Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.

The problem is, it isn't robust.



If we put a spherical ball in a sink, it will behave exactly like this. And there is no plausible reason even with central gravity, why orbit and rotation shouldn't push the water outward. I can demonstrate using a frying pan. Spinning it faster does not make it stay in. In order to hold water in, the atmosphere would need to be as solid as glass... which would invalidate space travel.

We have a "bulge" which even more invisible to the human eye than this bulge.

Can you tell this is a crossdresser by her bulge? Likewise, the so called bulge of perspective isn't visible short of actually doctoring photographs. Instead, what we have is people seeing this

and imagining there ought to be a hill because they can't see the bottoms of buildings.

That's not a pizza.

Calling it such is like calling a diesel truck an EV because it has an alternator and uses electricity.

You can make a pizza from challah. Challah is braided bread. You could make it from naan. It would still be a pizza.

I have seen something similar to this ball pizza in Pizza Hut.

Loosely speaking, pizza is bread, tomato sauce, and cheese. But white pizza has no tomato sauce. Some other pizzas have no cheese. By the way, calzone and stomboli are pizza.



So is this.

Spin that frying pan at 1rev per 24hr.


And any experiemtn of water on a tennis ball is ON the earth!!!!

If you took two tiny magnets and placed them on a magnet 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x the size.

The problem is, it isn't robust.

How so?
It trivially addresses the BS you try to throw at it.

If we put a spherical ball in a sink

Then your tiny ball will have a tiny attractive force, so likely wont be easily noticable.
And more importantly, the much stronger attraction to Earth will mean the water falls to Earth.
So the experiment gives the result expected due to gravity.
You repeatedly lying about it wont change that fact.

And there is no plausible reason even with central gravity, why orbit and rotation shouldn't push the water outward.

And more dishonest, delusional BS.
Even a child can understand this.
You have the apparent centrifugal force trying to push the water out.
You have the attractive gravitational force trying to pull the water in.
Which wins?

This is a simple case of 2 competing forces.
Just like a tug-o-war.
Depending on which is stronger, one will win.
If gravity is stronger, the water falls to Earth.
If the centrifugal force is stronger, the water flies away.

Spinning it faster does not make it stay in.

Gravity has nothing to do with Earth spinning.
It is a result of the mass of Earth.
Even if Earth didn't spin, it would still attract mass through gravity.

So try spinning it slowly.
Here is a simple test for you, put a droplet of water on the hour hand of a clock, and see if that hour hand spinning results in the water flying off.

Now, I know what you are thinking, that is so slow and incredibly dishonest. But it is roughly twice as fast as Earth, completing a revolution in 12 hours, compared to Earth completing it in ~24.

You can also do the math to see how you should scale it.
The attractive force due to gravity is given by F=GMm/r^2. But if we let r be the surface of Earth, then M=(4/3)*pi*r^3*rho, so:
F=G*(4/3)*pi*r^3*rho*m/r^2 = (4/3)*G*pi*r*rho*m.
i.e. it is linearly proprotional to r.
So if you have a ball with the same density as Earth but scaled down, the force due to gravity at the surface will be a function of the radius.

So now how does the centrifugal force scale?
Well there are various ways of expressing it:
F=m*v^2/r = m*v*w = m*w^2*r

As the latter scales with radius, we should use that. That w is the angular velocity.

That means if you take a model of Earth, which has the same density as Earth, to test if gravity can hold the water on against the rotation, you need to spin it at the same angular velocity. So that means 1 revolution every (sidereal) day.

So go ahead and spin your ball at a staggering rate of 1 revolution every day and show the water flying out to the side.

Or do the actual math to calculate the forces, or even just their ratio by comparing w^2 with (4/3)*G*pi*rho to find the force of gravity is much stronger.

So unlike your lie we see that with attractive gravity, water should NOT fly off. So there is no need for a magic solid dome.

We have a "bulge" which even more invisible to the human eye than this bulge.

This entirely depends upon how you look.
If you are looking over 1 m, it cannot be seen.
If you use a photo from space, it is painfully obvious.

And if you look at a distant object, and observe the bottom of it missing, that is also clearly seeing the budge.

So no, the curvature is readily noticable.

and imagining there ought to be a hill because they can't see the bottoms of buildings.

No, recognising that the observer and the building are both above the ground/sea.
So recognising that the ground needs to be curved to block the view.

Spin that frying pan at 1rev per 24hr.


And any experiemtn of water on a tennis ball is ON the earth!!!!

  Spinning a pan slower or faster won't make any difference. The Gravitron in amusement parks spins reasonably fast, and guess what happens? The people inside are forced upward toward the ceiling. Faster spin doesn't have the effect you want. The closest thing to what you want is actually centrifugal force, which is demostrated in lacrosse and in the Fred Astaire ceiling dance. In both cases, two things are happening. (1)The surface in question is rolling and angular shift means objects follow the current bottom of the object, and (2) we are talking about being inside something concave not outside something convex. If I had an automatic log roller and rolled the log at 60,000 rpm and it was big and hollow enough to be inside, the only way you wouldn't fly off said log way if you are inside it. At that rpm, I'm sure of nothing, but definitely sure can't stat on top for more than a second. Also, it's not simply 1 rpm per 24 hr. It's 1040 mph, which is the equivalent of giving a frypan a hard jerk every hour.
https://www.planetsforkids.org/how-fast-does-the-earth-rotate.html
Splosh. Splosh. Splosh. Each time, 24 times a day, every day, but we're expected to believe that water doesn't spill after even a day of this.

If you took two tiny magnets and placed them on a magnet 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x the size.

  As for the magnets, that analogy doesn't work. We have a magnetic pole strong enough to make magnets point North. Yet magnets still work at attracting each other or attracting metal. Strange how magnets can still work even though a bigger magnet exists, yet gravity doesn't allow a battleship to pull a paperclip on a nearby beach towards it.

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 25, 2023, 03:04:03 PM

Spin that frying pan at 1rev per 24hr.


And any experiemtn of water on a tennis ball is ON the earth!!!!

  Spinning a pan slower or faster won't make any difference. The Gravitron in amusement parks spins reasonably fast, and guess what happens? The people inside are forced upward toward the ceiling. Faster spin doesn't have the effect you want. The closest thing to what you want is actually centrifugal force, which is demostrated in lacrosse and in the Fred Astaire ceiling dance. In both cases, two things are happening. (1)The surface in question is rolling and angular shift means objects follow the current bottom of the object, and (2) we are talking about being inside something concave not outside something convex. If I had an automatic log roller and rolled the log at 60,000 rpm and it was big and hollow enough to be inside, the only way you wouldn't fly off said log way if you are inside it. At that rpm, I'm sure of nothing, but definitely sure can't stat on top for more than a second. Also, it's not simply 1 rpm per 24 hr. It's 1040 mph, which is the equivalent of giving a frypan a hard jerk every hour.
https://www.planetsforkids.org/how-fast-does-the-earth-rotate.html
Splosh. Splosh. Splosh. Each time, 24 times a day, every day, but we're expected to believe that water doesn't spill after even a day of this.

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 25, 2023, 03:04:03 PM

If you took two tiny magnets and placed them on a magnet 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x the size.

  As for the magnets, that analogy doesn't work. We have a magnetic pole strong enough to make magnets point North. Yet magnets still work at attracting each other or attracting metal. Strange how magnets can still work even though a bigger magnet exists, yet gravity doesn't allow a battleship to pull a paperclip on a nearby beach towards it.

ti will make a difference
your claim is that the 24hr rotation of the earth isn't possible because when you spin your frying pan fast, the water sloshes out.
so no, your experiment is dumb and worng.
you're dumb and wrong.

again
people feel acceleration.
changes in velcoity.
the 1040mph is pracitcally straight given the size of the ball.
reminder - what's the angle between segments of a 300,000 sided polygon???!??!?!

and as jackB pointed out, it's just a continuous DOWN feeling so slight that you'll never notice it.
because it's always tehre.





magnets
yes
the super tiny magnet and the other super tiny magnet sitting on a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bigger magnet will not attract to each toehr with any noticiable difference
they will be attracted down to the big magnet first and most.
the friction generated from said attraction will be enough to rpevent them from sliding towards each other.

Spinning a pan slower or faster won't make any difference.

Yes, it will.
You lying about it will not change that.

Again, if you want a scale model of Earth (with the same density) to show that the gravitational attraction of Earth can't hold things on, you need to rotate it at the same angular velocity.

The Gravitron in amusement parks spins reasonably fast

Unlike Earth, which spins incredibly slowly.

Faster spin doesn't have the effect you want.

No, it has the effect YOU want.
That is why we told you to spin it SLOWER.
Do you understand what SLOWER means? Do you understand how that isn't the same as FASTER?

We want you to spin it slower, rather than continuing to appeal to this dishonest BS of yours.

If I had an automatic log roller and rolled the log at 60,000 rpm and it was big and hollow enough to be inside, the only way you wouldn't fly off said log way if you are inside it. At that rpm, I'm sure of nothing, but definitely sure can't stat on top for more than a second.

And more dishonest BS.
Just like if you were to spin Earth at a rate of roughly 1 revolution every 90 minutes, those on the equator would not be able to stand on the outside.

But if you were honest, and spun it at 1 revolution every day, you could easily stay on the outside.
But what stupidity, thinking you could possibly be honest.

Also, it's not simply 1 rpm per 24 hr.

That is because that statement of yours makes no sense.
It is roughly 1 revolution every 24 hours (more closer to 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds).
1 revolution per minute per 24 hours makes no sense.

As shown previously.
For a body of a certain density, the force due to gravity at the surface scales proportional to r.
F=GMm/r^2 = G*rho*V*m/r^2 = G*rho*(4/3)*pi*r^3*m/r^2=G*rho*(4/3)*pi*r*m
For a body, rotating at a certain angular velocity, the force required to maintain that circular motion (equal in magnitude to the apparent centrifugal force) scales proportional to r.
F=m*omega^2*r.

So if you are scaling the object, you need to keep the angular velocity constant.
Doing anything else (without using something else to hold it) is just dishonest BS.

Stop appealing to the linear velocity. Honestly represent it as the angular velocity.

But again, what stupidity to expect you to be honest.

As an alternative, if you use Earth's gravity directly to hold it against the spin, and want to model the rotation of Earth, then you need the specific force from the rotation to be ~ 0.034 m/s^2.
That would be equivalent to rotating a 10 cm wide log at a rate of 1 revolution every 10.8 seconds; or 5.56 revolutions per minute.

So try doing that, and see if you can get the water to go flying up, or if it stays being pulled down to Earth.
Then try accelerating it to 95 RPM, which is what is required to just match Earth's gravity.

As for the magnets, that analogy doesn't work.

Why? Because you hate reality?

The point remains, if you have an incredibly strong magnet attracting a small magnet which is suspended above it in some way, and you place a tiny magnet in the mix, that tiny magnet will "fall" to the strong magnet.

This is easy enough for a child to understand, but you keep playing dumb.

We have a magnetic pole strong enough to make magnets point North.

No, we have a weak magnetic field, so unless there are other forces acting on the magnet, it can align with it.
Yet bring a tiny magnet close to it, and it will no longer align to Earth's magnetic field because of how incredibly weak the field is.

That is because the magnetic field of Earth is incredibly weak.
It's strength (at the surface) is on the order of 10s of microteslas.
A fridge magnet, one of the weakest artificial magnets we have, has a field on the order of 10s of militeslas.
So being close to a fridge magnet results in a field roughly 1000 times as strong as that due to Earth on Earth's surface.

If you would like it to be equivalent, it would be comparable to you getting a nice strong neodymium magnet, putting it near a compass, and boldly proclaiming Earth's magnetic field doesn't exist, because the compass isn't pointing north.

A key difference between Earth's magnetic field and Earth's gravitational field is the source.
For gravity, the ENTIRE MASS of Earth contributes.
But for the magnetic field, it is only the core.
So you aren't on the surface of that "magnet". Instead, while standing on the surface of Earth you are roughly 5000 km away.

If you were to go to the core, the magnetic field would be incredibly strong.

yet gravity doesn't allow a battleship to pull a paperclip on a nearby beach towards it.

Yet it does allow a large ball to attract a smaller ball which itself is suspended to provide a counterforce to Earth's gravity.

Just like if you want to measure Earth's magnetic field, you need to keep much stronger magnets away, if you want to measure the gravitational attraction between 2 small objects, you either need to keep much more massive objects away

Magnets:
Hes equating two different thoughts into one -

1. A magnet analogy to scale

2. And earths magnetic field.




Im strictly talkinh about scale in relation to his paperclip vs mountain

Or his water on a tennis ball dripping down to the ground.

Dont mix it up.

so no, your experiment is dumb and worng.
you're dumb and wrong.

Nice to know this conversation is conducted on a mature adult level.

again
people feel acceleration.
changes in velcoity.
the 1040mph is pracitcally straight given the size of the ball.
reminder - what's the angle between segments of a 300,000 sided polygon???!??!?!

Circles don't have sides (or rather it has one side). It isn't a 300k sided polygon. A sphere is a circle and thus is smooth allaround as much as possible. We can see old movies on what happens when a staircase becomes smooth.

and as jackB pointed out, it's just a continuous DOWN feeling so slight that you'll never notice it.
because it's always tehre.

You're parroting what someone else pointed out? If two blind men give each other directions, what's to stop them from walking off a cliff?!?

magnet will not attract to each toehr with any noticiable difference
they will be attracted down to the big magnet first and most.
the friction generated from said attraction will be enough to rpevent them from sliding towards each other.

The Earth's magnetic pole is far more powerful than these small magnets. Yet they have no problem at all repelling or attracting nearby magnets first.

The Earth's "gravitational force" is supposed to be far more powerful than a large object such as a ship. If a ship tips due to waves, objects on the ship if gravity ever worked on the micro scale, should be pulled toward the deck. I've been on enough ferries to know that when the ship is tossed, I lose my balance. 1040 mph? This is 16 miles or so every minute. I should be struggling for balance at all times. But you say gravity that can't be shown on any ship, can't be shown on the waves themselves, which constantly pull with the wind and tides, has got me covered. Why isn't this same gravity pulling me down into the ocean? Buoyancy, and the fact that I'm struggling to swim.



Buoyancy can also be used to make things float.



Oh yes, they float. 

Nice to know this conversation is conducted on a mature adult level.

Well when you continually repeat the same dishonest refuted BS, while ignoring that refutation or just dismissing like a child, it is quite clear that you are either not capable of having this discussion on an adult level, or unwilling to.

Which is it?

Circles don't have sides (or rather it has one side). It isn't a 300k sided polygon.

A circle has an infinite number of sides.
a 300k sided polygon is an approximation for a circle.
If you do that for Earth, each side is roughly 133 m long, and the external angle between sides (i.e. the angle you need to turn to keep moving along the circle) is 0.0012 degrees.

You're parroting what someone else pointed out?

No, they are just highlighting how you just ignore things which don't match your fantasy.

The Earth's magnetic pole is far more powerful than these small magnets.

Again, you are NOT actually understanding this analogy.
This analogy is pointing out your dishonesty with regards to the gravity of Earth vs the gravity of tiny objects on Earth.
This is NOT trying to use Earth's magnetic field, which is MUCH WEAKER than even weak fridge magnets.

The magnetic field of Earth is strong, when you are right on the surface of the core of Earth.
When you are thousands of km away on the surface of Earth, Earth's magnetic field is much weaker. A fridge magnet is roughly 1000 times as strong as Earth's magnetic field.

As a comparison to the dishonest BS you are using now, the sun is much more massive than Earth, so its gravity is much stronger. But that is only true when you are a comparable distance. e.g. if you are on the surface of the sun, you would fall into it, and the gravitational attraction of Earth (even if it was right next to you) would not be enough.
But when you are 150 000 000 km away from the sun, then the gravitational attraction to Earth is much stronger than that of the sun. So you stick to Earth rather than being torn away to fall into the sun.

The same can be said of Earth and the moon. If the moon was on the surface of Earth (and magically held together), you would still fall to Earth, because the gravitational attraction to Earth is greater.
But if the moon is in free fall well outside the Roche limit of Earth (using the density/mass and size of the moon to calculate), then you fall to the moon.

The same is happening with these magnets.

You have a magnetic with a magnetic field much stronger than Earth's.

Now try to actually understand the analogy.
You have a very powerful magnet. like that found in an MRI.
Also nearby, you have an incredibly weak magnet.
And you then have a nail near that weak magnet.
Do you think the nail will be attracted to the much weaker magnet, or the much stronger magnet?

Any honest person can honestly answer this and recognise the nail will go the strong magnet.
In order to stop that, you need to be far enough away from it that the magnetic field from this strong magnet is weaker than the one from the weak magnet (assuming no other forces).

The dishonest BS you are spouting is like claiming magnetism can't be real, because the nail was attracted to the much stronger magnet rather than the much weaker magnet.

The Earth's "gravitational force" is supposed to be far more powerful than a large object such as a ship. If a ship tips due to waves, objects on the ship if gravity ever worked on the micro scale, should be pulled toward the deck.

Why?
You admit Earth's gravitational force is much more powerful, so why should objects be magically drawn to the deck of the ship?

I've been on enough ferries to know that when the ship is tossed, I lose my balance. 1040 mph? This is 16 miles or so every minute.

And more dishonest BS.
Notice the comparison? You first appeal to being tossed; you then appeal to travelling at some random speed.
Travelling at speed is not the same as being tossed.

When I fly in a plane at 1000 km/hr, as long as there isn't turbulence, I'm not being tossed around. I don't struggle for balance.
It is very much the same feeling as sitting or standing in my office, just more noisy and with a lot more people.
It is far easier to lose your balance on a bus as it accelerates and breaks and turns.
So you appealing to the speed is dishonest BS.
Appeal to the acceleration, or more technically, the jerk, i.e. the time rate of change of acceleration (as well as higher derivatives).

The speed you are appealing to does not give you a reason to lose your balance.
Claiming it does is just dishonest, childish BS.

But you say gravity that can't be shown on any ship, can't be shown on the waves themselves

No, we see you can't see it with a gravitational attraction to the ship, because that is insignificant compared to the attraction to Earth.
We still see it with the water and ship being pulled to Earth.
But other forces act as well.

Why isn't this same gravity pulling me down into the ocean? Buoyancy, and the fact that I'm struggling to swim.

i.e. the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, caused by gravity.

Again, asking that question is like setting up a see-saw, with a heavy person on one side and a light person on the other, and asking why gravity isn't pulling the light person down.
It is because that would require lifting up the heavy person.

Buoyancy can also be used to make things float.

Yes, exactly as you would expect with gravity.
It (or an equivalent) can be used to make a helium filled balloon move to the front of a car when it accelerates.
It can be used to separate things based upon their density in a centrifuge.

But remove gravity and its equivalents, such as with free fall, and it stops. Because it lacks anything giving it directionality.

Bouyancy is the net force!!!!!!!


Its the upward force due to volume displacement/ pressure MINUS the gravity force.




Like centipetal force is the net of the inwardforce be it friction, tension, normal, whatever MINUS the tangential accerlaertion x mass.



Bouancy is a sum of forces.
Not just the one thing

Bouyancy is the net force!!!!!!!

Its the upward force due to volume displacement/ pressure MINUS the gravity force.

Like centipetal force is the net of the inwardforce be it friction, tension, normal, whatever MINUS the tangential accerlaertion x mass.

Bouancy is a sum of forces.
Not just the one thing

Buoyancy is the upwards force.

The centripetal force is the inwards force, not the apparent centrifugal force, nor the sum of the 2.

what?

bouancy:
no it's the upward force minus the gravity





centripedal: was my example of a math convention
the net inward forces holding the thing in from shooting out.
if there's a nascar car going around the turn there's wheel friction + angled ramp normal force = centrepdal to hold the car around the curve

bouancy:
no it's the upward force minus the gravity

No, it is the upwards force.
Things float when the buoyant force (i.e. buoyancy) balances gravity (and the centripetal force).

centripedal: was my example of a math convention
the net inward forces holding the thing in from shooting out.
if there's a nascar car going around the turn there's wheel friction + angled ramp normal force = centrepdal to hold the car around the curve

Yes, notice how it is the force to hold the car around the curve?
i.e. the inwards force required to maintain that curve.

However, I may have misread your previous statement. Yes, it does not include any force for tangential acceleration. So any force from things like the engine going to accelerate the car tangentially is not part of it.

No my point was that the centripal was the net sum to hold the car on the curve.

Maybe i mis represented it.

Two separate thoughts.

I was just trying to convey "convention" and it was an example i thought of.


Either way
Ok nm
I concede i incorrectly thought bouyancy was the net.

Reading back now I have more time, I think I misunderstood what you said
The centripetal force is the force required to maintain the curved path, as you said.
So I think you were correct on that one.

Bouyancy is the net force!!!!!!!

Its the upward force due to volume displacement/ pressure MINUS the gravity force.

Like centipetal force is the net of the inwardforce be it friction, tension, normal, whatever MINUS the tangential accerlaertion x mass.

Bouancy is a sum of forces.
Not just the one thing

"Gravity" is really multiple forces. Because it's a catch-all for any and all round Earth problems where the logic falls apart. Even when gravity itself should be the logical flaw.

Student: Professor, how does the Earth orbit the sun? Why is it rolling and not falling into the sun?
Professor: Oh that's easy! Gravity is causing it to roll!

Student: And shouldn't the moon fall into the Earth like in Majora's Mask?
Professor: No, my pupil! The sun prevents the Earth from pulling in the moon, and ummmm... gravity prevents the sun's gravity from pulling the moon towards it.

Buoyancy is one force, and one equation.

Density(object) > Density(fluid): object sinks
Density(object) < Density(fluid): object floats

It also describes the behavior of two fluids or two objects. No involving other forces, just clean math.

"Gravity" is really multiple forces. Because it's a catch-all for any and all round Earth problems where the logic falls apart. Even when gravity itself should be the logical flaw.

Pure BS.
Gravity is a single force, which can cause multiple things, just like magnetism.
See magnetism can hold magnets down, or cause charged ions to travel in curved paths to be separated by their mass, or make engines turn, or make linear actuators move and so on.

Needing to repeatedly lie about it just shows your desperation and dishonesty.

Student: Professor, how does the Earth orbit the sun? Why is it rolling and not falling into the sun?

It isn't rolling.
The orbit is entirely separate from its rotation.
It is orbiting the sun due to the combination of its velocity and the attraction to the sun.
While orbiting it, it is accelerating towards the sun.
If you magically stopped it, it would fall into the sun.

Student: And shouldn't the moon fall into the Earth like in Majora's Mask?

No, for the same reason as above.

Buoyancy is one force, and one equation.

That's right, one force, one equation:
Buoyant force = weight of displaced fluid.

It is NOT the 2 relations you provided.

It also describes the behavior of two fluids or two objects. No involving other forces, just clean math.

Except the force you keep on ignoring, the WEIGHT of the fluid/object.
When in free fall, it stops working. If your BS was true, there is no reason for that.

That's right, one force, one equation:
Buoyant force = weight of displaced fluid.

It is NOT the 2 relations you provided.

Because Newton later said it?

That, my friend, is called abrogation.

“Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?

Know you not that it is Allah to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth? And besides Allah you have neither any guardian nor any helper.”

[al-Baqarah 2:106-107].

How scientific!

Ignore the way things actually behave and just have a bunch of lizardfolk vote on the new reality.

The original version of buoyancy involves density, and dates to about the 3rd century BC. Gravity is a newer invention, going back to the 17th or 18th century.

But we can tell that there is no opposing force rather easily by the ease that this scrawny bird can fly.



That gravity is measured in "meters per second" and not "lb of force" proof there is not even 1 gram (g? See what I did there?) of force exerted by this fake force.

As we know from momentum, velocity is multiplied by mass. So we have this lovely formula here...

Use the following formula to calculate the gravitational force between any two objects:

F = GMm/R²

where:

    F — Gravitational force, measured in newtons (N) (our force converter can convert it to other units). It is always positive, which means that two objects of a certain mass always attract (and never repel) each other;
    M and m — Masses of two objects in question, in kilograms (kg);
    R — Distance between the centers of these two objects, in meters (m); and
    G — Gravitational constant. It is equal to 6.674×10⁻¹¹ N·m²/kg².

But there is a problem or two in this so-called "gravitational constant".

So.... let's do a rock and a motorcycle or something. I'm setting Newtons to 1, since I don't wanna deal with all that.

F= G (2500)(5)/(15²)
G= (6.674×10⁻¹¹) (1) (15²) / (2500*5)
G= (6.674×10⁻¹¹) (1) (225) / (12500)
G= ( 1.502 x 10^-8) / 12500
G= ( 1.202 x 10^-12)
F= ( 1.202 x 10^-12) (2500)(5)/(15²)
F= (1.503 x 10^-8)/(255)
F= (6.68 x 10^-11)

To get an idea of how mathematically insignificant gravity is, this is 0.0000000000668 (may have missed a zero somewhere). To say nothing of basically recycling numbers, any sensible rounding would round to zero. You're gonna have to explain to me how this ever gets anything close to a whole number.  Answer? Only by making the Earth ridiculously heavy, a whopping 5.9722×10²⁴ kg (at least, that's what I thought until doing the same math). This is where you get the idea that "the force between two objects is irrelevant compared to Earth's total mass."

But you seem to have forgotten something.

In your rush to make Earth so heavy that "gravity's important now, people!" you seem to have forgotten that all matter is molecules. That is, Earth is not a monolith that can be measured as a solid mass like that, but billions upon billions of tiny grains of sand, droplets of water, etc.

You cannot use the total mass of Earth in an equation because the whole includes the parts.

Gravity's force, therefore, is zero. Because it will always only be the mass of its parts, and none of those parts is anywhere near that mass, nor do any of them exert real gravitational force. 

But let us suppose they did anyway...  A bee hummingbird struggling against "gravity" 10 ft off the ground.  This time, the hummingbird is struggling against the Earth's mass itself rather than another object.

F= G (5.9722×10²⁴)(0.0025)/(10²)
G= (6.674×10⁻¹¹) (1) (10²) / (5.9722×10²⁴ * 0.0025)
G= ( 6.674 x 10^-9 ) / ( 1.49305 x 10²² )
G= (4.47 x 10^-31)
F= (4.47 x 10^-31)(5.9722×10²⁴)(0.0025)/(10²)
F= 6.68  x 10^-11

By dividing the weight of the earth into the equations for gravitational constant, you always get get an artificially large negative exponent, which is then balanced artificially by multiplying the entire equation by itself. In both cases, despite adding a freakish load to the equation, I nearly got nearly the same thing I started with, and an extremely mathematically insignificant number. In in other words, it doesn't actually matter what the larger mass is. With no force greater than 1 Newton, the amount of force is irrelevant. This business of pushing thousands of tons of force is wrong.  By the way, this same equation should make it possible for humans to generate lift enough to fly 10 ft off the ground. Nothing about this equation made the slightest difference in the gravitational force, which again, was nearly zero. Despite the Earth being heavy as all hell, it averaged back to 6.68 x 10^-11.  All that complicated math led nowhere.

Gravity does not exist.

Again.
Density(object) > Density(fluid): object sinks
Density(object) < Density(fluid): object floats

That gravity is measured in "meters per second"

The acceleration caused by gravity.  And accurately model the speed a ball drops without 9.8m/sec^2.

Weight caused by gravity is measured as pounds in the USA.  And you have pounds mass and pounds force.

The pound-force is equal to the gravitational force exerted on a mass of one avoirdupois pound on the surface of Earth. Since the 18th century, the unit has been used in low-precision measurements, for which small changes in Earth's gravity (which varies from equator to pole by up to half a percent) can safely be neglected.[4]

The 20th century, however, brought the need for a more precise definition, requiring a standardized value for acceleration due to gravity.

Product of avoirdupois pound and standard gravity
Edit
The pound-force is the product of one avoirdupois pound (exactly 0.45359237 kg) and the standard acceleration due to gravity, 9.80665 m/s2 (32.174049 ft/s2).[5][6][7]

The standard values of acceleration of the standard gravitational field (gn) and the international avoirdupois pound (lb) result in a pound-force equal to 4.4482216152605 N.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)#:~:text=In%20the%20%22engineering%22%20systems%20(,pound%20force%20due%20to%20gravity.

What’s FE greatest achievement, figuring out the earth is spherical with gravity. 

The original version of buoyancy involves density,

If you place an item in a vacuum chamber hanging from a spring scale and remove as much atmosphere as possible.  You can use objects with enough mass buoyancy is negligible anyway.  Why is the weight indicated by the scale essential the same.  Or for an empty water bottle, weight is slightly more.  It takes a fluid like atmosphere to provide buoyancy.  Remove it, and items still have a downward force measured in weight. There is a force called gravity that drives atmosphere, but is not dependent on atmosphere to exist.

What force, or imbalance of forces causes objects to accelerate down.  In normal atmosphere.  Or in a chamber with the atmosphere evacuated. 

Because Newton later said it?

No, that was Archimedes (translated).
Even in their time, they knew of weight, and treated weight separately to buoyancy.
What they didn't know was why there was weight.
Originally, it was called gravitas. (not translated).

Here is the translated version of Archimedes principle:
"Any object, totally or partially immersed in a fluid or liquid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object."

i.e. buoyancy is an upwards force.
It relies upon a downwards force (weight).
You are the one trying to hijack that and change it.

How scientific!

Yes, how scientific, to follow the evidence to gain a better understanding of the world to provide better explanations.
Instead of your entirely unscientific approach to reject anything which doesn't fit your fantasy.

The original version of buoyancy involves density, and dates to about the 3rd century BC.

No, I provided the original, which involves weight.
You can extrapolate from that to get a result that for objects denser than the fluid, the weight will be a greater force and so the object will sink, and for objects less dense than the fluid, the buoyant force will be greater so it will rise, until it goes above the surface of the fluid and the weight of the fluid displaced will be equal to the weight of the object.

Gravity is a newer invention, going back to the 17th or 18th century.

No, Newtonian gravity (and later Einsteinian) is a better understanding of that force called weight.

But we can tell that there is no opposing force rather easily by the ease that this scrawny bird can fly.

Why must you cling to this dishonest BS even though it has been refuted countless times?
Birds rely upon their wings so they can fly.
They are also quite light, so only a small force is needed to keep them up.
Take off their wings, and they fall, being unable to fly.

If gravity wasn't real, wings wouldn't be needed.

That gravity is measured in "meters per second"

This entirely depends upon what you are measuring.
If you are measuring the strength of a gravitational field you measure it in units of N/kg. That is equivalent to m/s^2. (not meters per second)
Just like for an electric field you measure it in units of N/C, which is simplified to V/m.

If you want to know the force on an object, that is measured in N.

To get an idea of how mathematically insignificant gravity is, this is 0.0000000000668 (may have missed a zero somewhere).

All this shows is how weak it is, and demonstrates how dishonest your attempted experiments to refute it are.
Earth is massive, so the force is significant.
Your motor cycle and rock are quite small, so the force between them is insignificant.

To say nothing of basically recycling numbers, any sensible rounding would round to zero
...
You cannot use the total mass of Earth in an equation because the whole includes the parts.
Gravity's force, therefore, is zero. Because it will always only be the mass of its parts, and none of those parts is anywhere near that mass, nor do any of them exert real gravitational force.

And there you go failing basic math again.
If you consider a tiny object, then yes the force will be basically 0.
But whenever you are doing calculations like this, you should not round prematurely.
If you add up all those tiny forces, you can get a significant force.

Just like you can do with the mass of an object.
Remember, people are made up of tiny molecules, in fact they are made up of tiny atoms (which are further made up of subatomic particles).
One of these is hydrogen, with a mass for each atom of roughly 0.00000000000000000000000000167 kg.
Another is carbon, with a mass per atom of 0.00000000000000000000000001993 kg.
Another is oxygen, with a mass per atom of 0.00000000000000000000000002657 kg.
So should we say all of these are basically 0, and therefore deem that in total your mass should be basically 0?
Or should we do it honestly, and add up each and every little bit, until we get the total mass on the order of 10s to hundreds of kg?

When you add up a tiny number a lot of times, you can get a big number.
If I took 0.1 c from every person living on Earth, I would have roughly 7 million dollars.

So to calculate the force of Earth, you need to add up all those tiny forces.

Fortunately, for a spherical symmetric object that you are outside of, you can treat it as a single point in the centre and get the same result.

The other problem with your "calculation" is that you are just happily sticking in random numbers with no explanation and no units.
Is it a 2500 kg motorcycle with a 5 kg rock which is 15 m apart?
You are also just arbitrarily setting F to 1, which means you aren't even coming close to calculating the actual value of G.
You are entirely ignoring the observation and just making shit up.
And even doing that you entirely fail with basic math.
You set the force to 1, and to calculate G, to then calculate F.
If you did that correctly, you would get F=1.
Instead, you entirely failed to get any numbers which make any sense at all.

If you want to set the force between your 2500 kg motor bike and 5 kg rock at a distance of 5 m to 1 N, then G must be 0.018.
Instead of taking that value, you "rearranged" the equation:
F=GMm/r^2 into:
"G"=G*F*r^2/(M*m).
Notice the problem?
You are taking the value of G, and just scaling it by a factor of F*r^2/(M*m) to make it smaller, with you arbitrarily setting F to 1.
You then take that smaller version to effectively get G out.
i.e. you substitute that BS into your above equation to get:
F=(G*1*r^2/(M*m))*M*m/r^2, which simplifies to G.

So why not try doing it properly, considering you already have the value of G?
Doing that will give you a force of 3.7*10^-9 N
Quite different to the 1 you presumed, and different to the pure BS you came up with your "math".

By dividing the weight of the earth into the equations for gravitational constant, you always get get an artificially large negative exponent, which is then balanced artificially by multiplying the entire equation by itself.

Because you are just doing dishonest BS, not actual math.
Lets do it properly shall we?
Substituting in the mass of Earth as 5.9722*10^24 kg, the mass of the hummingbird as 0.0025 kg, the actual value of G, rather than your delusional BS, and a distance of 6371000m (the distance to the centre, what is need for a treatment of a spherically symmetric object); we end up with a force of 0.025 N.
So small, but still significant.

In both cases, despite adding a freakish load to the equation, I nearly got nearly the same thing I started with

Yet, instead of that giving you pause and having you wonder if you entirely screwed up your "math", you just post that pure BS here to pretend there is a problem with gravity.
There is no problem with gravity. There is a problem with you.

All your BS math can boil down to this dishonest equation:
"F" = (G*1*r^2/(M*m))*M*m/r^2
which simplifies to:
"F" = G.
You aren't calculating the force.
You are taking the value of G, and using it to "calculate" the value of G along with a few other numbers.

Even if you didn't complete screw up your equation to "calculate" G originally, you would have started with the same assertion that F=1, and so would have ended up with wildly different values of G and the same force of 1 N for both, because that was your assumption.

All that complicated math led nowhere.

i.e. your BS lead no where.
The question now is did you do this knowingly to pretend there is a problem with gravity, or are you really that far gone and that bad at math that you thought that what you were doing was correct?

Are you going to be honest enough to admit you7 entirely screw up, and all your calculations demonstrate is your complete inability to do math or your blatant dishonesty?

Again.

Again, the honest one:
Weight (gravity) > Buoyant force: object sinks.
Weight (gravity) < Buoyant force: object floats.

Quote

That's right, one force, one equation:
Buoyant force = weight of displaced fluid.

It is NOT the 2 relations you provided.

Because Newton later said it?

That, my friend, is called abrogation.

Quote

“Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?

Know you not that it is Allah to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth? And besides Allah you have neither any guardian nor any helper.”

[al-Baqarah 2:106-107].

How scientific!

Ignore the way things actually behave and just have a bunch of lizardfolk vote on the new reality.

The original version of buoyancy involves density, and dates to about the 3rd century BC. Gravity is a newer invention, going back to the 17th or 18th century.

But we can tell that there is no opposing force rather easily by the ease that this scrawny bird can fly.



That gravity is measured in "meters per second" and not "lb of force" proof there is not even 1 gram (g? See what I did there?) of force exerted by this fake force.

As we know from momentum, velocity is multiplied by mass. So we have this lovely formula here...

Quote

Use the following formula to calculate the gravitational force between any two objects:

F = GMm/R²

where:

    F — Gravitational force, measured in newtons (N) (our force converter can convert it to other units). It is always positive, which means that two objects of a certain mass always attract (and never repel) each other;
    M and m — Masses of two objects in question, in kilograms (kg);
    R — Distance between the centers of these two objects, in meters (m); and
    G — Gravitational constant. It is equal to 6.674×10⁻¹¹ N·m²/kg².

But there is a problem or two in this so-called "gravitational constant".

So.... let's do a rock and a motorcycle or something. I'm setting Newtons to 1, since I don't wanna deal with all that.

F= G (2500)(5)/(15²)
G= (6.674×10⁻¹¹) (1) (15²) / (2500*5)
G= (6.674×10⁻¹¹) (1) (225) / (12500)
G= ( 1.502 x 10^-8) / 12500
G= ( 1.202 x 10^-12)
F= ( 1.202 x 10^-12) (2500)(5)/(15²)
F= (1.503 x 10^-8)/(255)
F= (6.68 x 10^-11)

To get an idea of how mathematically insignificant gravity is, this is 0.0000000000668 (may have missed a zero somewhere). To say nothing of basically recycling numbers, any sensible rounding would round to zero. You're gonna have to explain to me how this ever gets anything close to a whole number.  Answer? Only by making the Earth ridiculously heavy, a whopping 5.9722×10²⁴ kg (at least, that's what I thought until doing the same math). This is where you get the idea that "the force between two objects is irrelevant compared to Earth's total mass."

But you seem to have forgotten something.

In your rush to make Earth so heavy that "gravity's important now, people!" you seem to have forgotten that all matter is molecules. That is, Earth is not a monolith that can be measured as a solid mass like that, but billions upon billions of tiny grains of sand, droplets of water, etc.

You cannot use the total mass of Earth in an equation because the whole includes the parts.

Gravity's force, therefore, is zero. Because it will always only be the mass of its parts, and none of those parts is anywhere near that mass, nor do any of them exert real gravitational force. 

But let us suppose they did anyway...  A bee hummingbird struggling against "gravity" 10 ft off the ground.  This time, the hummingbird is struggling against the Earth's mass itself rather than another object.

F= G (5.9722×10²⁴)(0.0025)/(10²)
G= (6.674×10⁻¹¹) (1) (10²) / (5.9722×10²⁴ * 0.0025)
G= ( 6.674 x 10^-9 ) / ( 1.49305 x 10²² )
G= (4.47 x 10^-31)
F= (4.47 x 10^-31)(5.9722×10²⁴)(0.0025)/(10²)
F= 6.68  x 10^-11

By dividing the weight of the earth into the equations for gravitational constant, you always get get an artificially large negative exponent, which is then balanced artificially by multiplying the entire equation by itself. In both cases, despite adding a freakish load to the equation, I nearly got nearly the same thing I started with, and an extremely mathematically insignificant number. In in other words, it doesn't actually matter what the larger mass is. With no force greater than 1 Newton, the amount of force is irrelevant. This business of pushing thousands of tons of force is wrong.  By the way, this same equation should make it possible for humans to generate lift enough to fly 10 ft off the ground. Nothing about this equation made the slightest difference in the gravitational force, which again, was nearly zero. Despite the Earth being heavy as all hell, it averaged back to 6.68 x 10^-11.  All that complicated math led nowhere.

Gravity does not exist.

Again.
Density(object) > Density(fluid): object sinks
Density(object) < Density(fluid): object floats

You just keep telling yourself and everybody else that gravity does not exist, bulshitbeliefs. I hope Mark Sargent is paying you well yo be a flerfer shill!

You're not a mathematician and even a five year old child can see your maths is wrong.

Once again for the most dense walking amongst us:

Gravity + object with density = weight.

How did the flat earth conference go? Did you make some new flat brain friends?

How did the flat earth conference go? Did you make some new flat brain friends?

l guess they like comparing bulges?

We have a "bulge" which even more invisible to the human eye than this bulge.

And I’m stuck home cutting grass and taking care of the cats.  Poo! 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 30, 2023, 04:51:29 PM

Because Newton later said it?

No, that was Archimedes (translated).
Even in their time, they knew of weight, and treated weight separately to buoyancy.
What they didn't know was why there was weight.
Originally, it was called gravitas. (not translated).

Gravitas means something different from what you think.

Gravitas n. : high seriousness (as in a person's bearing or in the treatment of a subject)
from Latin gravitas "weight, heaviness"

Weight, heaviness, and mass are all the same thing. Weight/mass compressed into a small space is density.

Here is the translated version of Archimedes principle:
"Any object, totally or partially immersed in a fluid or liquid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object."

Weight (mass) is buoyed by the displacement. Archimedes wrongly believed that the displacement was the same as the buoyancy. He also wrongly believed it was weight and not density.

i.e. buoyancy is an upwards force.
It relies upon a downwards force (weight).
You are the one trying to hijack that and change it.

Correct, the buoyancy equation requires "weight" to function. 

Density (object) vs density (object) OR density (object) vs density (fluid) OR density (fluid) vs density (fluid).

And all density needs mass and physical space.

Weight is not a force. It's a unit. Buoyancy is a force. Buoyancy requires units of mass and units of physical space to function.

You're not a mathematician and even a five year old child can see your maths is wrong.

Once again for the most dense walking amongst us:

Gravity + object with density = weight.

Smokescreen, I summarily proved that the formula for determining gravity leads nowhere. Then I double-checked it. Adding a constant that equals practically nothing and can be rounded to zero (0.00000000000668 -> 0), and that no difference in mass within the gravity formula means nothing about height off the ground or weight makes a substantial difference in the formula so long as Newtons is 1, means that the gravity constant is truly a nonsense constant.

So... (0) + mass = weight
Mass = weight



There is "g-force" that is, a force of strong angular momentum creating "equal and opposite" pressure (another of Newton's sleight of hand tricks), but there is no gravity, no Earth's rotation, and no orbit of any kind. How can we know this? Simple. The very same gyroscopes that according to their own press when used in a compass...
https://www.thesmartsurvivalist.com/types-of-compass/

A gyrocompass is a type of compass that uses the Earth’s rotation to determine true north. The device consists of a spinning wheel or disc that produces a steady stream of pulses. These pulses are sent to a computer, which uses them to calculate the rate of rotation and the direction in which the gyrocompass is pointing.

Gyroscopes were originally used in navigation before electronic sensors were invented. They work by sensing changes in angular velocity, meaning they can keep track of how fast an object is rotating and in what direction. This makes them ideal for use in compasses, since they can maintain their accuracy even when there are external forces acting on them, such as waves or wind.

Oh hey, so if the Earth was rotating, if it were orbiting, we should have angular momentum. Every 6 hours, this is 90 degrees of motion. But the gyroscope never moves!


It moves only when the compass moves. Something it is very good at, and very accurate. In fact, were the Earth round, all of this movement would interfere with the gyroscope, in the same way as magnets interfere with a compass. Because the Earth does not move, gyroscopes are reliable. They can be used for planes even doing complicate flips to tell which direction is up/left/right/down.  In other words...

If Earth moved or if gravity existed, gyroscopes would move too much to be accurate.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 01, 2023, 02:30:23 PM

How did the flat earth conference go? Did you make some new flat brain friends?

l guess they like comparing bulges?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 25, 2023, 02:51:02 PM

We have a "bulge" which even more invisible to the human eye than this bulge.

And I’m stuck home cutting grass and taking care of the cats.  Poo!

I'm stuck at home taking care of the wallabies and kangaroos.

I'm creating a new flat earth themed comic book and I have the three anti-heroes of the story all sorted:

Bulshitbeliefs (the power to stretch his bullshit beliefs beyond belief), Scepticmaniac (the power to take his scepticism to maniacal lengths), and Turdonium (the power to power his shitty arguments with a new element on the periodic table he has created, he calls, Turdonium) 

I can't decide on a title though:

The Dream-on Squad

Quote from: JackBlack on October 01, 2023, 02:22:23 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 30, 2023, 04:51:29 PM

Because Newton later said it?

No, that was Archimedes (translated).
Even in their time, they knew of weight, and treated weight separately to buoyancy.
What they didn't know was why there was weight.
Originally, it was called gravitas. (not translated).

Gravitas means something different from what you think.

Gravitas n. : high seriousness (as in a person's bearing or in the treatment of a subject)
from Latin gravitas "weight, heaviness"

Weight, heaviness, and mass are all the same thing. Weight/mass compressed into a small space is density.

Quote

Here is the translated version of Archimedes principle:
"Any object, totally or partially immersed in a fluid or liquid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object."

Weight (mass) is buoyed by the displacement. Archimedes wrongly believed that the displacement was the same as the buoyancy. He also wrongly believed it was weight and not density.

Quote

i.e. buoyancy is an upwards force.
It relies upon a downwards force (weight).
You are the one trying to hijack that and change it.

Correct, the buoyancy equation requires "weight" to function. 

Density (object) vs density (object) OR density (object) vs density (fluid) OR density (fluid) vs density (fluid).

And all density needs mass and physical space.

Weight is not a force. It's a unit. Buoyancy is a force. Buoyancy requires units of mass and units of physical space to function.

Quote from:  Smokescreen

You're not a mathematician and even a five year old child can see your maths is wrong.

Once again for the most dense walking amongst us:

Gravity + object with density = weight.

Smokescreen, I summarily proved that the formula for determining gravity leads nowhere. Then I double-checked it. Adding a constant that equals practically nothing and can be rounded to zero (0.00000000000668 -> 0), and that no difference in mass within the gravity formula means nothing about height off the ground or weight makes a substantial difference in the formula so long as Newtons is 1, means that the gravity constant is truly a nonsense constant.

So... (0) + mass = weight
Mass = weight



There is "g-force" that is, a force of strong angular momentum creating "equal and opposite" pressure (another of Newton's sleight of hand tricks), but there is no gravity, no Earth's rotation, and no orbit of any kind. How can we know this? Simple. The very same gyroscopes that according to their own press when used in a compass...
https://www.thesmartsurvivalist.com/types-of-compass/

Quote

A gyrocompass is a type of compass that uses the Earth’s rotation to determine true north. The device consists of a spinning wheel or disc that produces a steady stream of pulses. These pulses are sent to a computer, which uses them to calculate the rate of rotation and the direction in which the gyrocompass is pointing.

Gyroscopes were originally used in navigation before electronic sensors were invented. They work by sensing changes in angular velocity, meaning they can keep track of how fast an object is rotating and in what direction. This makes them ideal for use in compasses, since they can maintain their accuracy even when there are external forces acting on them, such as waves or wind.

Oh hey, so if the Earth was rotating, if it were orbiting, we should have angular momentum. Every 6 hours, this is 90 degrees of motion. But the gyroscope never moves!


It moves only when the compass moves. Something it is very good at, and very accurate. In fact, were the Earth round, all of this movement would interfere with the gyroscope, in the same way as magnets interfere with a compass. Because the Earth does not move, gyroscopes are reliable. They can be used for planes even doing complicate flips to tell which direction is up/left/right/down.  In other words...

If Earth moved or if gravity existed, gyroscopes would move too much to be accurate.

In order to live in your bubble on your own flat earth, all you need to do is give up all science.

I mean, ALL science.

The moment you think you and your dream on team are smart enough to prove your flat earth belief with science, you will be continually humiliated like has happened repeatedly here.

It can't be very good for your self esteem.

Something to think about.

Weight, heaviness, and mass are all the same thing.

No, they arenot.
Weight and mass are different.
Weight is the downwards force an object has acting on it due to gravity.
Mass is merely its resistance to change in motion.

Regardless, you are ignoring the point.
In this context, weight is a force, a downwards force, a force that makes things fall.
They didn't understand the attraction between masses, but they still had that downwards force.
Buoyancy was an upwards force.

You are the one lying about what buoyancy is.
You are the one trying to abrogate it to pure BS.

Archimedes wrongly believed

So you appeal to him only to boldly declare he was wrong.
Then why even bother appealing to him?
Why go off at others for updating it to include gravity to explain that weight, when you are entirely rejecting it?

He wasn't wrong (in this case), he just didn't understand what was causing the downwards force.

Correct, the buoyancy equation requires "weight" to function.

Yes, a downwards force. And there is no need for quotes for that.

Weight is not a force.

It is a force. You not liking that doesn't change it.
It is even capable of doing things like compressing gases and stretching (or compressing) springs.
Weight IS a force. Just like buoyancy.

The big difference is direction.
Weight is down, buoyancy is up.

Smokescreen, I summarily proved that the formula for determining gravity leads nowhere. Then I double-checked it.

Yet you didn't notice that you were providing pure BS? Or you did check that it was pure BS you could use to pretend gravity isn't real?
I notice you left that part of my post out of your response. I wonder why?

Adding a constant that equals practically nothing and can be rounded to zero (0.00000000000668 -> 0)

You can make anything practically 0 depending on what units you use.

no difference in mass within the gravity formula means nothing about height off the ground or weight makes a substantial difference in the formula so long as Newtons is 1, means that the gravity constant is truly a nonsense constant.

You mean your BS is nonsense. Where you boldly assert the force should be 1 N, regardless of what it actually is; to make up a fake value of G, to pretend the force should then just be G.

What you are providing is nonsense.
If you do the math properly, it isn't.

And it should really be gravity*mass=weight.

There is "g-force" that is

That is a measure of acceleration.
An acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 is a g-force of 1.

but there is no gravity, no Earth's rotation, and no orbit of any kind.

Wrong again.
And more delusional nonsense.
Firstly, stop bringing up Earth's rotation, it isn't helping you.
Earth's rotation is not the cause of gravity, nor does it have a significant impact on gravity due to how slow it is (~1 revolution per day)
But none of that is needed for g-forces.
It is NOT gravity.

But it does cause a similar affect, such as the formation of a pressure gradient which provides a force causing a helium filled balloon to move forwards in an accelerating vehicle.

And separation of things based upon density in a centrifuge.

Oh hey, so if the Earth was rotating, if it were orbiting, we should have angular momentum. Every 6 hours, this is 90 degrees of motion. But the gyroscope never moves!

Earth's rotation is measured with a gyrocompass and with laser ring gyroscopes.
So it does rotate, beyond any doubt.

The entire point of a gyrocompass is that it is not free to move around.
Instead, there are additional things in place to apply a torque based upon the rotation of Earth which would try to make it precess, which results in it pointing north.

If Earth was not rotating, a gyrocompass would not work.

If Earth moved or if gravity existed, gyroscopes would move too much to be accurate.

No, most gyroscopes are no where near accurate enough to measure the rotation of Earth (0.004 degrees per second)
e.g. this one here (the first I found on Google):
https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/a3g4250d.pdf
has a zero-rate level between -25 and 25 degrees per second.
And a change with temperature up to 0.03 degrees per second for each 1 degree C change in temperature.

This one (the second on Google):
https://www.mouser.com/pdfdocs/82113000d_scc1300d02_datasheet.PDF
has an offset error (including calibration and drift over time) of 1 degree per second.

What you really want is a very well made one. This also includes checking that it isn't drifting due to an imperfection and calibrating it to remove that imperfection.
One way, with a physical gyroscope is to spin it backwards an forwards; where if it is drifting to an imbalance, it should do so in the opposite direction (and an equal amount).
But if they are drifting due to Earth, it should be in the same direction (and the same amount).

As an example:

(Although all the blowing it with air could potentially affect the weight if there was a problem there).

Alternatively, get a laser ring gyroscope:

Yes.  It’s good to question.

But the post comment sums it up nicely.

Flat Earther’s can’t accept.  That is different than questioning. 

The manufactures and end users of ring laser gyroscopes know the exact reason the equipment drifts 15 degrees an hour.  And why it has to be accounted for.


FE’rs can’t accept that? Seems pretty closed minded to me.  To not accept blindly is as bad  as to believe blindly.

remmeber when i said this guy doesn't know how triangles and circles work?

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 26, 2023, 01:05:03 PM

maybe she can realize that as the plane ascends into the sky, she draws a circle and a triangle on a piece of paper and realizes that the horizon moves farther out, just like it is expected to do as the triangle gets taller and taller off the circle, the tangent point to the circle gets farther and farther away.

So in the end you don't have a debate point, just a recycled model. 

You can do the same on a piece of paper using triangles on a flat level ground. Sky, earth, sky, earth. 

Sky

Earth


The sky is curved. The ground is not.

Geez, you ppl aren't even helpful when someone wants a favor.

FE’rs can’t accept that? Seems pretty closed minded to me.  To not accept blindly is as bad  as to believe blindly.

I would say at this point it is worse than just not accepting.
That would be if someone else did a measurement and you didn't accept it.

In this case (Bob and their laser ring gyro) it is wilful rejection of reality which you don't like.
It isn't a case of not being sure if you can trust the person who made the measurement.