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

Here, here is a globeball.



You should be able to spin it around, and get water to bond with it. Just use a faucet and keep dumping water in or whatever.

I'll make a prediction. No amount of effort will make this happen. Instead, the ball will float atop the water. You will then claim that of course you shouldn't be able to see this, because the Earth's gravity is so much more massive.

So why are birds able to defy it so easily?

Yes, sometimes water bubbles up from ground in a brake. This happens evenly, so no turn of turbine.

Maybe because on top of being woke and a globalist, you're out of shape? I was walking uphill yesterday on a hike and it didn't seem that hard.

I shouldn't have been able to get up the hill (by your theories).

It was in the MIDDLE of a hill. I want you to think about that.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 21, 2022, 06:20:28 AM

Here, here is a globeball.



You should be able to spin it around, and get water to bond with it. Just use a faucet and keep dumping water in or whatever.

I'll make a prediction. No amount of effort will make this happen. Instead, the ball will float atop the water. You will then claim that of course you shouldn't be able to see this, because the Earth's gravity is so much more massive.

So it’s not how it works, you know exactly why it’s not how it works, but you say it should work like that anyway?

But birds, something, something!

You know too why it doesn't work.

But gravity, something, something.

You know too why it doesn't work.

the bottom part of the Earth drowning

Mine definitely gets an A

To improve your experimental model, you could encase the ball in another inflatable ball

Why do things move at all rather than remaining where they are? (Don't bother trying to appeal to momentum because the object is stationary, so you need to explain what is giving the object its kinetic energy).
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)?

What causes the pressure gradient in the atmosphere (or any other fluid)?
Why does this result in objects being pushed down, when the pressure gradient should push the object up?

No, a gun will not spontaneously discharge It's an object that won't do anything without external input. A better term for this is negligent discharge because the human was negligent and messed up and cause the gun to go off.

There are all sorts of ways of causing a negligent discharge,

*  Assuming the gun is unloaded and pulling the trigger.
*   Assuming the safety is on and/or works and pulling the trigger.
*   Some guns are not drop safe, dropping them will cause the hammer to hit the primer.
*   Dropping the gun, going to catch it and pulling the trigger in the process.
*   Catching the trigger on your pants when reholstering.
*   Pulling the gun towards you by the barrel and the trigger catches on something.
*  Unholstering a gun and pulling the trigger while doing so.
*   Improper holster that doesn't cover the trigger and then an external object pulling it.
*   Keeping your finger on the trigger when you are not ready to shoot and then tensing.
*  Grabbing the gun out of a case and you pull the trigger while doing so.
*   Cooking off, if a gun gets hot enough it will cause the ammo to go off, can happen in housefires (which is why you don't want to store ammo and a gun in the same safe).
*   Slamfires where the action loads another round and fires it off, seen most often in old SKS rifles and in the S&W 15-22 before they fixed it.

In terms of the Earth in comparison to the sun and sun, you objectively cannot prove that the Earth moves or curves.

In terms of physical objects, gravity literally has nothing to do with their motion.

If I throw a ball, what is happening?

Without external stimuli, nothing happens here.

Neither does "gravity" happen on its own. What you have called gravity is 100% the result of motion.

when it stops moving, it falls.

If I put a wastebasket on the floor, you can tell me that the Earth rotates all you want. 1 hour passes, 10 hours pass, 280 hours pass. Wastebasket is still in the same spot if you didn't move it in any way. Don't try to tell you momentum? That's really all it is, guy.

I think I answered the second question in the course of explaining the first.

When an object stops, it falls or rises based on being heavier or lighter than the medium.

Rate of fall, like rate of float, is based on the difference in mass/density/whatever.

Pressure gradient is sorted in the same way these mixed drinks separate.

I have explained this. Again. And again. And again.

Ignore and deflect?

How about this? You have to send me an Amazon gift card for every time I have to explain this again. Maybe then all this arguing is actually worth my time.

Ignore and deflect? Or actually listen this time?

Answered before in other threads. Answered just now in the water wheel thread.

By "ignore and deflect", I mean that you guys ignore the answer, then deflect by turning it into me "changing the subject." Or you deflect by telling me that my answer wasn't a "real" answer.

Answered before in other threads.

. In fact, due to parabolic overlap,

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 25, 2022, 12:27:19 AM

Answered before in other threads.

Sigh. 

Then quote and link to where you answered to this…

Bigger Sigh.

Stop being some lazy, and find it yourself.
If you can find it, you can dispute its merits. Otherwise, asked and answered.

And btw, I answered it again (water wheel thread), just to humor people. No True Scotsman doesn't apply to reality. "I don't like/understand this answer, so it isn't an answer." No, I answered you. Go look in the water wheel thread.






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?

I don't use math. Math is the refuge of people trying to appear more intelligent than they are. I know my strengths and limits, and I know that I lost interest in math after they taught us imaginary numbers.
√-9 = 3i. That is great, but 3i doesn't actually exist.

Omg, Einstein wrote E=mc² he's so brilliant! :fangirl_squee: Yes, but unless people understand what a formula means, it's completely irrelevant. With Einstein, we are told that energy is simply matter traveling at the speed of light. But why is the formula squared? Does this squaring pertain just to the speed of light, or is matter also squared?

And unless you can explain why it means a damned thing to an engineer trying to build a rollercoaster, this energy has no bearing on his world. Nor does his theory of special relativity. By the way, is this theory even falsifiable? Or is it just just going to become a "law" in 200 years, like Newton's "law" of gravity. Math is a way of spouting gibberish and having lesser minds declare you brilliant.

Quote

1Earnestly pursue love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

6Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 7Even in the case of lifeless instruments, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone recognize the tune they are playing unless the notes are distinct? 8Again, if the trumpet sounds a muffled call, who will prepare for battle? 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.

Superior math? No, I am not interested in trying to impress you with math. I am interested in providing images that explain models. Because a picture is a thousand words, and pictures can be analyzed by the totally illiterate. Yet somehow, you being educated is worse than being totally illiterate, as you can't analyze my models.

But here, have some math.
√-∞/0

What did I give you this math for, you ask? Simple, to show you that in upper levels what we call math is actually theoretical garbage. The square root of a negative number is imaginary. So imaginary infinity divided by zero is a mathematical error. Likewise, gravity is a mathematical error. You insert it into formulas, and I'm supposed to be impressed by it. Well, I'm not.


What force slows the object faster than what is accounted for by friction with the air, stop, change direction, and accelerate back to earth. 

The object falls faster than its air resistance because your math is wrong. The propulsion (wherein I threw an 9lb mini-anvil into the air), was based on high estimates that you got by adding (or multiplying) gravity to momentum and propulsion equations to get crazy high estimates. Instead it was an anvil, and I couldn't toss it that high, so it ran out of energy faster than you estimated, and friction had a lower effect than you thought.

You can't accept this, because it means your math is wrong. Gravity doesn't get combined into momentum or propulsion, because both of these defy gravity to a large extent. So your high estimates are wrong, and this compounds error by needing gravity in order to explain why the object reached its limit much lower than anticipated.

For example, I don't know the momentum formula because I say the math is all crap. But let's say it's mass x velocity. The anvil has a mass of 9 lb, and I tossed it into the air 15 ft. The anvil has a momentum of 135. But you've decided to further multiply this by the gravitational constant (what was it you said? 9.80 something or other?)  to get 1323. Your math is off, and it doesn't have that kind of momentum. It slows down roughly 10 times as fast, so you're like "See? SEE?!? It changed direction much faster than it should have. This proves gravity exists." No, it doesn't. It proves you added something into a formula that made it necessary to add in the other direction. 

[
Stop being some lazy, and find it yourself.
If you can find it, you can dispute its merits. Otherwise, asked and answered.

I don't use math.

I am interested in providing images that explain model

]The object falls faster than its air resistance because your math is wrong.

I don't use math.

When an object stops, it falls or rises based on being heavier or lighter than the medium. For example, if I throw a volleyball in the air, it falls down. If I throw it underwater, it floats up. You'll see that this mechanism looks roughly the same when standing in water and trying both.

Rate of fall, like rate of float, is based on the difference in mass/density/whatever. An anvil tends to fall faster than a leaf. A really buoyant object rises to the surface faster than something that is barely buoyant.

Because objects add velocity based on height, until they reach terminal velocity (for those who don't understand how the term gets its name, it is not the speed where an object or person is killed, but rather it's the endpoint of any new effect of distance)

A medium (air, water, soil, lava, space) all has density. Pressure gradient is sorted in the same way these mixed drinks separate.

Rate of fall, like rate of float, is based on the difference in mass/density/whatever.

Stop being some lazy, and find it yourself.
If you can find it, you can dispute its merits.

I don't use math.

I know that I lost interest in math after they taught us imaginary numbers.
√-9 = 3i. That is great, but 3i doesn't actually exist.

Yes, but unless people understand what a formula means, it's completely irrelevant. With Einstein, we are told that energy is simply matter traveling at the speed of light. But why is the formula squared? Does this squaring pertain just to the speed of light, or is matter also squared?

Math is a way of spouting gibberish and having lesser minds declare you brilliant.

I am not interested in trying to impress you with math. I am interested in providing images that explain models.

The object falls faster than its air resistance because your math is wrong.

Instead it was an anvil, and I couldn't toss it that high, so it ran out of energy faster than you estimated, and friction had a lower effect than you thought.
You can't accept this, because it means your math is wrong.

The anvil has a mass of 9 lb, and I tossed it into the air 15 ft. The anvil has a momentum of 135. But you've decided to further multiply this by the gravitational constant (what was it you said? 9.80 something or other?)  to get 1323. Your math is off, and it doesn't have that kind of momentum.

It slows down roughly 10 times as fast, so you're like "See? SEE?!? It changed direction much faster than it should have. This proves gravity exists." No, it doesn't. It proves you added something into a formula that made it necessary to add in the other direction.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 24, 2022, 11:13:37 PM

When an object stops, it falls or rises based on being heavier or lighter than the medium. For example, if I throw a volleyball in the air, it falls down. If I throw it underwater, it floats up. You'll see that this mechanism looks roughly the same when standing in water and trying both.

Rate of fall, like rate of float, is based on the difference in mass/density/whatever. An anvil tends to fall faster than a leaf. A really buoyant object rises to the surface faster than something that is barely buoyant.

Because objects add velocity based on height, until they reach terminal velocity (for those who don't understand how the term gets its name, it is not the speed where an object or person is killed, but rather it's the endpoint of any new effect of distance)

A medium (air, water, soil, lava, space) all has density. Pressure gradient is sorted in the same way these mixed drinks separate.

Ooh, the density explanation, never used to see this discussed enough here.
The biggest issue this tends to face is justifying why 'down' is the most important direction. Gravity draws things to centres of mass, there's a justification for the direction there - is there any reason for down to be significant in this model or is it currently unknown/a 'Well it is important, we'll work out why later?' (That's not an objection, just curious)


If I'm understanding you correctly, the idea is that for an abstract object in freefall, if we do the cliche force diagram:
Forces acting to push it down - a force that seeks to have denser objects settle lower than less dense objects. As air/water are less dense than a solid, solid objects typically fall, while helium rises etc.
Forces acting to push it up - resistive force of air/medium acting on an object's surface area. Hence, a bundled up parachute will fall faster than an opened parachute, despite both being made of the same material

Under the conventional model of gravity, two objects dropped in vacuum will, regardless of mass, fall at the same acceleration - the force they impart will vary, but the acceleration will be constant. Dropping objects in a medium however, that medium imparts a resistive force, hence varying rates of fall.
If I'm understanding you correctly, your alternative posits that two objects dropped in vacuum will fall at different accelerations if they are of different densities due to being of different departures from the density of the medium?
(Not trying to trap or throw space-experiments at you, just trying to figure it out)

 cannot tell me if gravity asserts more force on heavy objects or light ones.

.

Stop trying to pretend gravity is some magical super glue.
Instead treat it as a force acting on objects, attempting to accelerate them towards each other, with a force proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Why does a one cubic inch block of steel cause a spring in a hanging spring scale to elongate more in accordance with Hooke’s law than a one cubic inch of styrofoam?

Why can’t you use the motors and propellers optimized to fly a one pound drone to fly a C-130.

It comes down to the force of gravity is proportional to the mass of an object in the form of weight

A small one pound drone has less mass than a C-130, thus less weight because of less mutual attraction from gravity.  The small drone only has to generate more than one pound of lift to overcome gravity to fly.

Hence.  The more mass, more force gravity can exert between to objects. 

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

Quote

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.

Quote

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

Quote

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

You mean…

Quote

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.

Quote

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

Quote

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…

Quote

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

Quote

then there isn't gravity.

Only because you misrepresent the subject.


Has nothing to do with demonstrable reality.

. It's because all of these crappy beliefs from a sort of hegemony that keeps your mind prisoner.

Okay, everyone do you know why I am trying so hard to convince you? It's not for my health. It's because all of these crappy beliefs from a sort of hegemony that keeps your mind prisoner. The world is what someone else says it is. Specifically, what lizard people and elites want people to believe it is. As long as you put them in charge of what you consume, believe, and know then nothing good will come of things.

Wars, poverty, and sickness are all consequences of globalism, a system literally descended from the globe earth theories. Globalism hurts you personally through high taxes, inflation, and self-destructive policies.

It's a blue slime! I must slay it!

So you'll forgive me if I use this density and volume system, but even if I'm not that good at math, I can tell without question that density & volume don't have the problems of the above.

So yes, finally getting to your question, a brick weighing 4.5 lb (I looked it up) and a giant leaf also weighing 4.5 lb will fall at different rates because of the much bigger surface area. Despite the whole leaf weighing the same, the leaf has less weight per in. But both will fall due to being heavier than the air, just one hurdles toward the ground and the other eases toward the ground.

Here's where discussion of gravity goes sour though. Under most gravitational models, the weight exerted on a person shouldn't be exempted based on riding in a plane, hot air balloon, or parachute. That is, they should fall, and the parachute should drift down, ripping the parachute if they are attached to it. They should fall, and honestly the plane should fall too, because the plane's mass is subject to gravity. Instead, the plane reacts like a boat does in water but to air, and people can ride inside the plane. They can use the parachute's low density slow their own fall. And they can comfortably sit in a hot air balloon, as it goes into the sky.

Okay, everyone do you know why I am trying so hard to convince you?

It's because all of these crappy beliefs from a sort of hegemony that keeps your mind prisoner.

cannot tell me if gravity asserts more force on heavy objects or light ones.

This is a threat to cohesion

980 lb of weight for a 100 lb person.

A jet plane, on top of not being able to fly, should get force apart by hundreds of thousands of lb of force as weight or gravitational pressure.

So you'll forgive me if I use this density and volume system, but even if I'm not that good at math, I can tell without question that density & volume don't have the problems of the above.

So yes, finally getting to your question, a brick weighing 4.5 lb (I looked it up) and a giant leaf also weighing 4.5 lb will fall at different rates because of the much bigger surface area.

That is, they should fall, and the parachute should drift down, ripping the parachute if they are attached to it.

They should fall, and honestly the plane should fall too, because the plane's mass is subject to gravity.

I just had to reassure ppl no less than an hour or two ago, that yes  1+1 does in fact equal 2, and that you cannot define that 2=1.

The problem is that people here seem to lose track, and recite nonsense as suits them.

I just had to reassure ppl no less than an hour or two ago, that yes  1+1 does in fact equal 2, and that you cannot define that 2=1. The problem is that people here seem to lose track, and recite nonsense as suits them.

Itching ears, as Timothy says.

These Electric Trains Never Need Recharging Thanks to Regenerative Braking

They create so much electricity traveling downhill fully loaded, they can go back to the top of the hill empty with some battery to spare.
ByErin Marquis
PublishedMay 25, 2022

https://jalopnik.com/these-electric-trains-never-need-recharging-thanks-to-r-1848975204/amp


Good old gravity. It’s always there for us, keeping us grounded — and now, charging our electric trains indefinitely. A mining company in Australia recently explained that four of its electric trains create so much electricity through regenerative braking going downhill, they can power themselves back to the top of the hill, and have a little extra battery power left over. Science!

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 26, 2022, 11:45:15 PM

I just had to reassure ppl no less than an hour or two ago, that yes  1+1 does in fact equal 2, and that you cannot define that 2=1. The problem is that people here seem to lose track, and recite nonsense as suits them.

Itching ears, as Timothy says.

And yet.  Because of gravity we have stuff like this..


No.  Gravity is demonstrably real. Because we have this…. Regenerative Braking

Quote

These Electric Trains Never Need Recharging Thanks to Regenerative Braking

They create so much electricity traveling downhill fully loaded, they can go back to the top of the hill empty with some battery to spare.
ByErin Marquis
PublishedMay 25, 2022

https://jalopnik.com/these-electric-trains-never-need-recharging-thanks-to-r-1848975204/amp


Good old gravity. It’s always there for us, keeping us grounded — and now, charging our electric trains indefinitely. A mining company in Australia recently explained that four of its electric trains create so much electricity through regenerative braking going downhill, they can power themselves back to the top of the hill, and have a little extra battery power left over. Science!

Practical Regenerative Braking that would be impossible in a flat earth delusion.

You can't have regenerative braking without first offering a force that has to be equally reacted to.
Nothing at all to do with gravity.