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

Directional gravity toward the center of Earth is bullshit.

The real question for water is why it takes a certain amount of mass to overcome the forces of cohesion and adhesion before a water droplet is big enough (gains enough mass) to fall.  What force overcomes the water droplet’s cohesion and adhesion to fall.

Water hanging from ceiling. Highlighting den pressure failure
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91759.0

I believe that den pressure is at odds with hydrogen bonds found in water.  And den pressure is at odds with the reality that water can hang from a ceiling as a water droplet.  Not falling.  Until the water droplet gains enough mass from condensation to have gravity overcome water’s properties of adhesion and cohesion. 

Quote

Detailed Description
Cohesion: Hydrogen Bonds Make Water Sticky
Water has an amazing ability to adhere (stick) to itself and to other substances. The property of cohesion describes the ability of water molecules to be attracted to other water molecules, which allows water to be a "sticky" liquid.
Hydrogen bonds are attractions of electrostatic force caused by the difference in charge between slightly positive hydrogen ions and other, slightly negative ions. In the case of water, hydrogen bonds form between neighboring hydrogen and oxygen atoms of adjacent water molecules. The attraction between individual water molecules creates a bond known as a hydrogen bond.

https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/strong-polar-bond-between-water-molecules-creates-water-cohesion#:~:text=In%20the%20case%20of%20water,known%20as%20a%20hydrogen%20bond.

Water stuck on a window?  Not running down?

Water stuck to the ceiling not dripping?

Water can stick to windows and overhangs and not fall because of “Hydrogen bonds are attractions of electrostatic force”.


Let’s take a water drop on a ceiling.  The hydrogen bond that makes water “sticky” allows it to hold on and not drip. The forces of cohesion and adhesion with the water drop and the ceiling is greater than the force of gravity on the water droplet.

  If the water drop continues to accumulate mass through say condensation, gravity
will finally have enough force to overcome the water droplet’s cohesion and adhesion with the ceiling, and the water drop will fall.

So.  In den pressure.  How can a water droplet stick to the underside of a ceiling.  Then when the water droplet is massive enough, what in den pressure overcomes the forces of cohesion and adhesion with the water droplet and ceiling to make it fall?  There is no atmosphere between the water droplet and ceiling.


Note.  Added.  In den pressure there can’t be free space.  So as the water droplet starts to fall and pull away from the ceiling.  In den pressure how can it fall.  I guess den pressure everything is occupied by something.  So how does the water droplet pull away from the ceiling to fall?

Directional gravity toward the center of Earth is bullshit.

And again…

If you were standing upright, you could very definitely push a sled up a brick wall. This would continue so long as you kept a hold on said sled, and the sled had a wall to press against.

What are you babbling about.

Why is there the directionality of down?  Why.  If you wave your hand horizontal back and forth, it should have the same resistance if I move my hand vertical up and down?  Is that a false statement? 


Back to a ball thrown straight up where it is slowed down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.

I can further illustrate this by upping the weight, and changing the model to exaggerate the downward force of gravity.  That things are actually attracted to earth.

I can make a 2000 lbs steel sled with four wheels, and channeling / guides.

For the horizontal version, something like this.



The wheels fit in the channels or guides. The wheels use good bearings.  I can push it with my body.  Probably with a good shove, get the wheeled sled to coast a bit of a distance on its own.  I could even use a winch rated for 500 pounds and get the thing to move. 

Now. There should be no “directionality”.

But if I take the same set up, and make it vertical where I can stand under and push up.  Something like this.

.

I cannot push the sled away from the earth, and there is no way in hell I can give it a shove to coast upward on its own.


There is clearly a force of attraction towards the earth that fights a change in attitude.  The same winch rated for 500 pounds that could move the sled horizontally would damage itself trying to pick up the sled vertically. A larger winch with more power and rated for lifting would be required.  The force that prevents one from pushing the sled up vertically, and requires a more powerful winch for lifting the sled is gravity.


What force is present that prevents me from pushing the sled up vertically and gives the directionality of down.  But yet I can push the sled horizontal with the mechanical advantage of wheels.  Why is the mechanical advantage not helpful when the sled is in the vertical position.

Quote from: Farenheit451 on August 02, 2023, 11:40:03 PM

How does a dead fly overcome gravity?

I have no idea, but it isn't just flies.

I should see indents where the fly is if it were as simple as driving spikes into objects. What we instead see in this picture of on sleeping on the ceiling is that you can basically flip the entire photo vertically.

  Yesterday, instead of taking a shower, I took a bath.  And then I got freaked out. It's like this. We have a soap tray that turn out to not be well placed, as water sprayed it and basically washed the soap a few times (to the point where I stopped using it) until most of it disintegrated. As anyone who has seen this happen knows, water can actually loop under surfaces as it drips down. And this is precisely what happened. I found what appeared to be rust stains from a razor that I also mistakenly thought was safe in the tray before I noticed what was happening to the soap. And there was alot of white powder, presumably from soapthat had mixed with water then evaporated. All of this was on the underside of the tray.

Directional gravity toward the center of Earth is bullshit.

The point was that a dead fly does not overcome gravity. When it's alive, just like you, it expends energy in order to overcome it. Look at a vertical rock climber for example, those who do it bare hands, they  find small irregularity in the rock they can hold onto. From a distance it looks as amazing a feat as what amazes you with the fly, right? But if the climber gets a heart attack, it stops expending energy to hold onto these small irregularities on the rock surface and fall.

As for your soapy water, you said it yourself, it drips down, right? So this proves there is a downward pulling force. Now why does some of it wrap around instead of falling. Well, water has a strong surface tension and it wraps around objects keeping them wet. Then there is the friction of water with the surface it is in contact with as well as the friction it has with itself which is expressed as a property called viscosity. These are phenomenons/forces that cause something to offer resistance to motion, in this case prevent some of the water from falling. As you added soap to water, it certainly greatly increased its viscosity, hence the friction it has with itself and and its surroundings, hence why more of it sticks instead of falling.

If you keep adding soapy water continuously,  you'll get quickly to a point where as much water drips down as you're adding while the amount that sticks remains the same. That's because the surface tension and viscosity  have not enough force to hold more than a certain quantity.

As a general rule, the smaller the scale, for things of identical or similar density, the more they offer resistance to motion in air. That is because the forces that resist motion in air are acting on the objects surfaces and that while the downward force due to gravity always remains the same per unit of mass, the surface effects opposing motion increase per unit of mass the smaller the objects are.

If this sounds preposterous, just take a cube of something and slice it in half through all directions.  You now have 8 cublets. The mass and weight remain the same but the surface has increased. Do this 10 thousands times and the mass an weight will still be the same but the surface will have increased massively.

That is why clouds, mists, fogs, smokes, dusts, etc, resist downward motion easily. It is also why it is signivicantly easier for a fly to stick on a wall than it is for you.

I should see indents where the fly is if it were as simple as driving spikes into objects.

Again, it isn't. That is your strawman you are yet to support at all.
Even if it was, why should you see those indents if they are tiny?

Again, if they were magically defying gravity, they should be able to do this in mid-air, yet they need a surface.

Directional gravity toward the center of Earth is bullshit.

Why?
You are yet to provide a single example to demonstrate this.
Again, other forces can act.
Gravity doesn't mean no other forces can exist.

Also, notice how you have now contradicted your previous BS?
Previously, you were desperate to say that water always goes down, now you say it doesn't.

I think the point I'm making is that I've seen birds hang on the side of shepherd's crooks, and opposums, sloths, and bats can hang legit upside down.

It's not a matter of expending effort. It's about shifting body weight towards the wall. On a mountain, climbers will  set up tent on the cliffiside. Yes, they use pitons here to secure the tent. But I think if we moved these climbers from even distribution in the tent to all within the tent away from the rock wall towards space, you'd quickly see the pitons securing the tent give way. But let's assume the tent didn't rip and the pitons are secure enough to hold the  weight that is away from the wall indefinitely (we're stretching the piton's ability to hold a bit), what do you think happens? It's just a guess but I think the tent's right side (assuming the left side is pinned to the mountain will fall down) will fall. You can do this against any wall, hold one side straight, and descend the other side and tell me what happens in regard to the object's relation to the wall (hint: it's flat against the wall by the end). Angular momentum means the right side keeps leaning down until the entire tent is against the wall. The campers  themselves find they have slid on top of each other and are now firmly against the side of the mountain. Like this.



Gravity? No. It's simply mass. Mass can be moved toward the ground or towards a wall. We humans don't really do that on instinct, but good rock climbers know how to somewhat do it. Hell, good rock climbers can climb upside down. The laws of gravity should make this impossible, but by distributing his weight correctly, the rock climber can get past outcroppings.

Why, it's so easy a baby (monkey) can do it!



Or a very well trained human.



I can do a yoga position on my bed. The result is that alot of weight shifts to my hands, versus being evenly distributed. The bed creaks.

Gravity? No. It's simply mass. Mass can be moved toward the ground or towards a wall.

It’s not about if mass can be moved.

It’s why a ball thrown straight slows down fast than is explained by air resistance, slows down, stops, changes direction of travel 180 degrees, and not only falls back to earth but does so with acceleration.

Again.  I can highlight the force that slows the ball down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.

Why can I move a 1 ton sled like this horizontally. Even give it a good shove and it will coast a bit.




But if I change the set up to vertical with the same rails and wheels for mechanical advantage, I now can’t lift the sled vertically. I can’t make it increase in height.



Why is it a one ton sled that is relatively easy to move horizontally with the mechanical advantage of wheels becomes impossible for me to lift vertical by muscle with the same mechanical advantage.

There is no force of gravity in your delusion.  What changes from moving something horizontal to moving something vertically (increase in height) in your delusion. 

I think the point I'm making is that I've seen birds hang on the side of shepherd's crooks, and opposums, sloths, and bats can hang legit upside down.

It's not a matter of expending effort. It's about shifting body weight towards the wall. On a mountain, climbers will  set up tent on the cliffiside. Yes, they use pitons here to secure the tent. But I think if we moved these climbers from even distribution in the tent to all within the tent away from the rock wall towards space, you'd quickly see the pitons securing the tent give way. But let's assume the tent didn't rip and the pitons are secure enough to hold the  weight that is away from the wall indefinitely (we're stretching the piton's ability to hold a bit), what do you think happens? It's just a guess but I think the tent's right side (assuming the left side is pinned to the mountain will fall down) will fall. You can do this against any wall, hold one side straight, and descend the other side and tell me what happens in regard to the object's relation to the wall (hint: it's flat against the wall by the end). Angular momentum means the right side keeps leaning down until the entire tent is against the wall. The campers  themselves find they have slid on top of each other and are now firmly against the side of the mountain. Like this.



Gravity? No. It's simply mass. Mass can be moved toward the ground or towards a wall. We humans don't really do that on instinct, but good rock climbers know how to somewhat do it. Hell, good rock climbers can climb upside down. The laws of gravity should make this impossible, but by distributing his weight correctly, the rock climber can get past outcroppings.

Why, it's so easy a baby (monkey) can do it!



Or a very well trained human.



I can do a yoga position on my bed. The result is that alot of weight shifts to my hands, versus being evenly distributed. The bed creaks.

Well then, with a bit of training you should have no problems walking on walls or upside down on a ceiling now you've understood how it all works. Can't wait to see the video.

I think the point I'm making is that I've seen birds hang on the side of shepherd's crooks, and opposums, sloths, and bats can hang legit upside down.

And notice that they hand, with their body weight supported by tensile forces holding themselves together.
But notice how you need to pick a few things, rather than just everything.
Why is it so rare?
Why can't humans just walk up a rock face?
Note grab onto it with their hands and carefully try to climb while risking falling; but just casually walk up it like you can walk along a floor?

It's not a matter of expending effort.

Yes, because if you have something with tensile strength, you can have it hold things without "expending effort".

But I think if we moved these climbers from even distribution in the tent to all within the tent away from the rock wall towards space, you'd quickly see the pitons securing the tent give way.

And like many things you think, that is just pure BS.
They can hang, e.g. here is a mattress hanging below another:


At this point you are just spouting whatever delusional BS you can to pretend your fantasy is true.

But let's assume the tent didn't rip and the pitons are secure enough to hold the  weight that is away from the wall indefinitely (we're stretching the piton's ability to hold a bit), what do you think happens? It's just a guess but I think the tent's right side (assuming the left side is pinned to the mountain will fall down) will fall.

So it wont magically go to the wall, instead it will fall down, as if acted upon by gravity. WHY?
You are just refuting yourself now.

You can do this against any wall

You don't even need a wall.
Go get a stick, tie a rope to one end (as close to the end as possible).
Then hold that rope, and hold the other end of the stick, so the stick is straight.
Then let go of that end, and see what happens.

But why stop there.
Lets go even further.
Instead of just holding this rope, lets drive a metal bar into a wall so it is held firmly in place.
We have the stick be the length of the metal bar sticking out of the wall.
We attach the rope to the part of the bar furthest from the wall, and again initially have the stick level.
We can then place some weight on the stick until it slips.
And then, we again see it go down. But as it is supported on the end away from the wall, it moves away from the wall.

Angular momentum means the right side keeps leaning down until the entire tent is against the wall.

Angular momentum would mean it keeps on rotating, so this is NOT angular momentum.
This is a simple torque.
You have a support at one end, and then have gravity acting on it all along, in a manner where it is not balanced. This exerts a torque.
Notice how gravity is acting yet again.

Gravity? No. It's simply mass. Mass can be moved toward the ground or towards a wall.

But why should it move towards the ground or towards a wall?
And why doesn't it just magically move towards the wall? How come in order to get it to move towards the wall, you need that to be the result of it moving down?

Hell, good rock climbers can climb upside down. The laws of gravity should make this impossible, but by distributing his weight correctly, the rock climber can get past outcroppings.

No, gravity should not make this impossible.
Without gravity anyone should be able to do it.
But instead, it requires strength, and a good hold.

I think the point I'm making is that I've seen birds hang on the side of shepherd's crooks, and opposums, sloths, and bats can hang legit upside down.

It's not a matter of expending effort. It's about shifting body weight towards the wall. On a mountain, climbers will  set up tent on the cliffiside. Yes, they use pitons here to secure the tent. But I think if we moved these climbers from even distribution in the tent to all within the tent away from the rock wall towards space, you'd quickly see the pitons securing the tent give way. But let's assume the tent didn't rip and the pitons are secure enough to hold the  weight that is away from the wall indefinitely (we're stretching the piton's ability to hold a bit), what do you think happens? It's just a guess but I think the tent's right side (assuming the left side is pinned to the mountain will fall down) will fall. You can do this against any wall, hold one side straight, and descend the other side and tell me what happens in regard to the object's relation to the wall (hint: it's flat against the wall by the end). Angular momentum means the right side keeps leaning down until the entire tent is against the wall. The campers  themselves find they have slid on top of each other and are now firmly against the side of the mountain. Like this.



Gravity? No. It's simply mass. Mass can be moved toward the ground or towards a wall. We humans don't really do that on instinct, but good rock climbers know how to somewhat do it. Hell, good rock climbers can climb upside down. The laws of gravity should make this impossible, but by distributing his weight correctly, the rock climber can get past outcroppings.

Why, it's so easy a baby (monkey) can do it!



Or a very well trained human.



I can do a yoga position on my bed. The result is that alot of weight shifts to my hands, versus being evenly distributed. The bed creaks.

Pulmabriefs144, explain to everybody why you can't climb the walls in your room or climb the sides of any building you choose, just like spider-man? Maybe you can tell us all why you can't leap tall buildings in a single bound, then? Gravity isn't the reason you can't, is it? Gravity doesn't exist according to you, does it? So, explain why you can't do these things......

You just keep on pulling your briefs, pretending nobody notices.......you'd make a great tennis player......forehand, backhand, dejuice!

Yeah, and? I put my feet up. As you can see there is a wall perpendicular to our ceiling thanks to the slope roof of the room. When I put my feet up and there is a nearby wall, my feet fall toward the wall. They don't fall down.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 07, 2023, 07:07:44 AM

Gravity? No. It's simply mass. Mass can be moved toward the ground or towards a wall.

It’s not about if mass can be moved.

It’s why a ball thrown straight slows down fast than is explained by air resistance, slows down, stops, changes direction of travel 180 degrees, and not only falls back to earth but does so with acceleration.

Again.  I can highlight the force that slows the ball down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.

Why can I move a 1 ton sled like this horizontally. Even give it a good shove and it will coast a bit.




But if I change the set up to vertical with the same rails and wheels for mechanical advantage, I now can’t lift the sled vertically. I can’t make it increase in height.



Why is it a one ton sled that is relatively easy to move horizontally with the mechanical advantage of wheels becomes impossible for me to lift vertical by muscle with the same mechanical advantage.

There is no force of gravity in your delusion.  What changes from moving something horizontal to moving something vertically (increase in height) in your delusion.

Nope, it's mass.

You wouldn't be able to pull that thing from the side if the whole structure wasn't straight.

=.=
This is how the cart and load looks while horizontal.

But even something as simple as two flat rear tires changes the whole thing to =./
Pretty sure you can't pull with two flats, without serious effort.

But if we switch it to vertical, the cart actually has a load more like this:
<=./

Just as a truck in a ditch has to be righted before it can back out (=>.\) due to wheels not being level, the wheels of that cart above simply aren't heavy enough to cling to the wall so they fly off into the air.

What you're talking about is angular momentum, not gravity. I can prove it to you by tilting my entire bookshelf sideways. But uhh, you know, I don't want to spend hours cleaning up books.



The top and bottom of the shelf allow books to stand upright or sideways. The middle shelf requires a lean. With me so far? Now, if I had an upright book shelf, and leaned it enough to the side, WHAM "gravity" takes over and it falls down. Actually, it slides over on the side, and a force known as momentum keeps it moving. Were I to remove all books from the shelf, the lack of mass and the lack of direction (formula for momentum) means no strong "force of gravity". I can simply turn it to the side, and place all books back on the shelf. The books always lean toward the "bottom" (which was formerly the side, in this case) of the shelf, which may not be strong enough to support all of that. Were I to suddenly flip the entire shelf using some kind of tool, you would notice that the books actually fall up from their original position.



So yes, I could walk on the walls, or even the ceiling if you rotated the room. However, no "gravity" would allow me to walk up all sides of a ball. The Earth isn't a sphere, and objects fall due to buoyancy (lack thereof) and angular momentum.

Nope, it's mass.

Evidently not mass alone.  Because I can push the sled with wheels if has the rails or if it doesn’t have the rails on level horizontal surface.  The rails are only there to give it a uniform setup in the vertical position. A way to apply the mechanical advantage of the wheels in equal fashion in the vertical position.

A more practical example.  I can place my Jeep Wrangler in neutral and push it around the garage with or with out the front wheels turned.  But I can’t lift it vertically off the ground by strength.

Or.  What’s different where I can push the wrangle around the garage, I can let it roll downhill, but I can’t push it uphill.

What’s the difference with mass where I can push the wrangler around the garage from standstill.  I can let the wrangle roll down a hill from standstill.  But can’t push / roll the wrangle uphill from standstill.

You wouldn't be able to pull that thing from the side if the whole structure wasn't straight.

And I can’t move a 20 pound beam if it’s bolted to a structure.  Doesn’t have anything to do with the price of beans. 

That doesn’t explain why the wheels for the sled in the vertical orientation aren’t providing the same mechanical advantage that allows the sled to move in the horizontal position. 

But if we switch it to vertical, the cart actually has a load more like this:
<=./

Oh.  No.  The track/rails that allowed the wheels to move and gave the mechanical advantage to move the sled in the horizontal position are the same in the vertical position. 

And you ignored this part.

There is clearly a force of attraction towards the earth that fights a change in attitude.  The same winch rated for 500 pounds that could move the sled horizontally would damage itself trying to pick up the sled vertically. A larger winch with more power and rated for lifting would be required.  The force that prevents one from pushing the sled up vertically, and requires a more powerful winch for lifting the sled is gravity.


What force is present that prevents me from pushing the sled up vertically and gives the directionality of down.  But yet I can push the sled horizontal with the mechanical advantage of wheels.  Why is the mechanical advantage not helpful when the sled is in the vertical position.


Sorry.  False argument by you. 

As you can see there is a wall perpendicular to our ceiling thanks to the slope roof of the room. When I put my feet up and there is a nearby wall, my feet fall toward the wall. They don't fall down.

No, feet do still fall down. It is just more limited by your body.

They do not magically fall towards a wall. Nothing does. There is always another force making it go towards the wall.

Nope, it's mass.

Nope. It's not mass. Mass provides no directionality.
You need a force acting on the mass.

You wouldn't be able to pull that thing from the side if the whole structure wasn't straight.
But even something as simple as two flat rear tires changes the whole thing to =./
Pretty sure you can't pull with two flats, without serious effort.

Wrong again.
It does NOT need to be straight.
What you need is minimal friction and the like.

With the sled set up properly, the wheels roll with minimal resistance.
That means you can easily move it.
When you flatten the tires, you need to exert a significant force to distort the tires.
This makes it much harder to push.

And it is quite clear your claim is dishonest BS by even a casual thought, as you can make all tires flat, and then it is still hard to pull, even though it is straight. At that point it is more like =.=

You can set up a sled with different sized wheels and it works fine.

What you're talking about is angular momentum, not gravity.

No, what we are talking about is gravity. Not angular momentum, as already explained.
Repeating the same BS wont help you.

I can prove it to you by tilting my entire bookshelf sideways. But uhh, you know, I don't want to spend hours cleaning up books.

No, you can't.
You just assert BS, and ingore why your claims are wrong.
Look at how you have ignored a simple example of a stick on a string.

The top and bottom of the shelf allow books to stand upright or sideways. The middle shelf requires a lean.

No, the middle shelf allows the books to be stored at an angle, as that is how they are lowest.
Notice how the book is still trying to go down?

Now, if I had an upright book shelf, and leaned it enough to the side, WHAM "gravity" takes over and it falls down. Actually, it slides over on the side, and a force known as momentum keeps it moving.

Wrong again.
Momentum is NOT a force. Momentum is the tendency for an object to keep moving.
But in reality, when you are doing this you can calculate the centre of gravity of the bookshelf.
You can then also examine where the bookshelf is supported.
And do you know what is required for the bookshelf to fall over?
For the centre of gravity to be outside the point where the bookshelf is supported.
For example, if you tilt the bookshelf to the right, if the centre of gravity is to the left of the rightmost leg of the bookshelf, it will fall back to the left. But if it is to the right, then the torque from these 2 vectors results in the bookshelf turning, falling to the ground.

You can even start the bookshelf off almost balanced, just slightly to one side, and it accelerates; showing it is not merely momentum.
You can even go one step further, by starting with the bookshelf significantly off balance, and pushing it (and releasing) towards the point of balance. It will slow down as it converts its kinetic energy into gravitational potential energy; but unless you provided enough of a push to push it over that balance point, it stops and falls back down.
This shows quite conclusively it is NOT momentum or angular momentum.

Were I to remove all books from the shelf

You change the centre of gravity.
You can also move this around by moving the books.
If you load up all the books on the top shelf, at the right (or put large weights) it is easy to tip over to the right, but much harder to tip over to the left.
And if you load up all the books at the bottom, it is much more stable.

The books always lean toward the "bottom"

Yes, the bottom, towards Earth. Not the side like you claim they magically should be able to.
So we are back to "Why down?"

Were I to suddenly flip the entire shelf using some kind of tool, you would notice that the books actually fall up from their original position.

Do they fall up, or are you throwing it up?

So yes, I could walk on the walls, or even the ceiling if you rotated the room.

i.e. you can walk on the surface closer to the core of Earth.

However, no "gravity" would allow me to walk up all sides of a ball.

Why?
Have you tried it with a large ball well outside the Roche limit of any larger object?
Or just your typical wilful rejection of reality?

The Earth isn't a sphere, and objects fall due to buoyancy (lack thereof) and angular momentum.

All the evidence points to Earth being roughly spherical.
Buoyancy is an upwards force due to a pressure gradient and relies upon gravity. No buoyancy provides no reason for things to fall.
Angular momentum doesn't help you either.

You still have no reason for why things fall, nor any fault with gravity.
Instead, you just use whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend there is a problem.

Yeah, and? I put my feet up. As you can see there is a wall perpendicular to our ceiling thanks to the slope roof of the room. When I put my feet up and there is a nearby wall, my feet fall toward the wall. They don't fall down.

OMG. You're just some dopey kid who's flunked out of elementary school.

You mean you can't figure out your feet fall towards the wall because your lower legs are  pivoting like with a hinge at your knees? It's like when someone cuts down a tree and the top of the tree finishes up the length of the height of the tree, from the stump. I'm speechless.

Out of principle, I can't ever reply to one of your posts again. You are now on my ignore list and from this point on are invisible to me.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 09, 2023, 06:25:01 AM

Nope, it's mass.

Evidently not mass alone.  Because I can push the sled with wheels if has the rails or if it doesn’t have the rails on level horizontal surface.  The rails are only there to give it a uniform setup in the vertical position. A way to apply the mechanical advantage of the wheels in equal fashion in the vertical position.

A more practical example.  I can place my Jeep Wrangler in neutral and push it around the garage with or with out the front wheels turned.  But I can’t lift it vertically off the ground by strength.

Or.  What’s different where I can push the wrangle around the garage, I can let it roll downhill, but I can’t push it uphill. 

What’s the difference with mass where I can push the wrangler around the garage from standstill.  I can let the wrangle roll down a hill from standstill.  But can’t push / roll the wrangle uphill from standstill.

You're weak. We've had to occasionally push vehicles uphill for assistance. It typically requires more than just me, though. But yes, occasionally a truck or car was in a ditch, and it had to be pushed uphill. Somehow people managed by getting good traction.

Tell you what though. If gravity really exists, you ought to be able to get a friend to get you a large gurney or something so that you can lie on your belly.

Gravity says that force of pushing something down ought to be in favor of downward motion, so with just a gurney and sand below the truck, I should be able to push it straight into the ground.

Betcha I can't. You know why? Because in both cases I am using perpendicular force (90° angle push) to try to move an object. I am also completely still, whereas as someone who actually has to push a car (I bet you never have done this, and are privileged as fuck) knows that you need mass and motion if you're gonna move anything.

|.= or =.|

The actual physics involved is that perpendicular lifts (that is, the truck is 90° from you) lack any force of momentum. Which is a good thing too! What is actually going on here is that both the truck and you have angular momentum. In order to move the truck, you would need a harness on you and the truck. You wouldn't even need anything pulling them per se, they just need to be tied to something firm and heavy. Suppose you just had yourself harnessed? The truck loses hold and smushes you. In fact, while you can have a loose harness, the truck needs a ratcheting harness so it doesn't roll back. However, unlike trying to lift it, when you are positioned sideways, you walk up the side of the building while pushing it. Trying to lift it from a still position while standing completely 90° from it is not even remotely the same. You have to get in its path, and if it slips, it crushes you. Which is why most lifts of this sort are done either by pulling the entire thing at the other sude of the wall via harness + truck of equal/greater size. Or by airlift. The helicopter can lift carry heavy objects by air. Working in its favor is that both it and the object are level. So despite moving straight up, a jeep is something it can lift.

^
=
.
=

Hell, forget a jeep. Watch this.

Gravitational force should exert on both the helicopter and the plane. Yet it is able to not only get aloft by nothing more than spinning its blades but lift the plane aloft.

(As for the rest of the argument, I don't think it matters about the precise shape of this stupid object so yeah I'm gonna ignore it. It only matters about level)

Lifting something from a standing position has no force from a perpendicular angle. And you're talking about false arguments.

This why I don't have to answer the rest of the question because not only does the answer to one address the whole, but your entire reasoning is based on false premises. That you are somehow using the same force, even though I can clearly there is no momentum, short of risking your life to walk up a wall. You're clearly not pushing it that way so no.

You're weak.

You're deflecting.
Why is there the difference when pushing in different directions, as if there is a force pushing or pulling things down?

Gravity says that force of pushing something down ought to be in favor of downward motion, so with just a gurney and sand below the truck, I should be able to push it straight into the ground.

Why?
You need to apply a large enough force to displace the sand.
However, at least a small amount is pushed away, with tracks left in the sand.

whereas as someone who actually has to push a car (I bet you never have done this, and are privileged as fuck) knows that you need mass and motion if you're gonna move anything.

You sure do love lying.
Anyone who has pushed things recognises you don't need motion.
You can push a car from a standstill.
What you need is the ability to apply a force.

Gravitational force should exert on both the helicopter and the plane. Yet it is able to not only get aloft by nothing more than spinning its blades but lift the plane aloft.

And more dishonesty.
The "blades" it is spinning are wings, wings which provide lift.
Again, if gravity wasn't there, then it shouldn't need to spin.

This why I don't have to answer the rest of the question because not only does the answer to one address the whole, but your entire reasoning is based on false premises. That you are somehow using the same force, even though I can clearly there is no momentum, short of risking your life to walk up a wall. You're clearly not pushing it that way so no.

The basic premise is the question of why it is harder to push up a hill or slope or vertically up, than it is to push horizontally?
Which goes to the more basic question of WHY DOWN? Which you are yet to answer.

You can also trivially set it up to be the same force, in many different ways.

Out of principle, I can't ever reply to one of your posts again. You are now on my ignore list and from this point on are invisible to me.

I think you nailed it.  And why waste time on someone like bulmabriefs144 that has been repeatedly proven to just right out lie.  Not much use in arguing with a FE that is nothing more than the equivalent of a lying used car salesman when it comes to them pushing their delusion.

I have a time lapse camera on the way.  I’ll just pop in with some videos of reality now and then.

Stuff like this. 

Normal speed.


Time lapse.  If it will play?



Sun is definitely moving up /rising out of the horizon.  The sun isn’t coming straight at the horizon.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 09, 2023, 05:36:25 AM

Yeah, and? I put my feet up. As you can see there is a wall perpendicular to our ceiling thanks to the slope roof of the room. When I put my feet up and there is a nearby wall, my feet fall toward the wall. They don't fall down.

OMG. You're just some dopey kid who's flunked out of elementary school.

You mean you can't figure out your feet fall towards the wall because your lower legs are  pivoting like with a hinge at your knees? It's like when someone cuts down a tree and the top of the tree finishes up the length of the height of the tree, from the stump. I'm speechless.

Out of principle, I can't ever reply to one of your posts again. You are now on my ignore list and from this point on are invisible to me.

You realize I'm already got you on ignore? It's cuz you're a dumbfuck.

Look at how my legs are.

I am sitting edgeside in my bed, practically about to fall off. Joint? No, my legs are straight. If I was okay risking hitting my head, I could allow my legs to fall in the opposite direction wall on the ceiling.

Short of contracting my legs though, they cannot fall DOWN though. Don't you think I would notice if my legs bent?



You're a dumbfuck.

Sun is definitely moving up /rising out of the horizon.  The sun isn’t coming straight at the horizon.

And you're not only dumb but also a liar.

If the RE rotation orbit model were really true, you would not recognize the sunrise. Okay, this is the fantasy:



Alright, we are told Earth both orbits and rotates counterclockwise.

I'm gonna ignore the wobble, since it doesn't happen every day.



The problem of a round Earth is the great liars tell you to pay no attention to the orbit of the Earth.

Don't look too close at this model, or you might find that the motion kinda falls apart. If we look only at rotation we can kinda believe maybe that (actually, even that is closer to sideways, but anyway, the curved line convinces ppl) the sunrise and sunset model is plausible. But as the Earth is being pulled around a corner in its orbit, note the straight up diagonal curve. In other words, if you were to decide where the sun starts, it is not from the ground. It is from the middle of the sky!  When I further overlap the two lines (red), the whole model shows closer to the orbit model. It's a load of crap!

You're a dumbfuck.

No evidence of that.  And at least the individual seems honest.  Where you have no respect for reality and the hard truth of reality.

Again…

A more practical example.  I can place my Jeep Wrangler in neutral and push it around the garage with or with out the front wheels turned.  But I can’t lift it vertically off the ground by strength.

Or.  What’s different where I can push the wrangle around the garage, I can let it roll downhill, but I can’t push it uphill.

What’s the difference with mass where I can push the wrangler around the garage from standstill.  I can let the wrangle roll down a hill from standstill.  But can’t push / roll the wrangle uphill from standstill.

Why can the wrangler roll down the hill from a complete standstill with no energy input.  But I can’t “mass” the wrangler with no energy input up hill?  Why can I push the wrangler around in the garage with relative ease, but can’t push the wrangler up the hill?  Same mass?  Same mechanical advantage.  Just a change of direction.  What is significant about the change in direction?

Look at how my legs are.

How?
You show us so little it isn't funny.

How about this, try it against the wall, and try the same setup, not against a wall.
Or turn around, so your head is close to the wall and see which way your legs fall.

Or stop with the pathetic deflections and deal with the example of a stick on a string.
The stick falls away from the wall, not towards it.
And in all cases, it is about going down towards Earth.

Again, you are just using whatever dishonest BS you can to prop up your delusional BS.

Joint? No, my legs are straight.

But your body is not.
You have a bend from your back to your legs.
Your body naturally wants to straighten.

Short of contracting my legs though, they cannot fall DOWN though.

You mean they can't fall directly down.
But can their centre of mass get lower?
YES!

And you're not only dumb but also a liar.

No, that would be you. As you have been repeatedly caught lying.

If the RE rotation orbit model were really true, you would not recognize the sunrise. Okay, this is the fantasy:

That is YOUR fantasy, with a bunch of crap drawn in, and still no explanation.

The problem of a round Earth is the great liars tell you to pay no attention to the orbit of the Earth.

No they don't. That is just another lie from you.
In fact, the combination of the rotation and the orbit (and especially the axial tilt) is why the sun returns to roughly the same point in the sky every roughly 24 hours, while the other stars only take 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
It is also what causes the analemma.

See, the stars trace almost perfect circles, and each successive time they pass due north or due south of a certain location, their angle of elevation remains basically unchanged. Over the course of an entire year, there is no significant difference (much less than 1 degree).
Conversely, the sun varies dramatically.

But do you know the biggest difference between the rotation and orbit?
For the rotation, the sun will rise a certain amount north or south of due east, and then it sets the same amount, the same direction (north or south) of west.
e.g. during the southern summer, the sun rises south of east and sets south of west.
During the northern summer, the sun rises north of east and sets north of west.

But if it was just the orbit, it would switch, so the sun would rise north of east and set south of west; or it would rise south of east and set north of west.

The combined effect is for it to not change much over a single day, but over the course of a year it will move north and south.

But as the Earth is being pulled around a corner in its orbit, note the straight up diagonal curve. In other words, if you were to decide where the sun starts, it is not from the ground. It is from the middle of the sky!  When I further overlap the two lines (red), the whole model shows closer to the orbit model. It's a load of crap!

Thanks for summing you your post. Your post really is just a load of crap.
You have just arbitrarily drawn in lines with no reason nor justification at all.

Why should orbit produce that line? Why should rotation produce that line?
Why should the product of the model show closer to orbit?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 10, 2023, 08:17:09 PM

You're a dumbfuck.

No evidence of that.  And at least the individual seems honest.  Where you have no respect for reality and the hard truth of reality.

No. I have solid evidence you are a dumbfuck. When I tell you something and it conflicts with your reality, you aren't able to learn it.

Again…

The reason you have to say again is you didn't learn the first time. Because you are a dumbfuck. But I'll
 answer again.

A more practical example.  I can place my Jeep Wrangler in neutral and push it around the garage with or with out the front wheels turned.  But I can’t lift it vertically off the ground by strength. 

Can you climb straight up a wall? No you can't and before you blame gravity, there are several real forces here. Friction, angular momentum, directionality, and your own body weight acting against buoyancy.

Now, I want to give three examples, and it is all actually the same phenomenon. A rope in quicksand, allowing someone to balance and thus swim out. A rope allowing a nonswimmer to surface by pulling themselves toward a point outside the water. A rope at the top the wall pinned to something firm, allowing the person to rappel in such a a way that they can sorta walk up a wall. All of these are rope assisting overcoming a medium. And none of them involve any force but basic tension.
In fact, were you to mount the  rope to a truck for quicksand and try to pull the person out, you'd actually hurt them (I write, and one of the things I wrote about was a character caught in quicksand, so I did the research; quicksand kinda cements up when you try to do that).

Quicksand is a non-Newtonian fluid made of sand mixed with water or air. It changes its viscosity in response to stress or vibration, allowing you to sink, but making it hard to escape.
You can only sink into quicksand up to your waist. Really, the only way to drown from the quicksand is to fall into it head first or face first.
A rescuer can't simply pull a victim out of quicksand. However, a person or branch can be used to help reduce the victim's weight, making it easier to work free and float.

Next, you're comparing stationary pushing to dynamic pushing. Supposing I had to get a car uphill to a shop about a block away. The slope is about 15° degrees. I could sorta push it from a stationary position, but it outweighs me and there's a slope. No, it's when I strart walking while pushing that the car actually starts rolling. At 45°, I will need help, not because "gravity" is making it heavier, but because people need to alternate if someone gets sore or slips. The angle causes it to roll back.  Were the 45° angle facing the other way, you'd need multiple people for another reason, someone in it to try to stop it from rolling too fast forward.

Now I said it before and I said it again. Stationary pushing is not remotely the same as moving while pushing. Nor is is a straight angle or even a 15° up or down push the same as a 90° push.
But I'll prove gravity isn't the culprit. If gravity were what's cause all this, then while you can push a bookcase sideways (I've done some with books in it), you can also push it 90° down, through the floor to the floor below. Likewise, you can push the Wrangler 90° down through soil or grass or blacktop. That doesn't happen. Before any of that, you'd probably get compaction. 90° angles don't work going up or down.
 
Lastly, if both you and the Wrangler were fastened by rope (or you're Spiderman), yes, you would be in a position where you could theoretically push the Wrangler up a wall. The problem is that unless you're Spiderman, friction might still cause you to slip. You'd be able to walk while pushing, slide down, and then the vehicle would roll, appear to bounce from your perspective, the smash your head like a pumpkin. Onlookers would be all like...



You can continue to believe whatever you want, but from now on, unless you want to be labeled a dumbfuck, bother to learn what people are arguing and stop asking questions "again". It just makes you look incapable of listening or understanding.

Can you climb straight up a wall? No you can't and before you blame gravity, there are several real forces here. Friction, angular momentum, directionality, and your own body weight acting against buoyancy.

Angular momentum is not a force, it is the tendency for things which are spinning to keep spinning.

Directionality is the thing you can't explain.
Why should things fall down?
Weight is the force due to gravity.

And none of them involve any force but basic tension.

You mean you just ignore all forces.
The only way that would work is if you were accelerating and that was providing all the tension.
Otherwise, once you are moving up the wall you could just keep going without pulling at all.

Next, you're comparing stationary pushing to dynamic pushing.

You can start with it stationary, or moving. The only exception is it going down hill because as soon as you let off the break it starts rolling (assuming the hill is steep enough).

not because "gravity" is making it heavier, but because people need to alternate if someone gets sore or slips. The angle causes it to roll back.

How does the angle magically cause it to slip?

Nor is is a straight angle or even a 15° up or down push the same as a 90° push.

No, as if there is a force (like gravity) changing it, acting as a product of the mass, g, and the sine of the angle.

But I'll prove gravity isn't the culprit. If gravity were what's cause all this, then while you can push a bookcase sideways (I've done some with books in it), you can also push it 90° down, through the floor to the floor below. Likewise, you can push the Wrangler 90° down through soil or grass or blacktop. That doesn't happen. Before any of that, you'd probably get compaction. 90° angles don't work going up or down.

You mean you will spout a bunch of delusional BS that just proves your own dishonesty.

Can you push an object through a solid wall? No.
So why would you expect gravity to help.

Try it honestly, if gravity was the culprit, and you held something in mid air, you would be able to push it down without any extra force, such as by releasing it.
And guess what? That does happen.

That doesn't mean the force will magically be strong enough to push through anything.

You can continue to believe whatever you want, but from now on, unless you want to be labeled a dumbfuck, bother to learn what people are arguing and stop asking questions "again". It just makes you look incapable of listening or understanding.

Follow your own advice.

Read what people actually say, and learn about the model you are rejecting, rather than blatantly lying about the RE model and gravity to pretend there is a problem.

Also read what they are saying to make sure you address the questions that are asked.

Here is a simple one for you, why is pushing up harder, and pushing down the car runs away?
Why isn't it the other way around?

Or, the more simple one, why down?

But I'll prove gravity isn't the culprit.

If I place a stationary car on a hill in neutral and release the brakes, why roll down hill.  Always down hill.  How does it “know” to roll down hill.  Why can’t I trick it to roll up hill into thinner less dense less pressure atmosphere.  The wheels give the same mechanical advantage up or down.  Why does the car roll from less atmospheric resistance into greater atmospheric resistance. 

Can you climb straight up a wall? No you can't

Sure you can....

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JD-_kp_qif4?feature=share

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 25, 2023, 09:52:58 PM

But I'll prove gravity isn't the culprit.

If I place a stationary car on a hill in neutral and release the brakes, why roll down hill.  Always down hill.  How does it “know” to roll down hill.  Why can’t I trick it to roll up hill into thinner less dense less pressure atmosphere.  The wheels give the same mechanical advantage up or down.  Why does the car roll from less atmospheric resistance into greater atmospheric resistance.

Air is thinner above, and thicker below. Heavy objects fall from thinner air. High altitudes have thinner air.

If you're having trouble imagining this, imagine a series of huge nets. Large enough to let people and jet planes through. Objects in motion can brush the rope of the net and briefly not fall through. The lower the elevation, the greater the air/water pressure (the tighter the net). Why you can swim in water, and the further down you go, the more ballast even a heavy submarine must have. Meanwhile, the further up you go, the more lift you must have.

You would need to pump air in layers above if you wanted the thing to go uphill. It wouldn't work though, because that air was start to diffuse immediately.

Things always go downhill because if you were to add a car completely level to a hill, the downhill part would be against empty air. Like so.



But they also go downhill because your understanding of air pressure is backwards. You have to push air pressure against a car to get it to go up a hill. Yes, I am aware I cannot draw cars. You wouldn't have enough air to push it all the way uphill though, because pushing air this way requires energy (I need to spend energy to work the pump, then chase after the car).

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 25, 2023, 09:52:58 PM

Can you climb straight up a wall? No you can't

Sure you can....

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JD-_kp_qif4?feature=share

The way he parkours is so this.

Air is thinner above, and thicker below. Heavy objects fall from thinner air. High altitudes have thinner air.

No.  Air pressure is literal greater at sea level than at 10,000 feet.  When air pressure makes flow to move objects, it flows from high pressure to low pressure.  In a pipe, air pressure would make a steel ball move from high pressure to low pressure if there was flow. 

You tried to dodge the question.

A car on a hill in neutral with no brakes applied and the same mechanical advantage to go up or down from the wheels. Why does the car not roll up into less pressure and resistance.  There is still a buoyant force pushing up on the car from greater atmospheric pressure below into lower atmospheric pressure above. 

Is it false it takes a force to make an object accelerate.  What makes the car on the hill move from standstill to accelerate down when the force of the atmosphere is “buoyancy” that wants to push the car up. 

Air is thinner above, and thicker below. Heavy objects fall from thinner air. High altitudes have thinner air.

And the question is WHY???

The "thicker" air below is at a higher pressure, meaning it pushes more than the "thinner" air.
That means the air is pushing the car up.

If you're having trouble imagining this, imagine a series of huge nets. Large enough to let people and jet planes through.

And imagine that as the air gets thicker, the density of the strands of the nets get thicker, making it harder and harder to push through.
Conversely, as it gets thinner the density of the nets get thinner and thinner, making it more and more open.

And fluids have the nets much more dense.

That is why it is easy to "grab" the net and pull yourself through water, but virtually impossible to do so with the air.
However, this is also why objects slow down so much faster in water than in air because of all the strands they push through/against.

the further down you go, the more ballast even a heavy submarine must have. Meanwhile, the further up you go, the more lift you must have.

No. That isn't explained by it at all.
Not without a lot more.
So far all you have appealed to is pressure, and a pressure gradient.
All that pressure gradient does is push objects up.

So you have no reason for ballast to do anything, nor any reason to need lift.

With just that, if you place in mid air (or mid-water), the pressure differential will push it up.

Hence the issue, the air should already be pushing a car up hill, not down.

So why does the car naturally roll down a hill rather than up?

You would need to pump air in layers above if you wanted the thing to go uphill.

Why?
That would be the exact opposite of what is needed.
That would be having the air above apply a greater to push it down.

Go get a ping pong ball, sit it on a table, and then blow air to either side of it.
You will observe that adding the air on one side pushes the ball to the other side.

So again, the greater air below should push the car up.

Things always go downhill because if you were to add a car completely level to a hill, the downhill part would be against empty air.

]
By "empty air", I assume you are just referring to the air under the car, not a complete void?
If so, who cares?
Why should that make it go down?

But they also go downhill because your understanding of air pressure is backwards.

You are the one who just claimed that adding pressure to an object will magically draw the object towards that high pressure.
So the one with no understanding would be you.

Air pressure is quite simple, if you have a region of high pressure and a region of low pressure, the air pushes from high pressure to low pressure.
This is quite simple to understand and quite easy to demonstrate.
And it means that the air will push the car up the hill.

You wouldn't have enough air to push it all the way uphill though, because pushing air this way requires energy (I need to spend energy to work the pump, then chase after the car).

Why?
Why does pushing a car from a high pressure environment to a low pressure environment require energy?
Why is the exact opposite observed in so many cases; where for example a potato cannon uses the high pressure air to propel the potato?
And to compress air, pushing from low to high pressure takes energy?

Again, your claim directly defies countless observations.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 27, 2023, 06:43:13 AM

Air is thinner above, and thicker below. Heavy objects fall from thinner air. High altitudes have thinner air.

No.  Air pressure is literal greater at sea level than at 10,000 feet.  When air pressure makes flow to move objects, it flows from high pressure to low pressure.  In a pipe, air pressure would make a steel ball move from high pressure to low pressure if there was flow.

Air maintains equilibrium for the precise reason that while yes, air does tend to filter to lower pressure, the atmosphere and objects are two different things.

Yes, you are correct. Air pressure is greater at sea level than 10,000 feet up. It is also greater at sea level than six feet off the ground.

Air and water are called mediums. If an object is heavier than a layer of medium (like air six feet off the ground), then it falls through it to a more dense layer.  You would need to either make the bottom layer of air so thick that the car or whatever "floats" up the hill, or create a "geyser" effect where air pushes up to a layer above itself.

Learn to read. Please. I am so unbelievably tired of having to explain things to you over and over again.

You tried to dodge the question.

A car on a hill in neutral with no brakes applied and the same mechanical advantage to go up or down from the wheels. Why does the car not roll up into less pressure and resistance.  There is still a buoyant force pushing up on the car from greater atmospheric pressure below into lower atmospheric pressure above.

Water has greater pressure than air, does it not?

Let's ask science.
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/2271

Actually, water pressure is generally stronger than air pressure. Think of it this way... if you had a plastic bottle filled with water and you poked a hole in the side, would water squirt out or would air squirt in? If air squirted in, then the air pressure would have to be higher.

Wrong. Though you are right about water being more pressurized than air. While pressure does diffuse higher to lower, you are confusing diffusion with states of matter. Water is flowing out because it is denser than air as a medium, it is also flowing out because water is a liquid and air is a gas. In other words, mediums are also objects, and they float on denser mediums and sink through mediums they are denser than. Air is floating above water, so water pours out. Not because it is weighing it down but because it is a denser medium.

Is it false it takes a force to make an object accelerate.  What makes the car on the hill move from standstill to accelerate down when the force of the atmosphere is “buoyancy” that wants to push the car up.

You just conflated energy and force.

Air maintains equilibrium for the precise reason that while yes, air does tend to filter to lower pressure, the atmosphere and objects are two different things.

If it’s air pressure alone, then things should flow from the higher pressure of the lower atmosphere to the lower pressure of upper atmosphere on a calm day

But what “momentum” is maintained in a closed room.

Or what does it mean in the context of a windy day.



On a day fog rises with the wind driving clouds in opposite directions.  Yet the car with the same mechanical advantage to roll up or down a hill “chooses” to roll down into more resistance against the buoyant force trying to push it up

. Is it false to accelerate an object it must be acted on by an unbalanced force.  Must have a force applied.