Why don’t things just float down to earth if no gravity.

In the real world. I can place a 10 pound sledgehammer on my head and walk around without injury to myself.

Take the same sledgehammer.  (4.536 kilograms) Place it above me 10 metes and drop it on my head, and it would crack my skull open with 444.528 newtons of force if I have my units right. 

PEgrav = mass • g • height

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-1/Potential-Energy

Now. For the flat earth fantasy with ZERO GRAVITY

One, why doesn’t the sledgehammer just float down to earth? 

Two.  Why does the sledgehammer hit me in this example with more force than a crumpled up piece of notebook paper?

Three.  What causes the sledgehammer to accelerate towards the center of the earth with force instead of just floating down?

Four.  Why fall towards the center of the earth at all? Why not just float up into the thinner atmosphere where there is less air resistance?

Just realized.  Seems this thought experiment was conducted long ago with some guy whose name started with n?  Might be a unit of force?

In the real world. I can place a 10 pound sledgehammer on my head and walk around without injury to myself.

Take the same sledgehammer.  (4.536 kilograms) Place it above me 10 metes and drop it on my head, and it would crack my skull open with 444.528 newtons of force if I have my units right. 

Quote

PEgrav = mass • g • height

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-1/Potential-Energy

Now. For the flat earth fantasy with ZERO GRAVITY

One, why doesn’t the sledgehammer just float down to earth? 

Two.  Why does the sledgehammer hit me in this example with more force than a crumpled up piece of notebook paper?

Three.  What causes the sledgehammer to accelerate towards the center of the earth with force instead of just floating down?

Four.  Why fall towards the center of the earth at all? Why not just float up into the thinner atmosphere where there is less air resistance?

Again, if you expect people to read stuff you wrote, try reading their stuff. I have read literally nothing you wrote this time, because we're retreading things I've already explained.

Since people are fond of telling me about spring scales, imagine this. The density of an object and buoyancy are on one big spring scale. If an object is dense or massive, more than the buoyancy of air (which is not much, compared with water), it falls. If an object is buoyant, less massive or more usually less dense, it floats. (And you'll be floating too! Mwahaha!

 Oh wait, Halloween has been over)

Balloon? /|\ Brick? \|/

If you ignore all that (you have), then you've ignored everything I say. Why then should I give you the greater courtesy?

Just realized.  Seems this thought experiment was conducted long ago with some guy whose name started with n?  Might be a unit of force?

Just realized.  Seems this thought experiment was conducted long ago with some guy whose name started with n?  Might be a unit of force?

Did you know?

Newton never had the actual credentials of being a scientist, never tested his theories (what any legitimate scientist should do), and when he proposed them, Archimedes had already long since established buoyancy as the force involved in the rising and sinking of objects within a medium (such as water or air), effectively making Newton "discover" something that had already been discussed by better men? That the only reason gravity was accepted is The Powers That Be wanted people to believe in a round earth?

The More You Know.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 05, 2022, 04:01:14 AM

Just realized.  Seems this thought experiment was conducted long ago with some guy whose name started with n?  Might be a unit of force?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 05, 2022, 04:01:14 AM

Just realized.  Seems this thought experiment was conducted long ago with some guy whose name started with n?  Might be a unit of force?

Did you know?

Newton never had the actual credentials of being a scientist, never tested his theories (what any legitimate scientist should do), and when he proposed them, Archimedes had already long since established buoyancy as the force involved in the rising and sinking of objects within a medium (such as water or air), effectively making Newton "discover" something that had already been discussed by better men? That the only reason gravity was accepted is The Powers That Be wanted people to believe in a round earth?

The More You Know.

Its extraordinary the statements you make!

Please provide links to YOUR own work that disproves gravity. You say Newton 'got it wrong' so please explain how with some credible data. If he did 'get it wrong' you should have plenty of evidence to back up your claim.

The problem is the whole of academia would not agree with you. Why do you think that is? What leads you to believe you are right and the rest of humanity is wrong?

This is the point that you have to claim conspiracy. The problem is YOU have no proof or evidence as none exits what you ultimately have to rely on is your belief in, and I quote you.:-

"The Powers That Be wanted people to believe in a round earth?"

What evidence do you or anyone else have for this massive global historic conspiracy that you claim exist. Who are these 'Powers that be' that have existed as you claim for hundreds of years? The answer to that is no evidence exist its just a myth you and others have made up to support your fairy tale belief of a flat earth.

Newtons laws have stood the test of time and are still being used successfully to this day.

Bet you came her to derail the thread and try to change the subject…

Let’s see

Again, if you expect people to read stuff you wrote,

Ok.  New thread that outlines a model of debate with a rough comparison of flat earth no gravity vs spherical earth gravity.

Why does any other thread manner with this new proposed model?

Anyway.  How many threads on spring scales did you start?

How did “Boats Over The Horizon” turn into a thread about gravity and NASA.

 BECAUSE FLAT EARTHERS HAVE TO RUN FROM THE TRUTH AND KEEP CHANGING THE SUBJECT TO KEEP THE DELUSION ALIVE. 

Try reading their stuff.

Like quoting you in other threads, and providing demonstrable proof how your wrong.  And then providing demonstrable proof of gravity.  Like tides and tidal bores…

I have read literally nothing you wrote this time, because we're retreading things I've already explained.

Your literally here to derail this thread because it highlights in other threads how you have been debunked over and over again?

Since people are fond of telling me about spring scales

This thread isn’t about scales.

imagine this. The density of an object

Density is not a force. 

and buoyancy are on one big spring scale.

You mean buoyancy like this,

What is Buoyant Force?

Buoyancy is the upward force by a fluid on an object. The pressure of a static fluid only depends on the depth of the point the pressure is measured, the gravitational acceleration, and the density of the fluid. Treating the other two as constants the pressure is only dependent on the depth. Deeper the point, higher the pressure will be. This is a linear proportionality. This means any object placed inside a fluid will feel the difference in pressure at the top and the bottom. The bottom pressure, which is higher than the top pressure, will try to push the object upward. This is named the buoyant force.

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-buoyant-force-and-vs-gravitational-force/amp/

There’s that word again..

“The pressure of a static fluid only depends on the depth of the point the pressure is measured, the gravitational acceleration, and the density of the fluid”

If an object is dense or massive,

Density and mass are not forces.

more than the buoyancy of air (which is not much, compared with water), it falls.

You don’t get this whole pressure gradient thing, do you…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure-gradient_force

In fluid mechanics, the pressure-gradient force is the force that results when there is a difference in pressure across a surface. In general, a pressure is a force per unit area, across a surface. A difference in pressure across a surface then implies a difference in force, which can result in an acceleration according to Newton's second law of motion, if there is no additional force to balance it. The resulting force is always directed from the region of higher-pressure to the region of lower-pressure. When a fluid is in an equilibrium state (i.e. there are no net forces, and no acceleration), the system is referred to as being in hydrostatic equilibrium. In the case of atmospheres, the pressure-gradient force is balanced by the gravitational force, maintaining hydrostatic equilibrium. In Earth's atmosphere, for example, air pressure decreases at altitudes above Earth's surface, thus providing a pressure-gradient force which counteracts the force of gravity on the atmosphere.

If you missed it “In the case of atmospheres, the pressure-gradient force is balanced by the gravitational force, maintaining hydrostatic equilibrium.”

The reason there is weight, and pressure gradients that makes buoyancy possible is because of gravity.

If an object is buoyant, less massive or more usually less dense, it floats.

Ok?

Objects on earth with mass have weight because of gravity.

Gravity is the force that “powers pressure gradients”.

When a object sinks because it is more dense than the volume it displaces, it sinks.  Overcomes the media it’s in because of gravity, and is pulled towards the center of the earth.

Without gravity as a force, there is no force to cause any action.

Your flat earth delusion has no force to “power” anything.  Like how hanging a mass on a spring causes it to elongate in accordance with hooks law and move in accordance to the three laws of motion.

If there is no force of gravity in the flat earth delusion, why would anything sink.  Why would any thing separate out to float?


Let’s recap.

I provided a model you cannot explain in the context of your flat earth delusion, so you feel the need to act out like a child to derail the thread.  Like you do in most of the threads you take part in.  How many threads have you authored?

You prove your have know idea how pressure gradients work.

You still have no explanation in the context of flat earth what makes a hanging spring scale spring elongate in accordance with Hooke’s law.

Hooke's law

When studying springs and elasticity, the 17ᵗʰ century physicist Robert Hooke noticed that the stress vs strain curve for many materials has a linear region. Within certain limits, the force required to stretch an elastic object such as a metal spring is directly proportional to the extension of the spring. This is known as Hooke's law and commonly written:

F=−kx
​   
 
Where
F is the force,
x is the length of extension/compression and

k is a constant of proportionality known as the spring constant which is usually given in
N/m

And you have proven that the flat earth delusion has to contradict its self from going model to model.


The only real weapon you have is to derail, change the subject, and move goalposts.

While spherical earth answers all your questions head on.

I suppose you expect me to type in some long string of numbers and variables and constants. Well tough, because our science class didn't teach us any of those. Or I forgot them.

X=56phsxh/45#4&@%
whatever

I look at that and I see gibberish. But my own work has been the posts I made here, and the observations I've made about the behavior of objects, water, the moon, the sun, and the shape of earth and sky. You've seen my models and ignored them.

Every one of these models is based on actually observing objects without the built-in BIAS that you have to assume an object is disappears bottom up, that the Earth must orbit the sun, etc, etc, etc.

And I care that the whole of academia agrees with me? If science, it is subject to observed data, not consensus. What you've described is dogma. If I go to a Catholic church and tell them I believe Jesus was female, the priest says, "Hrrrmmm. The Pope disagrees with you. So do the cardinals and bishops and deacons... also you're excommunicated." That is RELIGION and it's the worst that secular people complain about. But when they take over science and make it about climate, they do the exact same thing.
Newton is a saint, Einstein is a saint, Hawking is a saint, Al Gore is a saint, and Fauci is a saint. WHO ARE YOU TO DEFY THEIR ESTEEMED TEACHINGS!!!

I'll tell you who I am. I am (redacted for user privacy), and I defy their nonsense. Real science isn't about peer review or previously accepted, it's about confirming or rejecting based on observations and tests. Now I can go into the sink and confirm without a doubt that a ball, that I use as a model of the Earth, either floats (not dense) or sinks (if it is made of osmium or solid metal) into the water but never at any point is there any omnidirectional gravity. Nor does water stick to the ball, hang in midair (water and all), and start rotating around another ball. You can't test this crap!

Gravity is assumed because we drop objects, it must be a force pushing them down. But I tell you (again) that this is a wrong explanation to a theory.
Okay, let us suppose I am a scientist. And I make the theory (because I am from Japan) that the motion of catfish whiskers is responsible for earthquakes, and dragons flying about is responsible for weather. So every time rain falls, I have confirmation that something is causing it, and likewise for earthquakes. As long as I operate under a wrong theory, legitimate tests can't be done. So saying "it's gravity" when I drop glasses of water to the ground is not proof. It's a false cause, as surely as if you said that there are runes floating in the air that repeat the Chinese character for "fall" over and over again.

You have not one iota of proof that gravity exists. But I can definitely show you in advance (though some object like wood beads surprise me), whether an object I put in water will float or sink. This same force that allows objects to behave this way in water carries over into air. This is a law, gravity is a theory. A theory that alot of people have propped up and named a law, but a theory nonetheless.

I suppose you expect me to type in some long string of numbers and variables and constants. Well tough, because our science class didn't teach us any of those.

X=56phsxh/45#4&@%
whatever

I look at that and I see gibberish. But my own work has been the posts I made here, and the observations I've made about the behavior of objects, water, the moon, the sun, and the shape of earth and sky. You've seen my models and ignored them.

Every one of these models is based on actually observing objects without the built-in BIAS that you have to assume an object is disappears bottom up, that the Earth must orbit the sun, etc, etc, etc.

And I care that the whole of academia agrees with me? If science, it is subject to observed data, not consensus. What you've described is dogma. If I go to a Catholic church and tell them I believe Jesus was female, the priest says, "Hrrrmmm. The Pope disagrees with you. So do the cardinals and bishops and deacons... also you're excommunicated." That is RELIGION and it's the worst that secular people complain about. But when they take over science and make it about climate, they do the exact same thing.
Newton is a saint, Einstein is a saint, Hawking is a saint, Al Gore is a saint, and Fauci is a saint. WHO ARE YOU TO DEFY THEIR ESTEEMED TEACHINGS!!!

I'll tell you who I am. I am (redacted for user privacy), and I defy their nonsense. Real science isn't about peer review or previously accepted, it's about confirming or rejecting based on observations and tests. Now I can go into the sink and confirm without a doubt that a ball, that I use as a model of the Earth, either floats (not dense) or sinks (if it is made of osmium or solid metal) into the water but never at any point is there any omnidirectional gravity. Nor does water stick to the ball, hang in midair (water and all), and start rotating around another ball. You can't test this crap!

Gravity is assumed because we drop objects, it must be a force pushing them down. But I tell you (again) that this is a wrong explanation to a theory.
Okay, let us suppose I am a scientist. And I make the theory (because I am from Japan) that the motion of catfish whiskers is responsible for earthquakes, and dragons flying about is responsible for weather. So every time rain falls, I have confirmation that something is causing it, and likewise for earthquakes. As long as I operate under a wrong theory, legitimate tests can't be done. So saying "it's gravity" when I drop glasses of water to the ground is not proof. It's a false cause, as surely as if you said that there are runes floating in the air that repeat the Chinese character for "fall" over and over again.

You have no one iota of proof that gravity exists. But I can definitely show you in advance whether an object I put in water will float or sink. This same force that allows objects to behave this way in water carries over into air. This is a law, gravity is a theory. A theory that alot of people have propped up and named a law, but a theory nonetheless.

Sad to see you act this way in a specific model offered for serious consideration. 

No, what's sad is how you can't even consider the idea that you may be wrong. You leave shards of broken glass everywhere, and instead of offering to sweep them up like a decent person, you continue to come to the same conclusion even when the force you speak of behaves awfully inconsistently.

Dogma says that's how things are, you basically beat ppl over the head with it.

No, what's sad is how you can't even consider the idea that you may be wrong.

Then..

Now. For the flat earth fantasy with ZERO GRAVITY

One, why doesn’t the sledgehammer just float down to earth? 

Two.  Why does the sledgehammer hit me in this example with more force than a crumpled up piece of notebook paper?

Three.  What causes the sledgehammer to accelerate towards the center of the earth with force instead of just floating down?

Four.  Why fall towards the center of the earth at all? Why not just float up into the thinner atmosphere where there is less air resistance?


You just look stupid and desperate.  The heart of a fanatic with no value for the scientific method.  Only lip service when it’s convenient for yourself to say so.  While the people of spherical earth camp are able to directly and repeatedly answer all your concerns.

Again.  How does hanging 10 pounds of styrofoam cause the steel spring in a hanging spring scale to elongate in accordance with hooks law and the three laws of motion where the styrofoam will not end up in water in anyway.

Spherical earth can explain the scale model either way.  Styrofoam in or out of water.

You have to change the model / goal post for flat earth.  While ignoring Hooke’s law and the three laws of motion.

 

I suppose you expect me to type in some long string of numbers and variables and constants. Well tough, because our science class didn't teach us any of those. Or I forgot them.

X=56phsxh/45#4&@%
whatever

I look at that and I see gibberish. But my own work has been the posts I made here, and the observations I've made about the behavior of objects, water, the moon, the sun, and the shape of earth and sky. You've seen my models and ignored them.

Every one of these models is based on actually observing objects without the built-in BIAS that you have to assume an object is disappears bottom up, that the Earth must orbit the sun, etc, etc, etc.

And I care that the whole of academia agrees with me? If science, it is subject to observed data, not consensus. What you've described is dogma. If I go to a Catholic church and tell them I believe Jesus was female, the priest says, "Hrrrmmm. The Pope disagrees with you. So do the cardinals and bishops and deacons... also you're excommunicated." That is RELIGION and it's the worst that secular people complain about. But when they take over science and make it about climate, they do the exact same thing.
Newton is a saint, Einstein is a saint, Hawking is a saint, Al Gore is a saint, and Fauci is a saint. WHO ARE YOU TO DEFY THEIR ESTEEMED TEACHINGS!!!

I'll tell you who I am. I am (redacted for user privacy), and I defy their nonsense. Real science isn't about peer review or previously accepted, it's about confirming or rejecting based on observations and tests. Now I can go into the sink and confirm without a doubt that a ball, that I use as a model of the Earth, either floats (not dense) or sinks (if it is made of osmium or solid metal) into the water but never at any point is there any omnidirectional gravity. Nor does water stick to the ball, hang in midair (water and all), and start rotating around another ball. You can't test this crap!

Gravity is assumed because we drop objects, it must be a force pushing them down. But I tell you (again) that this is a wrong explanation to a theory.
Okay, let us suppose I am a scientist. And I make the theory (because I am from Japan) that the motion of catfish whiskers is responsible for earthquakes, and dragons flying about is responsible for weather. So every time rain falls, I have confirmation that something is causing it, and likewise for earthquakes. As long as I operate under a wrong theory, legitimate tests can't be done. So saying "it's gravity" when I drop glasses of water to the ground is not proof. It's a false cause, as surely as if you said that there are runes floating in the air that repeat the Chinese character for "fall" over and over again.

You have not one iota of proof that gravity exists. But I can definitely show you in advance (though some object like wood beads surprise me), whether an object I put in water will float or sink. This same force that allows objects to behave this way in water carries over into air. This is a law, gravity is a theory. A theory that alot of people have propped up and named a law, but a theory nonetheless.

Its looks very much like your science class taught you nothing.

If thats the case and you were taught nothing how can you expect to comment on something you know nothing about?

In reality everything you say is a figment of your imagination born from your basic admitted ignorance of science.

Take the same sledgehammer.  (4.536 kilograms) Place it above me 10 metes and drop it on my head, and it would crack my skull open with 444.528 newtons of force if I have my units right. 

You must carry out this experiment and report back to us.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 05, 2022, 03:54:33 AM

Take the same sledgehammer.  (4.536 kilograms) Place it above me 10 metes and drop it on my head, and it would crack my skull open with 444.528 newtons of force if I have my units right. 

You must carry out this experiment and report back to us.

I hate video.  I’m a little taller and better looking in real life..








Hope your happy.  I now have a fractured skull, and 128 stitches across my face…

I suppose you expect me to type in some long string of numbers and variables and constants. Well tough, because our science class didn't teach us any of those. Or I forgot them.

X=56phsxh/45#4&@%
whatever

I look at that and I see gibberish. But my own work has been the posts I made here, and the observations I've made about the behavior of objects, water, the moon, the sun, and the shape of earth and sky. You've seen my models and ignored them.

Every one of these models is based on actually observing objects without the built-in BIAS that you have to assume an object is disappears bottom up, that the Earth must orbit the sun, etc, etc, etc.

And I care that the whole of academia agrees with me? If science, it is subject to observed data, not consensus. What you've described is dogma. If I go to a Catholic church and tell them I believe Jesus was female, the priest says, "Hrrrmmm. The Pope disagrees with you. So do the cardinals and bishops and deacons... also you're excommunicated." That is RELIGION and it's the worst that secular people complain about. But when they take over science and make it about climate, they do the exact same thing.
Newton is a saint, Einstein is a saint, Hawking is a saint, Al Gore is a saint, and Fauci is a saint. WHO ARE YOU TO DEFY THEIR ESTEEMED TEACHINGS!!!

I'll tell you who I am. I am (redacted for user privacy), and I defy their nonsense. Real science isn't about peer review or previously accepted, it's about confirming or rejecting based on observations and tests. Now I can go into the sink and confirm without a doubt that a ball, that I use as a model of the Earth, either floats (not dense) or sinks (if it is made of osmium or solid metal) into the water but never at any point is there any omnidirectional gravity. Nor does water stick to the ball, hang in midair (water and all), and start rotating around another ball. You can't test this crap!

Gravity is assumed because we drop objects, it must be a force pushing them down. But I tell you (again) that this is a wrong explanation to a theory.
Okay, let us suppose I am a scientist. And I make the theory (because I am from Japan) that the motion of catfish whiskers is responsible for earthquakes, and dragons flying about is responsible for weather. So every time rain falls, I have confirmation that something is causing it, and likewise for earthquakes. As long as I operate under a wrong theory, legitimate tests can't be done. So saying "it's gravity" when I drop glasses of water to the ground is not proof. It's a false cause, as surely as if you said that there are runes floating in the air that repeat the Chinese character for "fall" over and over again.

You have not one iota of proof that gravity exists. But I can definitely show you in advance (though some object like wood beads surprise me), whether an object I put in water will float or sink. This same force that allows objects to behave this way in water carries over into air. This is a law, gravity is a theory. A theory that alot of people have propped up and named a law, but a theory nonetheless.

Misnaming confectionary aside.

Normally if someone, like YOU, makes an extraordinary claim like Newton and others got it wrong it would normally have to be backed up by some pretty strong evidence.

Let’s remember Newton and his laws are currently taught in every education establishment on the planet as they have been shown to be correct!

For you, who gets upset over incorrect naming of cakes should understand than being precise is important.

You made an enormous claim about Newton that the rest of the world would disagree with. Therefore for your claim to stand you would need some pretty hefty evidence, which of course does not exist which is why you present none.

Your arguments are like macaroons with a shit filling.

Again, if you expect people to read stuff you wrote, try reading their stuff.

Reading your stuff doesn't mean accepting it is true.
Your stuff is still providing no reason at all for objects to fall.

The density of an object and buoyancy are on one big spring scale.

These are different units. It makes no sense to compare them.

You can compare weight and buoyancy, as both are forces. But you cannot compare density and buoyancy.

If an object is dense or massive, more than the buoyancy of air (which is not much, compared with water), it falls.

Again, this makes no sense.
You may as well be saying "If an object is more dense than 5 V". It makes no sense as the units are incomparable.
The only way to have this make sense is if you are comparing values with the same units.
e.g. If the weight (downwards force due to gravity) of an object is greater than the buoyant force acting on it, it falls.
If the weight is less than the buoyant force, it rises.

Archimedes had already long since established buoyancy as the force involved in the rising and sinking of objects within a medium

No, he didn't.
He made an observation, which didn't have an explanation.
Gravity gives us this explanation, an explanation which is transferrable to other contexts, such as in an accelerating vehicle or a centrifuge.

Gravity causes a pressure gradient in the fluid, a pressure gradient which acts to push all objects upwards, reducing the apparent weight of the object when it is immersed in that fluid.
If the buoyant force is great enough, it causes the apparent weight to be negative, resulting in the object floating upwards.

I suppose you expect me to type in some long string of numbers and variables and constants. Well tough, because our science class didn't teach us any of those. Or I forgot them.

And that makes you incapable of critically evaluating your own BS to see why it doesn't work.
You have multiple forces involved, but you just ignore some without any justification of why you should be able to.
The justification would require you to calculate how significant each force is, so you can dismiss the insignificant ones.
But instead, you just dismiss the most significant force to pretend you have found a problem.

You've seen my models and ignored them.

No, we have seen them and clearly explained how they are not representing the RE you are claiming to represent with them.
We have clearly explained the flaws in these models and why they do not prove what you pretend they do.
But you then ignore all that because you want to pretend you have refuted the RE even though you cannot demonstrate or explain a single issue with it.

I can go into the sink and confirm without a doubt that a ball, that I use as a model of the Earth

Is in no way representative of Earth with regards to gravity as you are performing the experiment well inside the Roche limit of a much more massive object.

Gravity is assumed because we drop objects, it must be a force pushing them down.

A downwards force is concluded as objects need a force to cause them to accelerate, to cause them to push down on scales, to cause them to feel heavy, and to cause them to push against another force (the pressure gradient observed in fluids), rather than having it fly upwards. And most importantly, a force is required to give it directionality.
You want to instead pretend that objects just magically accelerate in a particular direction for no reason at all.

But it isn't just that. Gravity also explains the motion of the planets.
And most importantly, it has been tested, such as with the Cavendish experiment, which even you can replicate to test gravity.

This is a law, gravity is a theory.

A law is typically a mathematical relationship, and often laws are part of theories.
For example, the universal law of gravitation, is part of the theory of gravity.

No, what's sad is how you can't even consider the idea that you may be wrong.

As opposed to you, who is so unwilling to consider that you are wrong, that you repeatedly spout pure BS about the RE model, have it refuted, and just entirely ignore the refutation.

You leave shards of broken glass everywhere, and instead of offering to sweep them up like a decent person, you continue to come to the same conclusion even when the force you speak of behaves awfully inconsistently.

You are the one leaving broken glass all over the place, fleeing from it because you don't want to admit you are wrong.
You are yet to demonstrate any inconsistency at all.

If you want to claim there isn't gravity, then you need to tell us what is making objects fall and push against the pressure gradient observed in fluids. And most importantly, what gives this motions its directionality.

A law is not a mathematical relationship. You're confusing math and science. Whuch is easy, because both use alot of overlapping Greek symbols and such.

Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.

Did you hear that? Based on repeated tests! But Newton, as a natural philosopher with an axe to grind, would not have tested his ideas beyond dropping objects or some such.

Newton assumed the existence of an attractive force between all massive bodies, one that does not require bodily contact and that acts at a distance. By invoking his law of inertia (bodies not acted upon by a force move at constant speed in a straight line), Newton concluded that a force exerted by Earth on the Moon is needed to keep it in a circular motion about Earth rather than moving in a straight line. He realized that this force could be, at long range, the same as the force with which Earth pulls objects on its surface downward.

Newton assumed there is this force between massive bodies. Then he invoked a force that he came up with himself. One of these is an assumption, the other is making up something on the spot to propnup an idea. Neither one constitutes truth or proof.
Then he used the same force to do two different behaviors. One of these versions of gravity is similar to a magnetic object you get when something is attracted and repelled. The other is closer to adhesion done by lizards. So using alot of sleight of hand, Newton is magically assigning one "force" several purposes so that it can act as a catch-all to shut down any argument. "Why is my father howling at the moon and dancing all around?" "Gravity, son. He's being drawn toward the moon." Yeahhhhhh no.

In truth, there is no scientific test for gravity, even at the hands of real scientists, because Newton assigned the role of a gravity to no less than three forces (probably more, as we're including buoyancy, and the two above), because inertia cannot be proven (uncertainty principle says that atoms are never in one place, so at any given second, there is no"force" keeping me from moving rather suddenly despite all the crap about objects staying at rest), further momentum does run out.

If Δ M is the change in momentum, m is the mass of the object and v is the velocity, then change in momentum with respect to velocity is given by:
Δ M = mv

Also, we can say,

Mass, m = Δ M/v = Momentum/Velocity

and

Velocity, v = Δ M/m = Momentum/Mass

Wait, but I was told objects at motion stay at motion. So what's this change in momentum based on mass? Well kinda what I've been trying to explain for several posts without a formula. So no inertia, and no limitless momentum. What about this theory is true?

Equal and opposite? If it's true at all, it seems to be an overgeneralization to the notion that what goes up must come down (you certainly don't get an equal reaction firing an arrow, even if it is opposed (you pull back to launch forward), that would mean you fly backwards when the arrow launches). Only there are actual satellites inside our atmosphere.
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/11/24/satellites-dont-exist/

Besides land-based technologies, the real pig-in-the-poke that creates the illusion of Satellite utility are Light-Than-Air-Vehicles (LAV), High Altitude Airships (HAA) and High Altitude Platforms (HAP).

LTA’s are said to reach altitudes of 70,000 ft, but 100,000 ft and higher have been attained. They can stay aloft for months if not years, unmanned and controlled by ground based operators akin to drones. LTA’s also have the capability to maintain a geosynchronous position that satellites purport to do also. With the massive amount of money that NASA embezzles you can bet they’ve poured significant resources into developing these platforms. The more cost-efficient platforms, the bigger the profit margins are in NASA’s fake satellite deployments. It’s also important to remember that without the illusion of satellites and probes, NASA could not pretend to venture into the void of space to explore and reveal the wonders of the cosmos.

Wikipedia talks about them. It's not something they made up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_satellite#High-altitude_platform_station

Whether an airship or an aeroplane, a major challenge is the ability of the HAP to maintain stationkeeping in the face of winds. An operating altitude between 17 and 22 km is chosen because in most regions of the world this represents a layer of relatively mild wind and turbulence above the jet stream.

Given that these things are up for days and even months sometimes, that's not a given. They are simply lighter than air.

Very little about Newton's theories are logicaly consistent, provable, or even honest. He uses preexisting formulas to give the illusion of proof, he uses forces an constants, and rules that can't seem to be tested. He uses alot of open-ended ideas where the math doesn't seem to be there so he fudges and says it's inertia or wind resistance, or (not again) gravity.

Why don't objects float down if no gravity? Because of the difference in mass. A feather is slightly more massive than the air. It does float down, as does a leaf. A brick doesn't float down whether a drop it at you from a roof (children: do not throw bricks at peope), nor if I toss it into the water. It drops like, well a brick. We have yet to build a submarine plane from what I'm seeing so far.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_submarine
 Either it's dense enough to be a submarine but not light enough to fly, or it's light enough to fly but unðerwater pressure is an issue. Note, this isn't said, but cancellation after cancellation as far forward as 2008. I can figure out why. You're doing two contrasting processes.

Since the requirements for designing a submarine are practically opposed to those of an airplane, the performance expected from such a construction is usually rather moderate.

Wait no, they mentioned this too.

Did you hear that?

Did you, including what I said?
I said typically a mathematical relationship, as that is typically what is required to be able to predict.
And yes, based upon repeated experiments, just like gravity.

And did you bother reading the rest:

A law can often be formulated as one or several statements or equations, so that it can predict the outcome of an experiment.

Laws are narrower in scope than scientific theories, which may entail one or several laws.

The nature of scientific laws has been much discussed in philosophy, but in essence scientific laws are simply empirical conclusions reached by scientific method

Laws do not explain phenomenon. They make no attempt to.
And scientific theories contain laws.
It is the theory which provides the explanation.

Newton assumed there is this force between massive bodies.

As it actually explains what is observed.
And after Newton, this has been backed up by mountains of evidence.

Then he used the same force to do two different behaviors.

No, he used the same force to do 2 identical behaviours, accelerate an object.
It is the different scenarios which produce different results.

Just like you can have magnetism cause things to go around in a circle, or you can have it cause an object to accelerate and hit another.

In truth, there is no scientific test for gravity

No, that is just a pathetic lie, a lie typically repeated by FEers because they hate gravity so much and are so desperate to pretend it isn't real.

Newton assigned the role of a gravity to no less than three forces

Newton assigned the role of gravity to explaining multiple phenomenon, not separate forces.
Your pathetic strawmanning on these forces to pretend they are different does not matter.

because inertia cannot be proven

Except through repeated tests which have quite clearly demonstrated inertia, at least at the classical level. At the quantum level, some classical laws can be violated, but only for a certain time. For example, you can have a violation of conservation of momentum, but only for a small period of time, the larger the violation, the less time it can exist for.
But if you want to reject it and instead claim objects can magically accelerate in any direction at any rate for any reason, go ahead and show just how ridiculous your position is.

Wait, but I was told objects at motion stay at motion.

And like always, you cherry pick which parts you want to focus on.
An object in motion will remain in motion UNLESS ACTED UPON BY AN EXTERNAL FORCE!
An external force acting on the object can bring object to rest. It can stop its motion.

Equal and opposite? If it's true at all, it seems to be an overgeneralization to the notion that what goes up must come down.

Quite the opposite.
It has virtually nothing to do with "what goes up must come down".
It is referring to how if you push an object, it pushes back.

Only there are actual satellites inside our atmosphere.

Quoting a conspiracy site, with no evidence to support its BS, will not help you, especially as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You sure do love fleeing.

Very little about Newton's theories are logicaly consistent, provable, or even honest.

You not liking it, and lying about them shows your own dishonesty, not their dishonesty.
You lying about them to pretend they are inconsistent does not demonstrate any actual inconsistency.
Nothing in science is provable. Instead it is supported by evidence, just like gravity.

He uses preexisting formulas to give the illusion of proof

You mean he explains existing observations which have no explanation.

he uses forces an constants

Where?

rules that can't seem to be tested.

Gravity has been tested countless times, and passed those tests.

Why don't objects float down if no gravity? Because of the difference in mass.

This is not an explanation.
Mass does not explain why things fall.
It does not provide with any directionality.

A feather is slightly more massive than the air. It does float down, as does a leaf. A brick doesn't float down whether a drop it at you from a roof (children: do not throw bricks at peope), nor if I toss it into the water. It drops like, well a brick.

And yet, still no explanation of WHY?
Why does the brick drop like a brick while the feather only floats down gently?
And why down? Why doesn't a brick drop up like a brick?

A brick doesn't float down whether a drop it at you from a roof (children: do not throw bricks at peope), nor if I toss it into the water. It drops like, well a brick.

Oh.  You want to talk bricks?   You have interactions with Turbo to thank for this mental experience.

And if you want to play the laws of motion game.


Take a brick. Throw it straight up. 

Why does the brick slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.

By the way you stated…

Sorry, but it isn't curvature or even air resistance that slows a weapon down. Propulsion doesn't continue forever, and an object loses momentum. Simple as that.

Back to the brick.

After slowing down faster than what is attributed to air resistance.

In accordance with the laws of motion.

Why does the brink slow down, stop, change direction of travel a 180 degrees, then accelerate back to the earth?

In the real world. I can place a 10 pound sledgehammer on my head and walk around without injury to myself.

Take the same sledgehammer.  (4.536 kilograms) Place it above me 10 metes and drop it on my head, and it would crack my skull open with 444.528 newtons of force if I have my units right. 

Quote

PEgrav = mass • g • height

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-1/Potential-Energy

Now. For the flat earth fantasy with ZERO GRAVITY

One, why doesn’t the sledgehammer just float down to earth? 

Two.  Why does the sledgehammer hit me in this example with more force than a crumpled up piece of notebook paper?

Three.  What causes the sledgehammer to accelerate towards the center of the earth with force instead of just floating down?

Four.  Why fall towards the center of the earth at all? Why not just float up into the thinner atmosphere where there is less air resistance?

The universe is like a huge huge spacecraft with machinery that moves vertically within a smoke medium.

First stage: it was Universal Acceleration
And then ~ the universe flipped 180°, and the engine got off ~
And then there came second stage: Downwards Universal Deceleration

FYI: conventional Astronomy is just a joke 🙏

First stage: it was Universal Acceleration

 The rate / value of acceleration because of gravity is not uniform on the earth.

It has measurable changes on earth due to earth not having uniform density, and changes with height like seen at the top of Mount Everest.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 05, 2022, 10:26:24 PM

A brick doesn't float down whether a drop it at you from a roof (children: do not throw bricks at peope), nor if I toss it into the water. It drops like, well a brick.

Oh.  You want to talk bricks?   You have interactions with Turbo to thank for this mental experience.

And if you want to play the laws of motion game.


Take a brick. Throw it straight up. 

Why does the brick slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.

I'm afraid if you're noticing that, you're not get out of the way of said brick. Which probably the point (unintentional brick pun, pointing refers to... and I'm having to explain the joke), it gets slower because it brains you and stops suddenly.

But yes, you should try that over there because I think it's exactly as fast and I need you to prove otherwise.

By the way you stated…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 21, 2022, 10:35:23 PM

Sorry, but it isn't curvature or even air resistance that slows a weapon down. Propulsion doesn't continue forever, and an object loses momentum. Simple as that.

Back to the brick.

After slowing down faster than what is attributed to air resistance.

In accordance with the laws of motion.

Why does the brink slow down, stop, change direction of travel a 180 degrees, then accelerate back to the earth?

You'll need to record yourself throwing the brick straight up at yourself. I don't seem to be convinced it does any of these things.

If he's dumb enough to make himself stupid, I might not have to argue with him again.

But lemme save you a headache. Said brick loses momentum, (does it really flip over?), and then sinks to the ground.

I think you can test this in the aquarium without crushing your  skull. Toss the brick up through the water and watch it fall back down through the water. Nothing has changed.

Quote from: Danang on November 06, 2022, 02:33:48 AM

First stage: it was Universal Acceleration

 The rate / value of acceleration because of gravity is not uniform on the earth.

It has measurable changes on earth due to earth not having uniform density, and changes with height like seen at the top of Mount Everest.

There are 'mysterious' energies from above, but it is measurable, at least you can feel it by your own body. There is downwards pressure.
That's why weights are not really equal in different places.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 06, 2022, 02:48:06 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 06, 2022, 02:33:48 AM

First stage: it was Universal Acceleration

 The rate / value of acceleration because of gravity is not uniform on the earth.

It has measurable changes on earth due to earth not having uniform density, and changes with height like seen at the top of Mount Everest.

There are 'mysterious' energies from above, but it is measurable, at least you can feel it by your own body. There is downwards pressure.
That's why weights are not really equal in different places.

Funny your “mysteries” are when you can’t explain why the spherical earth has clear explanations.

You'll need to record yourself throwing the brick straight up at yourself.

Why?  The thought experiment too hard for your mind to work through. 

How can I throw a brick straight up away from me and at me at the same time where I couldn’t move out of the way from where the brick lands?

You never actually gone outside to throw rocks and such up in the air?

I don't seem to be convinced it does any of these things.

But in reality.  The brick slows down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  Stops all upward momentum.  Then accelerates back to the earth.

Basic reality stuff.

If he's dumb enough to make himself stupid, I might not have to argue with him again.

But lemme save you a headache. Said brick loses momentum, (does it really flip over?), and then sinks to the ground.

It can tumble all the way up, and tumble all the way back down.

It can be thrown up with the same face of the brick pointing to the sky.


The face of the brick doesn’t determine the direction of upward travel.

I think you can test this in the aquarium without crushing your  skull. Toss the brick up through the water and watch it fall back down through the water. Nothing has changed.

You mean where gravity is still in effect. And drives pressure gradients that makes buoyancy / separation possible?

Sad you can’t explain how hanging a 10 pound block of styrofoam from a steel spring of a hanging spring scale overcomes  the elasticity of the steel spring.  Causing it to elongate in accordance with Hooke’s law.  And the styrofoam moves down in accordance with the laws of motion.

Your just reinforcing your an emotional flat earther with no understanding of reality, and flat earth can’t produce any working models to better the engineering world. 

Quote from: Danang on November 06, 2022, 02:59:44 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 06, 2022, 02:48:06 AM

Quote from: Danang on November 06, 2022, 02:33:48 AM

First stage: it was Universal Acceleration

 The rate / value of acceleration because of gravity is not uniform on the earth.

It has measurable changes on earth due to earth not having uniform density, and changes with height like seen at the top of Mount Everest.

There are 'mysterious' energies from above, but it is measurable, at least you can feel it by your own body. There is downwards pressure.
That's why weights are not really equal in different places.

Funny your “mysteries” are when you can’t explain why the spherical earth has clear explanations.

FYI
Even the brightest physics students wish to graduate as soon as possible and go work.
They are being tortured with confusions in physics lessons.

It's a true story. 👌

The mystery could be described as a work of satans/Lucifer that has unimaginable machineries all over the world in order to cleanse the heavenly aura of this life as meant in initial creation. Besides to create diseases and mortality among Adam's descendants etc. etc.

(If you believe in religion).

Did Lucifer die?

RNIP Lucifer

(Rest Not In Peace Lucifer) 

FYI
Even the brightest physics students wish to graduate as soon as possible and go work.
They are being tortured with confusions in physics lessons.

It's a true story. 👌

Then cite a persons actual account that supports flat earth.

The mystery could be described as a work of satans/Lucifer that has unimaginable machineries all over the world in order to cleanse the heavenly aura of this life as meant in initial creation. Besides to create diseases and mortality among Adam's descendants etc. etc.

(If you believe in religion).

Trying to change the subject.  Stupid.

Quote the Bible where salvation is dependent on the shape of the earth in another thread.  Stop derailing this thread.