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

Here's my video. Sorry that it's not a Youtube, but Youtube hates flat earth videos.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/meqCFCTAmVCY/

As you can see from this video, (1) I am a crossdresser and not a very good one, (2) I was able to curve my viewpoint all the way from straight ahead above me and upside down behind me meaning yes (Virginia) there is a parabola. (3) I also tested viewpoints from different heights, and (4) showed that there isn't just a parabola but a fully mobile dome.

Here's my video. Sorry that it's not a Youtube, but Youtube hates flat earth videos.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/meqCFCTAmVCY/

As you can see from this video, (1) I am a crossdresser and not a very good one, (2) I was able to curve my viewpoint all the way from straight ahead above me and upside down behind me meaning yes (Virginia) there is a parabola. (3) I also tested viewpoints from different heights, and (4) showed that there isn't just a parabola but a fully mobile dome.

Again. 

No mater how much you spin about your damn parabola in a thread about gravity, there is no parabola..

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 05, 2022, 08:58:32 AM

As the parabola rises,

There is no “parabola” in the context your pushing.


There is no evidence of any force or items making personal “parabolas”.  Not in observed flights of birds to aircraft.

Not in the mist to the way dew and dust coat everything.



To the way mist and the tree lines are relatively straight in where your imagined parabola must distort your flat earth delusion to make the sun set at a three mile horizon.

To the way there sun shines in straight lines…



No evidence of your imagined parabola in the way line of sight radar is accurate.  Not reflected in line of sight radio transmission and the radio horizon.

Nothing about flat earth makes this possible.




Nor would the sun being lower than the clouds to shine up through the clouds to a viewer above the clouds.

——-

Quote from: Stash on September 15, 2022, 03:13:36 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 15, 2022, 01:49:16 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 15, 2022, 01:18:23 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 15, 2022, 01:04:36 AM

They both swear that the sun is near them. But it's not. It not near anyone. It never at any point gets closer or further away. This isn't "proof" that the sun is actually huge and incredibly distant. It is "probable cause" that the sun is being projected through our own perceptions, and we really have no idea where the hell it is.

How have we navigated for centuries without having any idea where the sun is?

Simple. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Finally, you nailed it. The sun sets and the sun rises. It does not go around like a halo in the sky. It rises up from the horizon and sets below the horizon.

And nothing like flying above the sun in just a little Cessna...

———

The lunar eclipse of the moon in earth’s shadow would be impossible


The sun would “rise” Funny on a flat earth

Quote

On this map I have placed a red circle along the tropic of Capricorn. This circle represents where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the December solstice. In the zetetic model, the circle also represents the circumference of the sun’s motion on that day (albeit at some unspecified height above the flat earth). Pick a location beyond this circle, say in southern South America, southern Africa, or southern Australia. Notice that the sun will be north of all these locations on the December solstice. For that matter, since the sun is farthest south on this date, the sun will always be north of these locations. True enough, at noon the sun will be due north at each of these locations, casting shadows that extend due south. Also notice that before noon the sun will be northeast, and after noon the sun will be northwest So, how can the sun rise south of east and set south of west at these locations? Obviously, it can’t.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/danny-faulkner/2021/01/25/flat-earth-fails-solstice-predictions/

As you can see from this video

No evidence of a parabola at all, and instead just repeating the same dishonest BS.
On a RE, Earth takes up roughly 180 degrees of your FOV.
You can keep on going with your curve and see that.
This doesn't mean there is a magical parabola.

But regardless, that BS has nothing to do with this thread.

This thread is about your complete inability to explain why things fall.

Once more, how does your magical mass know to go down at a particular rate?
Why down, and why that rate?
And why does the rate vary?

I just showed it in a video.

And I already discussed those.

So unless you're gonna debate the video itself, I literally have video evidence that the sky domes to a peak and then comes back down.

It's crappy video evidence, since I'm like the worst photographer. But still. Shot goes all the way up then all the way down. Exactly like this:

No evidence of a parabola at all, and instead just repeating the same dishonest BS.
On a RE, Earth takes up roughly 180 degrees of your FOV.
You can keep on going with your curve and see that.
This doesn't mean there is a magical parabola.

Sounds like you're the one being dishonest. I gave over 4 hours of my life constructing this video. Would I do so if I was being dishonest? No, only if I believed in what I recorded.
Meanwhile, how long did it take you to call this BS? Oh right, less than 15 minutes.

LIAR.

I just showed it in a video.

No, you didn't. You showed exactly what is expected for a RE, and no evidence at all of any parabola.
Just what do you think demonstrating you can see around you does?
And again, this has nothing at all to do with why things fall.

So once more, what causes things to fall?
Why do they move at all?
Why do they go down rather than any other direction?
And why do they go down at a particular rate, a rate which varies depending upon location, but (when performed in a vacuum) does not vary with objects in that particular location?
Why doesn't the observed pressure gradient in the atmosphere and other fluids instead push everything up, and what causes this pressure gradient

Sounds like you're the one being dishonest.

What is with you?  You cannot stick to the topic of the thread.

And there is no evidence that people are walking around in the equivalent of a stack exhaust plume…



And people wonder why this thread was created; Why are flat earthers so dishonest?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90674.0


Because of people like you…

No, you didn't. You showed exactly what is expected for a RE, and no evidence at all of any parabola.

0:28 to 51, including the model.

REers think they can co-opt this sky shape, because they don't understand what a RE actually entails.



A round Earth has a sky that never ends. The only reason it should end, is if the curvature is actually assuming those watching the horizon are at the valley rather than the peak (as I already pointed out in my signature). But this would change the shape of Earth from round to raspberry shaped.



A planet of nothing but valleys isn't a sphere. You'd know that it you did a bit of thinking.
But you don't think. You just parrot the same stuff over and over again.

A herd animal has no business learning science. They can't do anything with it but reinforce consensus thinking.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 12, 2022, 03:16:10 PM

Sounds like you're the one being dishonest.

What is with you?  You cannot stick to the topic of the thread.

And there is no evidence that people are walking around in the equivalent of a stack exhaust plume…



And people wonder why this thread was created; Why are flat earthers so dishonest?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90674.0


Because of people like you…

I'm legit trying to teach you stuff. Stop blaming other people for your failure to learn.

And yes, ADHD makes me all over the place (changing topics is something I do).
But the only liars I see here are the people I'm staring at. Lying to me, lying to themselves even.

Truth to Power.

Quote

No, you didn't. You showed exactly what is expected for a RE, and no evidence at all of any parabola.

0:28 to 51, including the model.

REers think they can co-opt this sky shape, because they don't understand what a RE actually entails.



A round Earth has a sky that never ends. The only reason it should end, is if the curvature is actually assuming those watching the horizon are at the valley rather than the peak (as I already pointed out in my signature). But this would change the shape of Earth from round to raspberry shaped.



A planet of nothing but valleys isn't a sphere. You'd know that it you did a bit of thinking.
But you don't think. You just parrot the same stuff over and over again.

A herd animal has no business learning science. They can't do anything with it but reinforce consensus thinking.

Dude.  Seriously.  Your parabola delusion died a quick and graceless death.  And the dead horse your beating is now pulp and setting up like glue.

Your only describing normal line of sight stuff for light which works for the most part as line of sight.  With no evidence of such a force with no sign of any apparatus to generate such a force.  Not from the flight of birds, to the dust in the air to how it settles, not even in the fog and mist.  Your parabola delusion is not a factor in line of sight shooting, measuring distance with a laser rangers finder.  Not even in surveying.  And not in targeting by large naval guns.

Parabola doesn’t explain how the curvature of the earth physically blocks sunlight to create night fall.  How a lunar eclipse works.  How the sun raise can occur relatively below the clouds.

Doesn’t explain why the sun always rises from the east when this should occur.

The sun would “rise” Funny on a flat earth

On this map I have placed a red circle along the tropic of Capricorn. This circle represents where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the December solstice. In the zetetic model, the circle also represents the circumference of the sun’s motion on that day (albeit at some unspecified height above the flat earth). Pick a location beyond this circle, say in southern South America, southern Africa, or southern Australia. Notice that the sun will be north of all these locations on the December solstice. For that matter, since the sun is farthest south on this date, the sun will always be north of these locations. True enough, at noon the sun will be due north at each of these locations, casting shadows that extend due south. Also notice that before noon the sun will be northeast, and after noon the sun will be northwest So, how can the sun rise south of east and set south of west at these locations? Obviously, it can’t.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/danny-faulkner/2021/01/25/flat-earth-fails-solstice-predictions/

It doesn’t explain why those looking south from Africa, South America, and Australia see the same stars and constellations



And this alone totally kills your parabola delusion…..

Wrong.

Parabola theory says that objects only appear to curve,

How are these two different sets of towers parallel on the horizon?





With no sign /indication of these distortions:


https://www.vision-doctor.com/en/optical-errors/distortion.html

In your parabola delusion where the “lensing” effect has to be powerful enough to hide the sun at sunset on the flat earth fantasy?


***************************
Now.  Either stuck to the topic of this thread.  Or go create your own thread on parabola’s.
***************************

I'm legit trying to teach you stuff.

One.  Not the topic of this thread.

Two.  Zero evidence that there is something that generates for each person the equivalent of being surrounded by a stack exhaust plume…

But the only liars I see here are the people I'm staring at.

Dude. I went looking for your damn parabola.

I even found the shadow that stack exhaust casts…




And still couldn’t find your F’n parabola.  Much less a force that could create it, and the apparatus it would take to project your parabola.

Your parabola is D E A D, dead..

I just showed it in a video.

And I already discussed those.

So unless you're gonna debate the video itself, I literally have video evidence that the sky domes to a peak and then comes back down.

Where's the peak?

Quote

No, you didn't. You showed exactly what is expected for a RE, and no evidence at all of any parabola.

0:28 to 51, including the model.

Quoting a timestamp wont help you.

REers think they can co-opt this sky shape, because they don't understand what a RE actually entails.

Quite the opposite.
We realise what a RE actually entails, and realise you are spouting delusional BS about it.

A round Earth has a sky that never ends.

And the easiest way to show this in no way helps your case is asking what you think you should see on a RE looking down?

Do you think you should see sky, or Earth?
The sky going around Earth doesn't mean you can see it in all directions.

Do you know what your delusional BS lacks? Any indication of a person who is making the observations and what they should see.

Here is a simple example:


On the left we have the RE model, and shown as a purple dot a hypothetical viewer (which for this scale would be quite high).
On the right we have a zoom in of that person.
Their vision should be the outside of the circle.
The see the sky for the top half, and most of the bottom half is taken up by the ground.
As the altitude changes, the amount of the bottom half that the ground occupies changes.
When really close to the ground, it will be roughly 180 degrees.

This matches what is observed.

The only reason it should end

Is if something, like Earth, obstructs the view. Just like what is observed in reality and what is expected for the RE model.

You'd know that it you did a bit of thinking.
But you don't think. You just parrot the same stuff over and over again.
A herd animal has no business learning science. They can't do anything with it but reinforce consensus thinking.

Great job projecting yet again.
If you actually bothered thinking you would realise that your observation matches what is expected for an observer on Earth.
But you don't think, instead you just repeat the same refuted BS again and again, all while avoiding the actual issues which clearly demonstrate the nonsense you are spouting is delusional BS.


Once more, WHY DO THINGS FALL?
What causes them to move at all?
Why does this cause them to go down rather than any other direction?
Why does this cause them to go at a particular rate which varies with location?
What causes the observed pressure gradient and why doesn't that push everything up?

I'm legit trying to teach you stuff.

Have you considered that that might be your problem? That you are trying to teach rather than trying to defend your BS?
You treat us like complete imbeciles that should just gobble and accept whatever BS you say.

We are not morons, we are not just going to blindly accept whatever delusional BS you say.
Instead we will think about it and point out the massive flaws which show you are spouting BS.

Stop blaming other people for your complete inability to defend your BS.

But the only liars I see here are the people I'm staring at.

You mean when you shot the video and were looking in a mirror?

We have clearly explained how what you are spouting is delusional BS, which doesn't demonstrate what you claim it does.
Yet you insist on repeating the same refuted BS.

That makes you a liar, not us.

Here's my video. Sorry that it's not a Youtube, but Youtube hates flat earth videos.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/meqCFCTAmVCY/

As you can see from this video, (1) I am a crossdresser and not a very good one, (2) I was able to curve my viewpoint all the way from straight ahead above me and upside down behind me meaning yes (Virginia) there is a parabola. (3) I also tested viewpoints from different heights, and (4) showed that there isn't just a parabola but a fully mobile dome.

You don’t have to hijack anymore threads for your parabola…

It now has a dedicated thread.

Line of sight or parabola/personal dome, you make the call
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91082.0

I'm not hijacking threads. I'm explaining this as part of theory.

For the record, that's a terrible idea.

I'm not hijacking threads. I'm explaining this as part of theory.

Your parabola has nothing to do with why things fall.

Instead you were unable to answer simple questions so you deflected to it.

Once more, why do things move at all rather than remaining where they are?
What provides the motive for it to move?
Why in any particular direction (i.e. why down)?
Why at any particular rate?
Why does that rate vary with location but not with object (at least not for most objects)?

I'm not sure but I think the person who started drawing shots of a person between two slopes was one of you.

I already had addressed that 100 lb women WEIGHS 100 lb. She doesn't mass 100 lb, then weigh enough to collapse staircases under her feet. Nor does she weigh 100 lb yet have bone crunching gravity wreck her entire body.

Gravity is an entirely unnecessary explanation for what matter does completely by virtue of being heavier than the air. So this point forward, I will use weight and mass interchangeably, since with gravity there is no distinction in terms.

https://spectacularsci.com/2021/07/why-do-helium-balloons-float-in-the-air/

Helium balloons float in the air because it is lighter than the air around it. Since Helium is the second lightest element in the world, the air around it bunches up under it and pushed the Helium or whatever thing contains Helium up! That is what balloons filled with Helium floats in the air.

Notice no bullshit math is involved in that explanation.

A leaf or feather TEMPORARILY flies due to wind because its weight (or mass) is overcome by wind. It is near the weight of the air but slightly more.
A hang glider is definitely heavier, but temporarily flies because it is not very dense and very aerodynamic.
A jumbo jet is much heavier than air, and gravity should punish the hell out of it, but it is aerodynamic and it has powerful propulsion to drive it into the air.

What you need is air weight not gravity. Weights should be reset to starting at that, with a way to subtract upward force from the best air weight if something weighs less than air. But alas, our scales probably aren't up to the task. So we call air's weight zero since it's not measured much. But, thanks to the internet, air weighs...

Air is a light substance, and 1 cubic foot of air is estimated to weigh 0.0807 pounds.

If the weight of a hot air balloon is greater than air (it usually is) it sits on the ground. But heated air rises and is trapped in the balloon, and when it does, it couples with the lightweight materials of the balloon allow significant upward force. The amount of gas can be adjusted to make the thing go higher or lower, with a valve to release gas. That is, when hot air releases, the balloon's own weight reasserts itself, making this actually about density as much as propulsion.

The forces in play here are propulsion (actually, technically is the generation of force, not a force itself) and buoyancy. Density simply means that objects fall or sink.

Gravity is an entirely unnecessary explanation for what matter does completely by virtue of being heavier than the air.

Then what is the flat earth math and solutions for these problems…

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

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

————————————————



http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mincl.html
————————————————
What forces causes a spring in a spring scale to elongate when used in a scale in accordance to Hooke’s law?

https://ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/3050/Ch05Nwtn3rdLaw/Hmwk.html

Ex 5.8 Two 100-N weights are attached to a spring scale as shown. Does the scale read zero, 100 N, or 200 N -- or some other reading?



The scale reads the tension in the string. The tension in the string is 100 N. This is the force the string must exert up on either of the 100-N weights at either end of the string.

Nothing is moving, nothing is accelerating, so the net force on the spring is zero. Likewise, the net force on either of the 100-N weights is also zero. But that is another question. The spring scale does not measure the net force. The spring scale simply measures the tension, the magnitude of the force exerted by the string.

If there is no gravity, why is there tension on the string/rope?  And why is the spring scale measuring the force in accordance to hooks law?
————————————————

A hang glider is definitely heavier, but temporarily flies because it is not very dense and very aerodynamic.
A jumbo jet is much heavier than air, and gravity should punish the hell out of it, but it is aerodynamic and it has powerful propulsion to drive it into the air.

In the flat earth delusion of no gravity, why do these objects need to generate the force of lift to counter act the force of gravity.

And why can lift be in equilibrium with gravity? B

A fluid flowing around an object exerts a force on it. Lift is the component of this force that is perpendicular to the oncoming flow direction.[1] It contrasts with the drag force, which is the component of the force parallel to the flow direction. Lift conventionally acts in an upward direction in order to counter the force of gravity, but it can act in any direction at right angles to the flow.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)

Funny how the majority of the world has moved on from flat earth to create safer, accurate, predictable modeling and engineering feats.

While flat earth cannot even show how a modern navy could have a better tactical advantage using flat earth.

Flat earth provides no alternate modeling that is not more accurate.  Modeling that doesn’t create safer buildings, bridges, and better feats of engineering.


Flat earth is the jealous sibling that can only unjustly criticize, and try to poke holes while providing no meaningful feat to advance the human cause.

What would a flat earth engineering school look like?

How would flat earth make better bridges, more efficient aircraft, better navigation systems, targeting systems with better tactical advantages?

Gravity is an entirely unnecessary explanation for what matter does completely by virtue of being heavier than the air.

If it's unnecessary, why is it used for everything from rollercoaster design to super-structures to air travel and even your smart phone/tablet, to great success and accuracy in engineering and use?

If everyone is relying on it, why isn't everything broken? Calculating and engineering using something that doesn't exist would be catostrophic at best.

"We know that Earth's gravity pulls everything towards it, including the moon, but somehow it stays up, as if suspended by an opposite force. But there is no opposite force countering gravity, instead the trick to staying is a 'sideways' motion called an orbit. You see orbits every day, when you throw a ball, it makes a tiny little orbit. The only difference between a ball's orbit and the moon's is that the ball eventually hits the ground. Basically the reason is speed. (28,460 km/h) If you could throw your ball fast enough, it would bend around the world and return back to you."

But here's the thing, an orbit only happens when the force of repulsion equals the force of attraction. Ergo, if there isn't a counterforce in this equation, then there isn't gravity. So they make up centrifugal force. Here's a magnetic example of repulsion equaling attraction.


(This guy's a tool, he lost the thread, and his video wound up being about centrifugal force because his magnet didn't generate enough repulsion. Lemme find a better video...)


But while we see at great speeds (Gravitron ride) something resembling a powerful force, we neither see regular evidence of it (which would make us constantly glide along the ground, effectively, if gravity and centrifugal force are equal, we should be orbiting too; that we are not proves that the Earth is not orbiting or rotating, whether or not you think gra) nor evidence that it is the force countering gravity, nor that gravity even exists.


So, in the first video, the explanation of a force with no counterforce, even given the explanation of eternal speed, would still lead to the gradual attraction of the moon (until it hit the Earth). That hasn't happened. And in the second video, the explanation that gravity is opposed instead to centrifugal force is also wrong as (1) humans aren't pushed up into the air  by the so-called constant rotation of Earth and (2) there is only evidence of centrifugal force when objects move. This is clearly seen in the third video where the riders are pinned to the walls hurtling upwards, only when inside a fast-moving machine. The Earth is STILL.   

So no, there isn't either gravity or an opposite force. The moon just orbits.

It does so because there is no air resistance to its speed, so its propulsion continues forever. As objects lose speed, they sink as their mass density exceeds the mass of their medium. As long as an object is moving with enough speed, such a thing won't happen, but it also must be in a non-atmospheric medium (no air resistance).

If it's unnecessary, why is it used for everything from rollercoaster design to super-structures to air travel and even your smart phone/tablet, to great success and accuracy in engineering and use?

If everyone is relying on it, why isn't everything broken? Calculating and engineering using something that doesn't exist would be catastrophic at best.

But is it though.

I don't have a smartphone. But my Kindle doesn't use gravity to operate. It uses good old fashion

Fact: most of out inventions in the modern era came not from theoretical physicists (Einstein, Newton, Hawking) but from practical theorists (Archimedes, Tesla, etc). And smartphones run by electromagnetism, remote data storage (internet), and binary coding. Not gravity. 
And many rollercoaster rides actually to a large extent defy gravity. The reason they use "gravity" is that it's actually other force. That is, you get the same force by setting up the equation without gravity and just carrying it into something else.

Quote

If it's unnecessary, why is it used for everything from rollercoaster design to super-structures to air travel and even your smart phone/tablet, to great success and accuracy in engineering and use?

If everyone is relying on it, why isn't everything broken? Calculating and engineering using something that doesn't exist would be catastrophic at best.

But is it though.

I don't have a smartphone. But my Kindle doesn't use gravity to operate. It uses good old fashion

What did you use to shoot that video? If you shot it with a Kindle Fire HD, it too uses gravity.

Feature Specifications — Fire HD 8 (2022, 12th Gen)
- Accelerometer:   Yes

In fact, all generations of the FIre HD have an accelerometer.

Fact: most of out inventions in the modern era came not from theoretical physicists (Einstein, Newton, Hawking) but from practical theorists (Archimedes, Tesla, etc). And smartphones run by electromagnetism, remote data storage (internet), and binary coding. Not gravity.

Your missing something else inside of smartphones/tablets, called an accelerometer.

An accelerometer is a tool that measures proper acceleration.[1] Proper acceleration is the acceleration (the rate of change of velocity) of a body in its own instantaneous rest frame;[2] this is different from coordinate acceleration, which is acceleration in a fixed coordinate system. For example, an accelerometer at rest on the surface of the Earth will measure an acceleration due to Earth's gravity, straight upwards[3] (by definition) of g ≈ 9.81 m/s2. By contrast, accelerometers in free fall (falling toward the center of the Earth at a rate of about 9.81 m/s2) will measure zero.

And many rollercoaster rides actually to a large extent defy gravity. The reason they use "gravity" is that it's actually other force. That is, you get the same force by setting up the equation without gravity and just carrying it into something else.

Umm, no you don't.


1 A rollercoaster in numbers Using a smartphone, Ann-Marie Pendrill of Lund University collected vertical accelerometer data on the Valkyria rollercoaster at Liseberg in Sweden, from which she plotted the G-force on a rider as a function of time. Safety guidelines recommend that the maximum rate of acceleration in any part of a ride should be no more than 15 g/s (rising dashed lines). There are also limits to how long riders can be exposed to different forces for (coloured horizontal lines). After exposure, these forces must drop off fast, with the minimum “drop rate” of 0.8 g/s (falling dashed lines) limiting how long each exposure lasts in practice. (Courtesy: Phys. Educ. 55 065012/CC BY 4.0 IOP Publishing)

Suffice to say, good thing you don't design rollercoasters.

Ok.  Thanks for affirming that flat earth offers no modeling that is accurate or predictable.

"We know that Earth's gravity pulls everything towards it, including the moon, but somehow it stays up, as if suspended by an opposite force. But there is no opposite force

Again gravity is the attraction of items with mass.

External

In physics, gravity (from Latin gravitas 'weight'[1]) is a fundamental interaction which causes mutual attraction between all things with mass or energy. Gravity is, by far, the weakest of the four fundamental interactions, approximately 1038 times weaker than the strong interaction, 1036 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 1029 times weaker than the weak interaction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

We can demonstrate gravity through experiments..

Physicists Just Made The Smallest Gravitational Field Measurement Ever

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-taken-the-smallest-gravitational-field-measurement-yet/amp

The tiny gravitational field between two 90-milligram spheres of gold has just been measured for the first time.

And the effects of gravity are seen in nature.

A tidal bore,[1] often simply given as bore in context, is a tidal phenomenon in which the leading edge of the incoming tide forms a wave (or waves) of water that travels up a river or narrow bay, reversing the direction of the river or bay's current. It is a strong tide that pushes up the river, against the current.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_bore

Tides and tidal bores where flat earth only offers the contradiction water seeks its own level on a global scale.

You

including the moon, but somehow it stays up, as if suspended by an opposite force. But there is no opposite force

The earth and moon revolve around each other around a point called a barycenter.

Motion of the Earth-Moon System about their Barycenter: Planetary Free Spheres Motion

https://repository.lib.fit.edu/bitstream/handle/11141/768/Motion%20of%20the%20Earth-Moon%20System.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

In fact though, Earth and its moon revolve about a common center of mass known as the barycenter (Gr. “heavy” center). The Earth-Moon system can be thought of as a having a “fulcrum”; the rotation of the two masses is about this point. As with a lever, there is balance when the mass of Earth times its distance to their barycenter is equal to the lunar mass times its distance to said barycenter.

You

You see orbits every day, when you throw a ball, it makes a tiny little orbit.

You mean…

The Physics of Baseball: How Far Can You Throw?

Background
An object that is thrown, kicked or otherwise launched through the air is called a projectile. The study of how projectiles move through the air is called projectile motion. When a projectile is launched, it has an initial velocity (its speed and direction of motion). When a projectile is moving through the air, however, it is subject to the force of gravity, which causes it to move down toward Earth. It is also subject to the force of air resistance, which slows the projectile down.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-physics-of-baseball-how-far-can-you-throw/?amp=true

You mean the trajectory of a projectile from the study of ballistics.

I offered this

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

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

What was the more accurate and superior mathematical flat earth modeling offered by you?


You

But here's the thing, an orbit only happens when the force of repulsion equals the force of attraction. Ergo, if there isn't a counterforce in this equation

Shrugs…

Motion of the Earth-Moon System about their Barycenter: Planetary Free Spheres Motion

Given that the radius of Earth  = 6378 , mass of Earth is  = 5.97 × 1024 , mass of the moon  = 7.35 × 1022 , and the mean
distance between centers of mass is =
384,400. The barycenter’s location (r) is
readily calculated from    =   ( − );  = 4675 . Thus their barycenter is  −  = 6378 − 4675 = 1703  below Earth’s surface.
It is the motion of the Earth-Moon system barycenter, which forms the ellipse that is the orbit about the sun. This is illustrated in the figure to the right. The orbit of Earth’s center about the sun is sinusoidal about this ellipse.
The revolution about the barycenter is a fundamental frequency (ω) balancing the gravitational attraction of the two bodies with the
centrifugal force:   =  2( − ), 2
where G is the universal gravitational constant. Rearranging: 2 = (2)2 = 6.674×10−11 ×5.97×1024
 (384,400×103)2×(384,400−4675)×103
27.3 , the sidereal month. As seen in the figure, the Earth-Moon system moves along in its solar orbit and it takes longer than 27.3 days to move from one last quarter to the next last quarter; this is the synodic month of 29.5 days.
Why would this matter?
Appreciating the motion of the Earth-Moon system about their barycenter leads to a clearer understanding of tides – ocean, atmospheric, and solid Earth. It illustrates that the time between lunar quarters is not uniform. It focuses attention on the importance of the barycenter as the point of revolution about the Sun, not Earth’s center.

https://repository.lib.fit.edu/bitstream/handle/11141/768/Motion%20of%20the%20Earth-Moon%20System.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

If you missed it, “Appreciating the motion of the Earth-Moon system about their barycenter leads to a clearer understanding of tides – ocean, atmospheric, and solid Earth. It illustrates that the time between lunar quarters is not uniform. It focuses attention on the importance of the barycenter as the point of revolution about the Sun, not Earth’s center.”


You

then there isn't gravity.

Only because you misrepresent the subject.


Has nothing to do with demonstrable reality.

I already had addressed that 100 lb women WEIGHS 100 lb.

Asserting that wont help you.
She has a mass of 100 lb, and a weight of ~100 lbf =~445 N.
lb is not a unit of weight, no matter how much you want to pretend it is.

Pulling this pathetic nonsense to pretend if gravity was real their weight should be 9.8 times what it is will not help you.

Gravity is an entirely unnecessary explanation for what matter does completely by virtue of being heavier than the air.

Being heavier than air requires weight in the first place which required gravity.
If you mean more dense than the air, that provides no reason at all for things to fall.

So this point forward, I will use weight and mass interchangeably, since with gravity there is no distinction in terms.

Quite the opposite.
Gravity easily provides a distinction. Mass is the mass of the object, which relates to 2 things, its inertia, and the force acting on it due to gravity.
The force acting on it due to gravity is its weight.
If you were to go to a different body, such as the moon, where gravity is less, your weight would be less but your mass would be the same.

Notice no bullshit math is involved in that explanation.

Because that entirely fails as a complete explanation.

Notice how the actual part of the explanation provided:
"the air around it bunches up under it and pushed the Helium or whatever thing contains Helium up"
Why should it only push helium up?
Why should the density of the helium matter?

In reality, in a fluid, the fluid will "bunch up" under it (i.e. be at a higher pressure under it than above it) and push it up.
This applies regardless of what the object is.
It applies equally to a helium filled balloon and a solid lead ball.
It also applies to a steel tank which is filled with helium.
But of those three, only the helium filled balloon will rise.

So you need more of an explanation.
You also need to include the weight of the object. And you then need to compare the weight of the object to the upwards buoyant force.

It is near the weight of the air but slightly more.

It's geometry is vastly more important.
It is a large flat object. It has a very large surface area to mass ratio.
This allows wind, which applies a force based upon area, to apply a quite significant force compared to gravity which applies a force due to mass.

What you need is air weight not gravity.

Air weight is due to gravity.
No gravity, no weight.

The forces in play here are propulsion (actually, technically is the generation of force, not a force itself) and buoyancy. Density simply means that objects fall or sink.

No, the forces in play here are gravity, trying to pull it down, and buoyancy, trying to push it up.
If gravity is greater, it goes down. If buoyancy is greater it goes up.
Quite simple.

Density alone explains nothing.
Density does not explain why an object should fall.
Just like you have yet again failed to explain.
You continually run from simple questions which expose the problems with your nonsense.

Here they are again, see if you can actually answer them.
Why do things move at all rather than remaining where they are?
What provides the motive for it to move?
Why in any particular direction (i.e. why down)?
Why at any particular rate?
Why does that rate vary with location but not with object (at least not for most objects)?

"We know that Earth's gravity pulls everything towards it, including the moon, but somehow it stays up, as if suspended by an opposite force.

Yes, as if suspended by the apparent centrifugal force.
In reality, we observe the moon constantly accelerating towards Earth.
But due to its lateral velocity it orbits instead of falling towards Earth.
This is all quite easily understood.

But here's the thing, an orbit only happens when the force of repulsion equals the force of attraction.

Pure BS.
If the force of attraction equals the force of repulsion, there wont be an orbit, as there will be no net force acting on the object.
In such a situation, any sideways motion will result in the object getting further away or closer to the object, with it just passing by, not orbiting it.

An orbit only occurs when the attractive force provides the necessary acceleration to maintain that orbit.

For a circular orbit, that is given by:
F=m*v^2/r=m*v*omega=m*omega^2*r

Here's a magnetic example of repulsion equaling attraction.

No, here is an example of someone say quite misleading stuff.
The centrifugal force is an inertial force. This means it is a pseduoforce which acts in a non-inertial reference frame.
I think it is a lot easier to understand it in an inertial reference frame which doesn't require that pseudoforce.
But the math works out the same, the distinction is that in an inertial reference frame you need that force accelerating you inwards to maintain the orbit, while in the non-inertial frame the centrifugal force pushes you outwards.

Lemme find a better video

There is no orbit at all in that video.

which would make us constantly glide along the ground, effectively, if gravity and centrifugal force are equal, we should be orbiting too

Why should it be equal?

Yet again you just make a bold assertion with absolutely nothing to justify it.
If you want to make it equal, then at the equator you would need to be travelling at roughly 8000 m/s, or have an orbital period of roughly 90 minutes.
We are going much slower, with a period of roughly 24 hours.

that we are not proves that the Earth is not orbiting or rotating

No, that just proves you are quite happy to assert delusional BS with no justification at all to pretend there is a problem for the RE.

humans aren't pushed up into the air by the so-called constant rotation of Earth

Great job contradicting yourself.
First you want to claim it should be perfectly balanced, meaning humans should glide along the surface.
Now you want to claim the centrifugal force is much greater so humans should be pushed in to the air.
All while ignoring the real option, the centrifugal force is quite small, roughly 0.3% of gravity if I recall correctly, for people on the equator.
Meaning it will just result in a slight reduction in apparent weight at the equator. (And note, that is measured).

there is only evidence of centrifugal force when objects move.

Like the rotation of Earth and the orbit of the moon?

The moon just orbits.
It does so because there is no air resistance to its speed

That only works if it is travelling in a straight line.
It is not, so you need a force to change its path.

But is it though.

If it is unnecessary why are you unable to provide an alternative and instead continually appeal to weight which relies upon gravity?

Fact: most of out inventions in the modern era came not from theoretical physicists (Einstein, Newton, Hawking) but from practical theorists (Archimedes, Tesla, etc). And smartphones run by electromagnetism, remote data storage (internet), and binary coding.

You mean smartphones which rely upon quantum mechanics, and which contain GPS receivers which require relativistic corrections to function (including special relativity, i.e. gravity)?

you get the same force by setting up the equation without gravity and just carrying it into something else.

The distinction is the explanatory power.
Sure, you can fully use gravity and get all the same equations, while pretending it isn't gravity.
But that isn't providing an alternative.

But here's the thing, an orbit only happens when the force of repulsion equals the force of attraction. Ergo, if there isn't a counterforce in this equation, then there isn't gravity. So they make up centrifugal force. Here's a magnetic example of repulsion equaling attraction.

What does your ramblings have to do with the opening post?

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

+++++ With no force of gravity.  What is the flat earth mathematical model.  For the flat earth no gravity, how can a sledgehammer sit on a pumpkin and not damage it.  But the same sledgehammer can be dropped and smash the pumpkin.+++++


You cannot come up with a realistic flat earth model that is very simple for Newton mathematics and spherical earth to model and predict.  So.  Why would we care about your off topic ranting on more complicated issues that still require gravity.

I am a crossdresser and not a very good one,

WHAT.

When everyone tells you there is gravity, you assume it is so. But let's say you calculate for a rollercoaster ride.

The equation at the very heart of all these calculations is a quadratic equation: ax2 + bx + c = 0. When a roller coaster designer needs to make calculations, she starts with a very basic formula: distance = (initial velocity) (time)+ 1/2 (acceleration) (time)2.

So we can't prove time exists either, but we use it.

What I mean by time really existing is that being a philosophy student, time is not the motion of the sun and moon, time is not arbitrary day length and it's not even more arbitrary zones or daylight savings. The only time we can treat as real is the space between events (I drop a glass jar is takes about a second to hit the ground and shatter everywhere). Time in this case is less the abstraction we know of and more a factor of timing. 

https://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/does-time-really-exist/

But let's say, I could definitely prove that time doesn't exist. How would I go about with this formula? I'd probably  have to switch time to some other constant or variable like the amount of friction. Or I'd need to trial and error the acceleration without it, to see what was in acceptable limits.

Now even though gravity is conspicuously absent in this formula, you can add it in somewhere when calculating what sort of forces the ride has to withstand in terms of weight. But this doesn't prove gravity. Far from it. As a matter of safety, rides typically are a threshold above their listed capacity to account not only for the momentum of the ride potentially forcing screws off their holes and such, but also for morbidly obese grandpas, and dumb kids the sneak in bowling balls in their backpacks to see if they can launch them during the downward rush of the ride.  Yes, ppl really are that dumb.

[quoteIn 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]

You don't. You're discussing forces of momentum and either confusing or disguising the fact.

Also, your test is against a control, not against another idea. I never found tests against controls particularly satisfying, which is why I think the scientific method should be revised. One control, two distinct tests.

As objects fall, they pick up speed until they reach terminal velocity.

If we put the same speed horizontally (there shouldn't be any newtons of force, because it is not using this toward-ground weight in its force, and launched it at equal velocity at your head using a string), you'd probably tell me that it isn't the same speed or force, which proves gravity. I'd tell you it proves nothing, because we haven't accounted for wind resistance. And so we need to put string on some kind of convwryer and repeat this test over and over again, testing for not only wind resistance but also mechanical resistance, until we succeed in the same motion, thus smashing your lil' pumpkin head wide open. Not newtons. Momentum and weight.

Yeah, sorry you haven't proven anything. Nice Jack O'Lanterns though. We always use pumpkins nowadays for pie.

When everyone tells you there is gravity,

Hold a 50 pound weight straight out at arms length , should high.  What’s that strain you feel and physically force placed on the shoulder?  Why are muscles straining and extending energy to hold up a motionless weight?  In a no gravity flat earth delusion.

You

you assume it is so. But let's say you calculate for a rollercoaster ride.

Quote

The equation at the very heart of all these calculations is a quadratic equation: ax2 + bx + c = 0. When a roller coaster designer needs to make calculations, she starts with a very basic formula: distance = (initial velocity) (time)+ 1/2 (acceleration) (time)2.

Where would this apply in a roller coaster?  Calculation for what power input is needed for the lifting drive to overcome gravity and friction to lift the roller coaster to the top of the hill?  I don’t even see where the angle and slope of the hills are taken in account.

So we can't prove time exists either, but we use it.

Again….

Ok.  Thanks for affirming that flat earth offers no modeling that is accurate or predictable.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 14, 2022, 10:40:38 AM

"We know that Earth's gravity pulls everything towards it, including the moon, but somehow it stays up, as if suspended by an opposite force. But there is no opposite force

Again gravity is the attraction of items with mass.

External

Quote

In physics, gravity (from Latin gravitas 'weight'[1]) is a fundamental interaction which causes mutual attraction between all things with mass or energy. Gravity is, by far, the weakest of the four fundamental interactions, approximately 1038 times weaker than the strong interaction, 1036 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 1029 times weaker than the weak interaction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

We can demonstrate gravity through experiments..

Quote

Physicists Just Made The Smallest Gravitational Field Measurement Ever

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-taken-the-smallest-gravitational-field-measurement-yet/amp

The tiny gravitational field between two 90-milligram spheres of gold has just been measured for the first time.

And the effects of gravity are seen in nature.

Quote

A tidal bore,[1] often simply given as bore in context, is a tidal phenomenon in which the leading edge of the incoming tide forms a wave (or waves) of water that travels up a river or narrow bay, reversing the direction of the river or bay's current. It is a strong tide that pushes up the river, against the current.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_bore

Tides and tidal bores where flat earth only offers the contradiction water seeks its own level on a global scale.

You

Now even though gravity is conspicuously absent in this formula,

What are you babbling about.  It depends how and what your solving for.  Most roller coasters are in a closed circuit.  Use your formula to size the motors needed in watts to lift the roller coaster up the first hill and keep the roller coaster moving in its circuit to overcome friction and gravity. 

Again…

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

What was the more accurate and superior mathematical flat earth modeling offered by you?

——-Why does the force of gravity effect how high an object will reach  if there is no gravity. And to an extent greater than what is accounted for by air resistance?———


You

You don't. You're discussing forces of momentum and either confusing or disguising the fact.

Please show using the three laws of motion how a stationary sledgehammer overcomes the friction of air uses “momentum” to become motivated to move and accelerate down.


It’s no different if you hold the sledgehammer off the ground and use a force to throw the sledgehammer out instead of down.

If you hold the sledgehammer in your open palm up, why doesn’t it just start to go out away from you?  You claim there is no gravity, no force to make it fall down. Why can’t I make the sledgehammer go out away from me with no force.  Like how you say there is no force to make the sledgehammer go down.

Or up?  There is less air resistance up.  Why can’t I just hold the sledgehammer in my open palm and make it go up with no force.  I can even place my hand on top and remove it.  It takes a force to make the sledgehammer to raise up off my hand.  Why does it not take a force to motivate a sledgehammer to move from no momentum/inertia to overcome friction with the atmosphere to not only move down, but accelerate down. 

When everyone tells you there is gravity, you assume it is so. But let's say you calculate for a rollercoaster ride.

Quote

The equation at the very heart of all these calculations is a quadratic equation: ax2 + bx + c = 0. When a roller coaster designer needs to make calculations, she starts with a very basic formula: distance = (initial velocity) (time)+ 1/2 (acceleration) (time)2.

The key word in your quote is "starts".

You got that quote from here:
Roller Coaster Relationships

The same page you quoted cited two more refernces to "Explore" more regarding roller coaster design; A NYT article and a video.

From the NYT article interviewing roller coaster designers:

Mr. Miller and his three partners, who work in a small suite of offices on the outskirts of Cincinnati decorated with coaster posters and odd leftovers from various projects, crunch the numbers carefully, using their own programs (with names like Splinal Tap) that can turn the squiggly lines of a rough initial design into a more polished one. At regular intervals along the route, the software calculates G-forces — up and down, side to side and forward and back — on riders in the front, middle or back of the car.
Coaster designers are constrained by the amount of potential energy they have to work with, which is determined by the weight of the car and its riders, height and gravity.

From the video interviewing a roller coaster designer, he opens with:

The design of a roller coaster is very simple of course we have to thank isaac newton for most of it although now with space age technology they say that he wasn't always correct in his uh formulas for gravity, however, until something better comes along I still use his formulas.

So you have now been disabused of the notion that roller coaster design and designers don't factor in newtonian gravity calculations into their engineering processes as you can see straight from the horse's mouth.