a force to move something up, it will go up, but if you remove that force, it will magically cause it to slow down and then start moving downwards, by pure magic.
That isn't simply having it stop. That is then also having it start to accelerate in a different direction with no force acting on it.
It is pure magic.

So your fantasy goes directly against the known laws of motion.

Newton simply ignored there was a force that caused a body to BECOME in motion, and said it would remain in motion unless acted on by another force, which is complete BS.

No, it isn't BS. Just because things don't match your delusional fantasy doesn't mean it is BS.
Newton was a massive improvement over the prior nonsense that the natural state of everything was at rest.

Quote from: blademan9999 on April 02, 2022, 05:21:59 AM

Density and mass alone CANNOT exaplin why things fall, let alone the direction that they fall. Neither of them are forces, so they cannot explain the observed acceleration of objects.

Newton's first law. "A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force."

So when a body is at rest, it will remain at rest unless acted upon by a force, that is true, a force must act on it, to put it into motion.

There isn't a body in motion. unless it's motion is first caused by a force, therefore.

And that force doesn't need another force to stop it's motion, the force which caused it's motion, is not an eternal force that never stops acting on an object, and it will dissipate over time, and stop entirely, which stops the object's motion, as well.

Newton simply ignored there was a force that caused a body to BECOME in motion, and said it would remain in motion unless acted on by another force, which is complete BS.

He tries to put this BS claim that objects ARE ALREADY in motion, ignoring the force which caused it's motion, like it doesn't exist! And then he claims the object will remain in motion, unless acted on by another force, while the only force that CAUSED it's motion, will dissipate over time, and stop entirely acting on the object, and THAT ALONE STOPS IT'S MOTION, THERE IS NO OTHER FORCE NEEDED TO STOP IT"S MOTION.


Newton was a BS artist, who invented your magical 'force', so what do we EXPECT him to say, except more BS to support his magical 'force', like his so-called 'Laws' did!

The Law of how to lie, twist, and ignore the truth, he wrote the book on it!

Except if we have an object then drop it, we have the case of the object going from being still to falling.
Ergo, it needs a force to do that.

Quote from: blademan9999 on April 02, 2022, 05:21:59 AM

Density and mass alone CANNOT exaplin why things fall, let alone the direction that they fall. Neither of them are forces, so they cannot explain the observed acceleration of objects.

Newton's first law. "A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force."

So when a body is at rest, it will remain at rest unless acted upon by a force, that is true, a force must act on it, to put it into motion.

There isn't a body in motion. unless it's motion is first caused by a force, therefore.

And that force doesn't need another force to stop it's motion, the force which caused it's motion, is not an eternal force that never stops acting on an object, and it will dissipate over time, and stop entirely, which stops the object's motion, as well.

Newton simply ignored there was a force that caused a body to BECOME in motion, and said it would remain in motion unless acted on by another force, which is complete BS.

He tries to put this BS claim that objects ARE ALREADY in motion, ignoring the force which caused it's motion, like it doesn't exist! And then he claims the object will remain in motion, unless acted on by another force, while the only force that CAUSED it's motion, will dissipate over time, and stop entirely acting on the object, and THAT ALONE STOPS IT'S MOTION, THERE IS NO OTHER FORCE NEEDED TO STOP IT"S MOTION.


Newton was a BS artist, who invented your magical 'force', so what do we EXPECT him to say, except more BS to support his magical 'force', like his so-called 'Laws' did!

The Law of how to lie, twist, and ignore the truth, he wrote the book on it!

You're an idiot.


An object at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by a force.  An object in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by a force.


No where is it suggested that all objects are already in motion.

I can place a coin on a desk.

The coin sitting on the desk is at rest.

I can apply a force to the coin by flicking it with my finger.

The coin stops being at rest as I applied a force to it.

The coin is now in motion sliding across the top of the desk.

The coin will remain in motion until another force acts upon it.

The friction of the desk upon the coin causes the coin to slow. A force acted upon it.

The coin stops as a result the friction is greater than the motion.  The coin is at rest again.

Quote from: blademan9999 on April 02, 2022, 05:21:59 AM

Density and mass alone CANNOT exaplin why things fall, let alone the direction that they fall. Neither of them are forces, so they cannot explain the observed acceleration of objects.

Newton's first law. "A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force."

So when a body is at rest, it will remain at rest unless acted upon by a force, that is true, a force must act on it, to put it into motion.

There isn't a body in motion. unless it's motion is first caused by a force, therefore.

And that force doesn't need another force to stop it's motion, the force which caused it's motion, is not an eternal force that never stops acting on an object, and it will dissipate over time, and stop entirely, which stops the object's motion, as well.

Newton simply ignored there was a force that caused a body to BECOME in motion, and said it would remain in motion unless acted on by another force, which is complete BS.

He tries to put this BS claim that objects ARE ALREADY in motion, ignoring the force which caused it's motion, like it doesn't exist! And then he claims the object will remain in motion, unless acted on by another force, while the only force that CAUSED it's motion, will dissipate over time, and stop entirely acting on the object, and THAT ALONE STOPS IT'S MOTION, THERE IS NO OTHER FORCE NEEDED TO STOP IT"S MOTION.


Newton was a BS artist, who invented your magical 'force', so what do we EXPECT him to say, except more BS to support his magical 'force', like his so-called 'Laws' did!

The Law of how to lie, twist, and ignore the truth, he wrote the book on it!

Newton was a BS merchant! I like it.

Who are you by the way?

It's very strange that Newtons Laws are accepted by every scientific institution on the planet. It's also very strange that his laws are confirmed by experiments if we put aside the small issues caused by relativity.

Are all those experiments that confirm his laws wrong? If so could you please explain how?

Have you published your own findings?

Is any of what you say backed by scientific evidence that is repeatable by others?

Do you have links to any of the experiments and calculation you produced to back up and verify your claims?

If you have not produced any experiments or did any calculations that have been checked and verified by third parties I think that you should go and lie down in a dark room and let gravity do its thing.

Except if we have an object then drop it, we have the case of the object going from being still to falling.
Ergo, it needs a force to do that.

Nice try. You had to use force to first lift up the object from the surface, and then use force to hold it up in place, and THEN you let it go, into air, where it's greater mass and density caused it to fall back down to the surface again.

Ignoring the initial forces YOU applied to the lift and hold the object doesn't work, same as it doesn't work for Newton!

Mass and density have no directionality.
As such it provides no explanation at all for why a denser object should go down and a less dense object should go up.

You need gravity for that.
Even if you don't want to accept it as gravity, you need something more.
You need an origin for the directionality.

The object originates on Earth's surface, only force lifts it upward into air, whether a bird with wings, or an external force like your arm throws it into air. If the bird stops flapping it's wings, it falls back towards the surface by it's greater mass and density than that of the air, same as an object you applied force to, when you threw it up into air, soon dissipates and dies off, causing the object to slow down and stop going upward, so it falls back down again to the surface.

But there IS a force, which is CREATED by the falling object, of course. It is not 'pulled down from below', in any way at all.

Nice try. You had to use force to first lift up the object from the surface

Pathetic try.
We have been over it, that doesn't explain it.
Again, we have to use force to move something to the right.
It doesn't magically fall back to the left.
So the force used to lift it is not the reason it falls.

The object originates on Earth's surface

It originates at a particular location.
Only force moves it left or right.
Yet when that force moving it to the right is removed, the object doesn't fall back to the left.

Repeating the same refuted BS again and again without even discussing the refutation wont help your case.

There is quite clearly a force that isn't just because you lifted it up.

If the bird stops flapping it's wings, it falls back towards the surface by it's greater mass and density than that of the air

Again, greater mass and density provide no directionality.
It provides no reason for the object to accelerate.
You need a force.
What is causing this force?

Sane people accept it is gravity.

same as an object you applied force to, when you threw it up into air, soon dissipates and dies off, causing the object to slow down and stop going upward, so it falls back down again to the surface.

Again, only upwards.
For sideways, it is fundamentally different.
For sideways, we see that there are only losses due to things like friction.
The force doesn't magically keep acting, slowly disappointing.
Instead, the force acts to accelerate the object, and once in motion the object continues in motion until other forces act to stop it.

This shows there is a downwards force acting on all objects.
When you throw an object up, it slows down because of this downwards force.
It stops because of this downwards force.
It falls because of this downwards force.

The question for you is what are you using to cause this force to replace gravity?

An object at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by a force.  An object in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by a force.


No where is it suggested that all objects are already in motion.

I can place a coin on a desk.

The coin sitting on the desk is at rest.

I can apply a force to the coin by flicking it with my finger.

The coin stops being at rest as I applied a force to it.

The coin is now in motion sliding across the top of the desk.

The coin will remain in motion until another force acts upon it.

The friction of the desk upon the coin causes the coin to slow. A force acted upon it.

The coin stops as a result the friction is greater than the motion.  The coin is at rest again.

The force applied to cause the coin to BE in motion, is NOT an INFINITE strength, it dissipates and dies out, like all forces do.

When we jump from a plane in air, there's no force from below 'pulling down' on us, in fact, air RESISTS our fall to the surface, we are NOT 'pulled down' from below! Being of greater mass and density than air, makes us fall through the air, to the surface of Earth, only air resists our fall, but not enough to overcome our mass and density. The object's downward motion creates force, but your liars ignore that force, it doesn't work with their fairy tale story of a magical 'pulling and holding down' force within a ball Earth!

You assume things would 'float around' air, or in 'space', without some magical force holding everything down to Earth's surface, but everything ORIGINATES on Earth's surface, and falls through air when lifted above the surface, by using force.

So when you throw a coin upward, into air, do you think your arm acted as an INFINITE force on that coin's movement upward? Assuming there was no 'friction' or air resistance, you believe the coin would never stop going up? Would it keep going higher and higher, well beyond 30,000 feet altitude, unless acted on by air resistance, or friction?

An unlimited, infinite force, is being applied by your arm? Is that what you really believe?


I prefer reality, where a force acting on objects, will dissipate, and die out, which is the MAIN reason they STOP moving.

How can the mass and density of the Earth's surface cause objects to STOP moving, when it is not an actual force, which you claim is required to stop an object in motion? The ground isn't a force, but stops objects in motion, because of it's - once again - greater mass and density than the objects have! Explaining each and everything with mass and density, is so simple, so consistently accurate, because it is the TRUTH.

Magical forces are used by those who make up fairy tales about a ball Earth flying through 'space'. That's where you need to make up a magical force, and then ANOTHER magical force, which helps to support the FIRST magical force you made up!

We have no need to make ANYTHING up. Reality needs no lies, no fakery, no magical forces, being Earth is NOT a ball in 'space', it is flat, covered above by the firmament.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on April 03, 2022, 01:06:50 PM

An object at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by a force.  An object in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by a force.


No where is it suggested that all objects are already in motion.

I can place a coin on a desk.

The coin sitting on the desk is at rest.

I can apply a force to the coin by flicking it with my finger.

The coin stops being at rest as I applied a force to it.

The coin is now in motion sliding across the top of the desk.

The coin will remain in motion until another force acts upon it.

The friction of the desk upon the coin causes the coin to slow. A force acted upon it.

The coin stops as a result the friction is greater than the motion.  The coin is at rest again.

The force applied to cause the coin to BE in motion, is NOT an INFINITE strength, it dissipates and dies out, like all forces do.

When we jump from a plane in air, there's no force from below 'pulling down' on us, in fact, air RESISTS our fall to the surface, we are NOT 'pulled down' from below! Being of greater mass and density than air, makes us fall through the air, to the surface of Earth, only air resists our fall, but not enough to overcome our mass and density. The object's downward motion creates force, but your liars ignore that force, it doesn't work with their fairy tale story of a magical 'pulling and holding down' force within a ball Earth!

You assume things would 'float around' air, or in 'space', without some magical force holding everything down to Earth's surface, but everything ORIGINATES on Earth's surface, and falls through air when lifted above the surface, by using force.

So when you throw a coin upward, into air, do you think your arm acted as an INFINITE force on that coin's movement upward? Assuming there was no 'friction' or air resistance, you believe the coin would never stop going up? Would it keep going higher and higher, well beyond 30,000 feet altitude, unless acted on by air resistance, or friction?

An unlimited, infinite force, is being applied by your arm? Is that what you really believe?


I prefer reality, where a force acting on objects, will dissipate, and die out, which is the MAIN reason they STOP moving.

How can the mass and density of the Earth's surface cause objects to STOP moving, when it is not an actual force, which you claim is required to stop an object in motion? The ground isn't a force, but stops objects in motion, because of it's - once again - greater mass and density than the objects have! Explaining each and everything with mass and density, is so simple, so consistently accurate, because it is the TRUTH.

Magical forces are used by those who make up fairy tales about a ball Earth flying through 'space'. That's where you need to make up a magical force, and then ANOTHER magical force, which helps to support the FIRST magical force you made up!

We have no need to make ANYTHING up. Reality needs no lies, no fakery, no magical forces, being Earth is NOT a ball in 'space', it is flat, covered above by the firmament.

The second the coin stopped making contact with my body, I was no longer applying a force to it. 

Do you think that a force is still being applied to the coin from me after I am no longer making contact with the coin?

Again, we have to use force to move something to the right.
It doesn't magically fall back to the left.
So the force used to lift it is not the reason it falls.

You are moving objects on the surface, to the right or to the left, but they always remain on the ground, right?

Taking objects which are on ground, and moving them around on the ground, to the left or right, is completely ridiculous, even you should realize that.....

Ground based objects are NOT relevant to objects in air, movements in air, causes of motion upward into air, what makes them FALL DOWNWARD within air, and so forth!

You're moving objects on the ground, from one point to another point on the ground - so you think that's at all relevant to this issue? 

All objects originate on Earth, so moving them on Earth, to and fro, doesn't help your argument at all, does it?

The second the coin stopped making contact with my body, I was no longer applying a force to it. 

Do you think that a force is still being applied to the coin from me after I am no longer making contact with the coin?

That same force which caused the coin's motion, at first, initiates that motion, and causes all motion, after you had stopped acting on it.

Screaming aloud at someone you know, from a distance, doesn't stop when you stop screaming. It carries on afterward.


It's nonsense..

The force applied to cause the coin to BE in motion

That is one way to put it, the force causes it to change from being "at rest" to "in motion"
What is important is that now, after the force has been applied, the object is in motion.

is NOT an INFINITE strength, it dissipates and dies out, like all forces do.

Pure nonsense.
It is not infinite strength, which is why the object doesn't instantly jump to the speed of light and instead only accelerates at a finite rate.
Once the force stops being applied, it stops being accelerated, and there is no force to dissipate.

Instead, there is relative velocity which causes things like friction and air resistance to apply a force to oppose this relative motion.
But that is entirely separate to the original force.

in fact, air RESISTS our fall to the surface

Which clearly demonstrates the air is not the reason things fall. So "being of greater mass and density than the air" clearly has nothing to do with it.
Instead there must be some other force, i.e. GRAVITY.

The object's downward motion creates force, but your liars ignore that force

The one continually lying here is you, not us.
The downward motion doesn't create force. It is caused by a force.

Assuming there was no 'friction' or air resistance, you believe the coin would never stop going up? Would it keep going higher and higher, well beyond 30,000 feet altitude, unless acted on by air resistance, or friction?

GRAVITY!

An unlimited, infinite force, is being applied by your arm? Is that what you really believe?

No, it is a finite force applied for a finite time which means the object obtains a finite velocity.

I prefer reality, where a force acting on objects, will dissipate, and die out, which is the MAIN reason they STOP moving.

That is pure fantasy, not reality.
The main reason they stop moving is because of other forces slowing them down. Forces like friction and air resistance. Which is why lots of objects are designed to minimise such losses.

How can the mass and density of the Earth's surface cause objects to STOP moving, when it is not an actual force

The same way a wall can.
Or do you believe that if you walk towards a wall you can just phase right through it?
When you bring 2 objects close together they start to interact via short range forces which repel each other, preventing them from overlapping.
This is commonly known as physical contact.

The ground isn't a force, but stops objects in motion, because of it's - once again - greater mass and density than the objects have!

Pure garbage.
As explained above, it stops the objects motion by applying a force to it due to physical contact.

Your nonsense is trivial refute by taking a steel ball and dropping it from varying heights on a wooden table, or an aluminium table or a weak table made of something more dense than steel.
We see that the steel ball is stopped by all three when it is moving slowly enough, because the contact forces stop it.
Even with the wood and aluminium being much less dense than the steel, it can still stop the steel.

Conversely, if we drop the ball from high enough, such that it is travelling with enough momentum, it will break through all the tables, because the force required to stop it is greater than the yield strength of the table, causing it to break.
So again, we see that mass and density doesn't explain it.

Explaining each and everything with mass and density, is so simple, so consistently accurate

So simple, but without any explanatory power.
It cannot explain why things fall, specifically lacking any explanation of why they accelerate at a particular rate, nor why it accelerates in a particular direction.
It cannot explain why there is a pressure gradient observed in fluids, including air and water.

Magical forces are used by those who make up fairy tales

You started off well.
Magical forces like "density and mass" are used by those who make up fairly tales about Earth being a magical flat disc.
These people also avoid simple issues which expose these fairy tales.

Conversely, those who stick to reality, accepting Earth is round, instead use real things like gravity, with far more explanatory power, without any need to make up all the magical nonsense FEers rely upon.

You're moving objects on the ground, from one point to another point on the ground - so you think that's at all relevant to this issue?

It is extremely relevant as it shows your claims are pure BS.

Your claim is based upon the idea that an object originates at some location, and that a force is needed to move it from that location and when that force is released, it will slow and return back to that location.

The object doesn't merely originate on Earth's surface.
It originates a particular location on Earth's surface.
If your nonsense was true, it would always try to return to that location.
If you applied a force to move it in one direction, it would resist that and when the force is released it would move back to that location.

Why should it matter if the object is going up or to the right?
Why should it be different?
They are both moving the object from its original location, which according to you should result in the object moving to that location.

If you don't want then, then the object originating on Earth's surface is irrelevant.

Likewise, the way an object resists change in motion rather than merely resisting motion demonstrates that your description of forces is pure nonsense.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 08, 2022, 03:27:38 PM

Again, we have to use force to move something to the right.
It doesn't magically fall back to the left.
So the force used to lift it is not the reason it falls.

You are moving objects on the surface, to the right or to the left, but they always remain on the ground, right?

Taking objects which are on ground, and moving them around on the ground, to the left or right, is completely ridiculous, even you should realize that.....

Ground based objects are NOT relevant to objects in air, movements in air, causes of motion upward into air, what makes them FALL DOWNWARD within air, and so forth!

You're moving objects on the ground, from one point to another point on the ground - so you think that's at all relevant to this issue? 

All objects originate on Earth, so moving them on Earth, to and fro, doesn't help your argument at all, does it?

It's always funny when someone comes along and says gravity is not a thing when every structural engineer on the planet uses it in their calculations, like, you know, for skyscrapers and bridges and tunnels and such. Airplane design is dependent on gravity calculations as well. I guess they all must be doing it wrong - It's amazing why stuff isn't collapsing or falling from the sky everywhere.

But I guess you know better. What are your calculations for loads and rates of descent, etc? If you post some math to back up your claims, you might be on to something.

It is not infinite strength, which is why the object doesn't instantly jump to the speed of light and instead only accelerates at a finite rate.
Once the force stops being applied, it stops being accelerated, and there is no force to dissipate.

If an object is first put into motion, by some sort of force, it will only INITIATE this motion, so if you believe it will make these objects move after that point, of it's initial motion, into a secondary state of motion, to gain greater speed, or accelerate it's initial motion, to faster motion, this happens AFTER the force has already acted on the object, which you claim doesn't exist by that point. You claim the force which caused it's motion, doesn't exist after that. It only causes it's initial state of motion, but nothing afterwards, it doesn't exist after that point, since you claim it cannot dissipate as a force, because it no longer exists at all!

So when you claim objects which are in motion, will remain in motion, unless acted on by another force, you claim there's no force acting on it, but never say WHEN it stops acting on it, because you have to say it ACCELERATES the objects, and ceases to exist after that point!

Acceleration of objects will continue to occur, well after the FORCE acted on those objects, so there's obviously force acting on them, or they wouldn't be in MOTION, let alone to be accelerating in speed.

A force causes it's initial motion, causes it to accelerate, when not acting on it anymore, so why would you claim it wouldn't dissipate, and die out, later on, is complete BS, since it is the cause of initial motion, the cause of it's acceleration, and is the primary cause of it's loss of motion, and why it STOPS moving!

You know that 'friction' cannot explain it's initial motion, or it's acceleration of speed, and must accept it's due to a force, because it can't accelerate by FRICTION, it's due to a force, and this force which caused it's initial motion, causes it to speed up, and it doesn't stop acting on objects, because you can finally make up an excuse for why objects slow down and stop after awhile, so the ball Earth people claim it is mainly caused by surface friction, or air resistance, or both of them, or all sorts of things are partially causing it.

Forces cause objects to be in motion, and forces cause those objects to accelerate, on the ground, in water, and within air. So why would they not lose strength, and dissipate, and die out, too? Just because you can't accept the truth, it isn't going to change anything.
 
   

Quote from: JackBlack on April 08, 2022, 05:40:01 PM

It is not infinite strength, which is why the object doesn't instantly jump to the speed of light and instead only accelerates at a finite rate.
Once the force stops being applied, it stops being accelerated, and there is no force to dissipate.

Forces cause objects to be in motion, and forces cause those objects to accelerate, on the ground, in water, and within air. So why would they not lose strength, and dissipate, and die out, too? Just because you can't accept the truth, it isn't going to change anything.

I can't figure out what you're saying in all of this. Do you believe that friction and drag don't exist? And what is this "truth" you speak of and do you have anything to corroborate said truth, whatever it may be?

If an object is first put into motion, by some sort of force, it will only INITIATE this motion, so if you believe it will make these objects move after that point, of it's initial motion, into a secondary state of motion, to gain greater speed, or accelerate it's initial motion, to faster motion, this happens AFTER the force has already acted on the object, which you claim doesn't exist by that point.

No, I don't believe that it will go into a "secondary state of motion" or gain greater speed or any crap like that.

Instead I accept reality, that a force will accelerate an object, and that unless an object is acted upon by a force it will maintain that velocity.
This means if you apply a force to move an object, it will require another force to stop it.

So when you claim objects which are in motion, will remain in motion, unless acted on by another force, you claim there's no force acting on it, but never say WHEN it stops acting on it, because you have to say it ACCELERATES the objects, and ceases to exist after that point!

The force stops acting on it simultaneously with it ceasing to exist.
It is only a force while it is acting on the object.

Acceleration of objects will continue to occur, well after the FORCE acted on those objects, so there's obviously force acting on them, or they wouldn't be in MOTION, let alone to be accelerating in speed.

Pure BS.
Care to provide an example of such nonsense?

If you throw a ball, then the force acting between your hand and the ball will accelerate it.
After you release it, so you are no longer applying a force, your hand stops accelerating it.
It is then only accelerated by the force due to air resistance, which acts to slow it down and the force due to gravity pulling it to Earth.
It doesn't magically speed up.

A force causes it's initial motion, causes it to accelerate, when not acting on it anymore, so why would you claim it wouldn't dissipate, and die out, later on, is complete BS, since it is the cause of initial motion, the cause of it's acceleration, and is the primary cause of it's loss of motion, and why it STOPS moving!

No, a different force is why it stops moving.

You know that 'friction' cannot explain it's initial motion

I never said friction did.
Instead I provided friction as an example of a force that resists relative motion and tries to stop the object.

this force which caused it's initial motion, causes it to speed up, and it doesn't stop acting on objects

If that nonsense was true, the object would continue to accelerate forever and you would have a perpetual motion machine.

You not liking reality wont change it.

because you can finally make up an excuse for why objects slow down and stop after awhile

You mean I can rationally explain it in a way that makes sense, in a way that doesn't require rejecting reality, in a way that doesn't require appealing to pure magic.
Air resistance (or the more general case of fluid resistance) and friction both act to slow an object down.
Not only does this explain why it slows down, it also explains the rate.

If you reduce the friction, you reduce the rate at which the object slows down.
If you reduce air resistance, you reduce the rate at which the object slows down.

If you have a flywheel and just mount it on a shaft directly, it wont keep spinning for long after the force is removed. Friction will slow it down quite quickly.
If you use ball bearings, it will go for much longer.
If you use a magnetic bearing, also known as a frictionless bearing, it will last for a very long time, because all that is acting to slow it down is air resistance.
If you then put it in a vacuum chamber and pump most of the air out, it spins for an incredibly long time.

The force is clearly not magically dissipating like you want to pretend.

Forces cause objects to be in motion, and forces cause those objects to accelerate, on the ground, in water, and within air. So why would they not lose strength, and dissipate, and die out, too?

You already explained why. They cause the object to be in motion, to accelerate.
You don't need a force to keep it at a speed, you need a force to make it speed up.
Why would it magically slow down and stop without a force acting to do so?
At what rate would this absence of a force cause it to slow down, and why?

The other big issue is that all motion is relative.
There is no magical absolute reference frame to measure motion in that will have all objects come to a stop.

Just because you can't accept the truth, it isn't going to change anything.

And that is why all your irrational attacks against gravity wont change anything.

So far you are yet to justify your claims that gravity isn't a force, nor have you been able to provide a viable alternative.
In your quest to do so you need to reject basically everything that is known about mechanics and forces.

Instead I accept reality, that a force will accelerate an object, and that unless an object is acted upon by a force it will maintain that velocity.
This means if you apply a force to move an object, it will require another force to stop it.

No, it cannot maintain any velocity, the initial force causing it's motion, will soon dissipate and die out.

Think of force as a type of battery, which charges up an object into it's own motion.....

The charge makes it go into motion, for about an hour, let's say, and then it starts to slow down, and eventually stop completely.

No other force made it slow down or stop, it was caused by the loss of initial force, or it's 'charge up', which drained away, or dissipated, during that time.

This force caused it to move, caused it to slow down, and caused it to STOP moving, and NO OTHER FORCE WAS NEEDED FOR ANY OF THIS TO HAPPEN.


Get it?

No, it cannot maintain any velocity, the initial force causing it's motion, will soon dissipate and die out.

Again, pure BS.
It has already caused its motion and has stopped acting.
The object now continues with that motion, unless there is something to stop it.

If you want to assert such BS as it magically "dissipates" tell us just what controls this rate of dissipation?
Why do some things stop almost immediately, while others take much much longer?

Think of force as a type of battery, which charges up an object into it's own motion.....
The charge makes it go into motion, for about an hour, let's say, and then it starts to slow down, and eventually stop completely.

Except like a battery, it can't just magically disappear.
The force being applied over a period of time gives the object momentum.
But that can't just vanish. It has to go somewhere.
For a battery, that would be discharging it such as by hooking up a light to it.
For the object that is moving, that would be through a force which transfers the momentum to something else.

Get it?

I fully understand what you are saying, I just realise it's BS, especially as you cannot justify it at all, nor deal with the simple things that show it is wrong.
Get it?

Except like a battery, it can't just magically disappear.
The force being applied over a period of time gives the object momentum.
But that can't just vanish. It has to go somewhere.
For a battery, that would be discharging it such as by hooking up a light to it.
For the object that is moving, that would be through a force which transfers the momentum to something else.

This force didn't even exist, before it was created as a force, when built into a battery, it never existed as a force until then. Why would you believe a force 'has to go somewhere'? Some forces DO continue on in other forms of energy, but most just die out, and DO 'vanish' away completely.

Energy, and forces using energy, are often CREATED out of nothing at all, your arm will throw up a ball into air, from a force that never existed until you created it. Nothing 'magical' about this, no infinite force that will morph around into other forms of energy, it's just another BS claim, like usual.

Why would you believe a force 'has to go somewhere'?

Not the force, the momentum.
Just like the energy in the battery needs to go somewhere.

Energy, and forces using energy, are often CREATED out of nothing at all, your arm will throw up a ball into air, from a force that never existed until you created it.

Again, the issue is the momentum.
When you throw a ball, your body acts to transfer momentum from it to the ball.
Normally you are standing on Earth, and you transfer momentum from Earth to the ball.

it's just another BS claim, like usual.

Yes, you have just provided another BS claim, like usual.

You still ignored the question about why it dissipates at a particular rate.
Is that because you know you cannot try to do that with your nonsense?

Again:
Why do some things stop almost immediately, while others take much much longer?
What controls the rate of dissipation of your magical diminishing forces?

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 09, 2022, 01:42:14 AM

Why would you believe a force 'has to go somewhere'?

Not the force, the momentum.
Just like the energy in the battery needs to go somewhere.

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 09, 2022, 01:42:14 AM

Energy, and forces using energy, are often CREATED out of nothing at all, your arm will throw up a ball into air, from a force that never existed until you created it.

Again, the issue is the momentum.
When you throw a ball, your body acts to transfer momentum from it to the ball.
Normally you are standing on Earth, and you transfer momentum from Earth to the ball.

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 09, 2022, 01:42:14 AM

it's just another BS claim, like usual.

Yes, you have just provided another BS claim, like usual.

You still ignored the question about why it dissipates at a particular rate.
Is that because you know you cannot try to do that with your nonsense?

Again:
Why do some things stop almost immediately, while others take much much longer?
What controls the rate of dissipation of your magical diminishing forces?

The force of the battery dissipates and dies out. The End. It doesn't move elsewhere, it's all gone.

There's no 'rate' I ever mentioned, where do you get that notion from?

The rate of dissipation varies with most batteries, so you'd claim they don't dissipate at all, from various rates of them? Get serious!


If you throw up a brick into air, it might go up 15-20 feet, let's say.

Using a cannon to shoot the same brick up, at the same time, it might go up to 40-50 feet, let's say.

The brick you threw up goes half as high as the brick shot by a cannon, of course.

The cannon's brick went up faster and higher than yours did, but they would have SLOWED DOWN AND STOPPED AT THE SAME DISTANCES, and SAME PERIOD OF TIME.

Look at when a soccer ball is kicked way out, and when it goes a few feet out. They both slow down and stop around the same distances, and time periods, even though one ball goes far longer in distance than the other one goes.

If friction was 'slowing them down', friction would slow down and stop the slower ball, as more friction would act on it, compared to the faster ball. If it WAS caused by friction, that is.

It plays a part in it, but not the MAIN part of it. Same as air resistance plays a part in a fall through air, but not the main part of it.

Other forces can, and will, often play a part of these things, no doubt about it, I'm very aware of that, I'm referring to the main cause or causes of falling through air, and why objects in motion, do NOT remain in motion forever, unless another force stops them moving for all infinity!

The force of the battery dissipates and dies out. The End. It doesn't move elsewhere, it's all gone.

A battery doesn't have force, it has energy.
It doesn't simply die, it is transferred to something else.
When you hook a battery up to a light, the energy transfers from the battery to the light.

There's no 'rate' I ever mentioned, where do you get that notion from?

I know you didn't, I did.
The point is your nonsense cannot explain the rate the velocity dissipates.
It is nothing more than vague BS to pretend to have an answer.

Likewise, density and mass don't explain the rate at which things accelerate.

If you want to claim it just the magic force magically dissipating, explain the rate of dissipation. Explain why it varies with things like friction and air resistance, and direction.

If you can't, I think I will stick with what does explain it.

The cannon's brick went up faster and higher than yours did, but they would have SLOWED DOWN AND STOPPED AT THE SAME DISTANCES, and SAME PERIOD OF TIME.

So did it go higher or did it stop at the same distance?
You can't have it both ways.
Either the cannon went higher and thus had a longer distance, or it didn't.

Look at when a soccer ball is kicked way out, and when it goes a few feet out. They both slow down and stop around the same distances, and time periods, even though one ball goes far longer in distance than the other one goes.

Again, pure self-contradictory nonsense.
If one travels further they don't stop at the same distance.

If friction was 'slowing them down', friction would slow down and stop the slower ball, as more friction would act on it, compared to the faster ball. If it WAS caused by friction, that is.

So we can add friction to the list of things you have no idea about.
Why would friction act more on the slower ball?

It plays a part in it, but not the MAIN part of it. Same as air resistance plays a part in a fall through air, but not the main part of it.

The falling is explained easily by gravity, not friction and not air resistance, and certainly not your magic force.

But for horizontal motion, or rotational motion, at slow speeds friction dominates. At higher speeds, air resistance can dominate depending on what it rolls on.

If your BS was true no one would bother with ball bearings or magnetic bearings or trying to make things aerodynamic.

I'm referring to the main cause or causes of falling through air, and why objects in motion, do NOT remain in motion forever

No, you are spouting pure nonsense so far divorced from reality it isn't funny.
The main cause of things falling through the air is gravity.
You are yet to offer anything even close to a viable alternative.

Even the idea of your magic forces with magic motion would only explain why they stop going up.

Even if there was some magic causing things to slow down to some magic reference frame, the fact that objects can continue in motion for an incredibly long time without any significant loss of velocity, while things thrown up typically come back down quite fast, shows that this magic of yours is not the main reason things fall.

If there was going to be some magic force dissipation, that would be the least significant effect.
For things falling through the air, gravity is typically the dominant effect.

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 09, 2022, 04:33:14 AM

The force of the battery dissipates and dies out. The End. It doesn't move elsewhere, it's all gone.

A battery doesn't have force, it has energy.
It doesn't simply die, it is transferred to something else.
When you hook a battery up to a light, the energy transfers from the battery to the light.

The battery has energy, which is applied as a force, causing the object to be in motion, same as your arm isn't a force, until you apply it as a force. Simple, isn't it?

And the battery does die, the path to it's demise may differ, but it's force does die out.

A light stops working after it dies out. There's no difference in HOW it dies out, because it still dies out - that's the point here.

So if a battery makes an object move, it doesn't move forever, and no other force acted on it, to make it stop moving, like that liar Newton claimed. It's all BS, this explains why it's all BS, so now you know it, too. Admitting it's BS is another thing, that won't happen in your fairy tale world, I'm sure!