Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?

We would be able to lift a 10 ton block as easily as a pebble if your “proportional” force existed at all

It apparently is a one way “proportional” force. Thanks for trying anyway

We would be able to lift a 10 ton block as easily as a pebble if your “proportional” force existed at all

It apparently is a one way “proportional” force. Thanks for trying anyway

Your bastardized model of gravity called return to origin has earth things return to earth proportional to the amount of matter and drag. 

A leaf drops to the ground with less force than a bowling ball the drops to the ground with less force than a 100 pound iron anvil. 

Why not have gravity have the attraction between object of mass have the attraction proportional to mass.  Gravity is the more advanced and provable version of your less educated/scholarly view return to origin. 


So you turbonium2 really don’t have a leg to stand on.

No, all actual forces do NOT apply different strength to match the mass of each object. That’s ridiculous

Stop repeating the same delusional BS.
Actual forces depend upon some property of the object.
No forces magically exert the exact same force on all objects.

For example, the wind depends on surface area and shape.

So how about YOU stop being ridiculous?

The force of gravity is proportional to mass.

To see why the claim of it not being proportional is ridiculous is as simple as taking a simple and cutting it in 2.
Are you saying gravity will magically exert double the force just from cutting the object in 2? Because that is insanity.

Gravity behaves like a real force.
You are yet to provide a single example of it not acting like a real force.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 07, 2023, 09:09:16 PM

No, all actual forces do NOT apply different strength to match the mass of each object. That’s ridiculous

Stop repeating the same delusional BS.
Actual forces depend upon some property of the object.
No forces magically exert the exact same force on all objects.

For example, the wind depends on surface area and shape.

So how about YOU stop being ridiculous?

The force of gravity is proportional to mass.

To see why the claim of it not being proportional is ridiculous is as simple as taking a simple and cutting it in 2.
Are you saying gravity will magically exert double the force just from cutting the object in 2? Because that is insanity.

Gravity behaves like a real force.
You are yet to provide a single example of it not acting like a real force.

Wind or any other actual force DOES apply the same strength outward to all objects, it is those objects which vary in mass and other properties which make them react to that same force differently

Objects with more surface area might move further away than those with less surface area, we already know know that.  They also fall at different rates for that same reason, due to another actual force - air resistance


Your made up magical force pulls a 10 ton rock within air to the surface at the same rate of acceleration and speed as a 2 lb rock. So we should be able to lift them BOTH up the same way

To pull all objects at the same rate, or proportional to their mass, must work when lifting all objects upward, against that “proportional” force, right?

Wind or any other actual force DOES apply the same strength outward to all objects

If that was the case, why does it matter if a boat has its sail up or down?
If that was the case, why does it matter if a parachute is tucked away inside a bag, or deployed?
If that was the case, why does a flat sheet of paper fall to the ground in such a slow and chaotic path, while taking that same sheet of paper and scrunching it up causes it to fall much faster?

Wilful rejection of reality will not save you.
It just shows how dishonest and desperate you are.

Objects with more surface area might move further away than those with less surface area, we already know know that.

That's right, we already know that and it demonstrates your claim is pure BS.
We know that 2 objects of the same mass will behave differently in the wind based upon their area (and shape).
Where if the one with a larger area will accelerate faster than the one with a lower area.
This shows this object has a larger force being applied to it.

Your made up magical force pulls a 10 ton rock within air to the surface at the same rate of acceleration and speed as a 2 lb rock. So we should be able to lift them BOTH up the same way

Repeating the same dishonest BS will not help you.

This very real force, which behaves in a manner similar to other force, acts proportionally to some property of the object. For gravity, this property is mass.
That means the force on each object will be proportional to mass.
That means a heavier object will have a greater force acting on it, and so you need to overcome a greater force to lift it.

That also means that the acceleration of the object will not depend on the mass (in the absence of other forces), as the terms cancel.

This holds true for any objects where the mass is proportional to the force, either directly like gravity, or indirectly like objects with the same mass to charge ratio being accelerated by an electric field.

To pull all objects at the same rate, or proportional to their mass, must work when lifting all objects upward, against that “proportional” force, right?

And it does.
The force required to lift a 2 kg object against gravity is twice that required to lift a 1 kg object against gravity.


Again, to see why your claim is clearly delusional BS, all you need to do is consider a 2 kg object, and an identical object cut in 2.
According to your delusional BS, cutting it in 2 magically doubles the force for no reason at all.
Why should cutting the object in 2 double the force?

One of the most intriguing aspects of flat earth are those that push space travel is impossible.

And yet.  Comets come and go, changing the night sky.  Comets that travel about our solar system.  Orbit the sun if they don’t get vaporized by the sun.  And a well documented comet that broke apart and crashed into Jupiter.  Leaving dark spots for months, if not changes to Jupiter for years. 

Meteorites light up heaven and earth when falling from space. 

We know, or the evidence is well documented, there is a belt of asteroids in our solar system.

We have a moon, earth’s natural satellite, orbiting our planet.  We can see with binoculars or telescopes other planets in our solar system also have natural satellites.

But, some flat earther’s believe it’s impossible for man to follow where comets, meteorites, and natural satellites have traveled.  Makes no sense.

I think it might be more of an issue of priorities. I think if we do heavens will, we will find true happiness, or something to that effect. As well, i think the planets if they exist are rocky barren wastelands possibly, but have life existing in other dimensions. Unless we are talking about some "newly discovered paradise 4 or 10 light yrs away" or whatever. But then what, are we to think that that kindof travel is now in the realm of possibility or something....

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 08, 2023, 07:36:57 PM

Wind or any other actual force DOES apply the same strength outward to all objects

If that was the case, why does it matter if a boat has its sail up or down?
If that was the case, why does it matter if a parachute is tucked away inside a bag, or deployed?
If that was the case, why does a flat sheet of paper fall to the ground in such a slow and chaotic path, while taking that same sheet of paper and scrunching it up causes it to fall much faster?

Wilful rejection of reality will not save you.
It just shows how dishonest and desperate you are.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 08, 2023, 07:36:57 PM

Objects with more surface area might move further away than those with less surface area, we already know know that.

That's right, we already know that and it demonstrates your claim is pure BS.
We know that 2 objects of the same mass will behave differently in the wind based upon their area (and shape).
Where if the one with a larger area will accelerate faster than the one with a lower area.
This shows this object has a larger force being applied to it.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 08, 2023, 07:36:57 PM

Your made up magical force pulls a 10 ton rock within air to the surface at the same rate of acceleration and speed as a 2 lb rock. So we should be able to lift them BOTH up the same way

Repeating the same dishonest BS will not help you.

This very real force, which behaves in a manner similar to other force, acts proportionally to some property of the object. For gravity, this property is mass.
That means the force on each object will be proportional to mass.
That means a heavier object will have a greater force acting on it, and so you need to overcome a greater force to lift it.

That also means that the acceleration of the object will not depend on the mass (in the absence of other forces), as the terms cancel.

This holds true for any objects where the mass is proportional to the force, either directly like gravity, or indirectly like objects with the same mass to charge ratio being accelerated by an electric field.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 08, 2023, 07:36:57 PM

To pull all objects at the same rate, or proportional to their mass, must work when lifting all objects upward, against that “proportional” force, right?

And it does.
The force required to lift a 2 kg object against gravity is twice that required to lift a 1 kg object against gravity.


Again, to see why your claim is clearly delusional BS, all you need to do is consider a 2 kg object, and an identical object cut in 2.
According to your delusional BS, cutting it in 2 magically doubles the force for no reason at all.
Why should cutting the object in 2 double the force?

Nonsense

A magnet pulls at one strength outward. It pulls in lighter objects more than heavier objects of the same material. 

Winds are using air resistance on objects, so the same object flattened out will  be resisted by air more than when it’s compacted in a ball


Magnets do not pull in a one ton block of steel to it, but a small nail is pulled in to it

If your made up force would “pull down to Earth’s surface” at the SAME rate of speed and rate of acceleration, the opposite would also be true

A 1 ton object being pulled downward by your made up force, at the same rate of speed as a 3 lb object is pulled downward by that amazing force, applies each object the same strength from that force.

So that means a 1 ton block is being pulled down and HELD down at that same strength, as all objects are pulled and held down to Earths surface

Because your made up force would equate mass of objects the same, when it pulls them downward from above the surface of Earth, mass is the same for all objects

When one metal object of a lb is pulled in to a magnet, when it’s split apart into two objects will make two lighter objects

So the same force of that magnet pulls in two separate, twice as light objects in

Each objects mass is lighter than when it was ONE object alone


Your bizarro force wouldn’t change at all. The two objects are both twice as light as before, but still are pulled down at the same rate

What a joke!

A magnet pulls at one strength outward.

No, it does not.
The video of the MRI already proved that was BS.
A magnet will exert a different force on different objects.
And do you know something else that proves your claim is BS?
Magnets don't pull in non-magnetic materials, clearly showing there is something the magnet pulls based upon.

so the same object flattened out will  be resisted by air more than when it’s compacted in a ball

i.e. WIND DOES NOT APPLY THE SAME FORCE TO ALL OBJECTS.

i.e. the very opposite of your claim.

Magnets do not pull in a one ton block of steel to it, but a small nail is pulled in to it

Primarily due to the size difference.
Try pulling that small nail from the same distance as the furthest away part of the 1 ton block of steel.

A 1 ton object being pulled downward by your made up force, at the same rate of speed as a 3 lb object is pulled downward by that amazing force, applies each object the same strength from that force.

So that means a 1 ton block is being pulled down and HELD down at that same strength, as all objects are pulled and held down to Earths surface

Why just repeat this same BS?
That is like saying if a magnet applies the same force to a 1 ton object and a 3 lb object, then both objects should accelerate towards the magnet at the same rate.

Them being accelerated at the same rate means that the heavier object has a greater force applied. It means a force proportional to their mass is being applied.

So the one appealing to a made up force here is you.

Try sticking to real gravity rather than your pathetic strawmen.

Your bizarro force wouldn’t change at all. The two objects are both twice as light as before, but still are pulled down at the same rate

You mean the perfectly sensible force of gravity wouldn't change.
It would still be applying a force proportional to the mass.

The initial 2 kg weight will have a force of roughly 19.6 N acting on it.
By F=ma, this means that the object will accelerate at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2.
When you cut it in 2, each 1 kg weight will have a force of roughly 9.8 N acting on it.
This also means each 1 kg object will accelerate at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2.

The total force acting on both objects remains the same at 19.6 N.
Combing the 2 objects, combines the force.

Compare this to your delusional fantasy, where an object being split apart magically doubles the force.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 13, 2023, 08:13:06 PM

A magnet pulls at one strength outward.

No, it does not.
The video of the MRI already proved that was BS.
A magnet will exert a different force on different objects.
And do you know something else that proves your claim is BS?
Magnets don't pull in non-magnetic materials, clearly showing there is something the magnet pulls based upon.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 13, 2023, 08:13:06 PM

so the same object flattened out will  be resisted by air more than when it’s compacted in a ball

i.e. WIND DOES NOT APPLY THE SAME FORCE TO ALL OBJECTS.

i.e. the very opposite of your claim.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 13, 2023, 08:13:06 PM

Magnets do not pull in a one ton block of steel to it, but a small nail is pulled in to it

Primarily due to the size difference.
Try pulling that small nail from the same distance as the furthest away part of the 1 ton block of steel.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 13, 2023, 08:13:06 PM

A 1 ton object being pulled downward by your made up force, at the same rate of speed as a 3 lb object is pulled downward by that amazing force, applies each object the same strength from that force.

So that means a 1 ton block is being pulled down and HELD down at that same strength, as all objects are pulled and held down to Earths surface

Why just repeat this same BS?
That is like saying if a magnet applies the same force to a 1 ton object and a 3 lb object, then both objects should accelerate towards the magnet at the same rate.

Them being accelerated at the same rate means that the heavier object has a greater force applied. It means a force proportional to their mass is being applied.

So the one appealing to a made up force here is you.

Try sticking to real gravity rather than your pathetic strawmen.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 13, 2023, 08:13:06 PM

Your bizarro force wouldn’t change at all. The two objects are both twice as light as before, but still are pulled down at the same rate

You mean the perfectly sensible force of gravity wouldn't change.
It would still be applying a force proportional to the mass.

The initial 2 kg weight will have a force of roughly 19.6 N acting on it.
By F=ma, this means that the object will accelerate at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2.
When you cut it in 2, each 1 kg weight will have a force of roughly 9.8 N acting on it.
This also means each 1 kg object will accelerate at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2.

The total force acting on both objects remains the same at 19.6 N.
Combing the 2 objects, combines the force.

Compare this to your delusional fantasy, where an object being split apart magically doubles the force.

You don’t know that forces cannot, are not, and will not, vary in strength to match up to the mass of objects?

Magnets do NOT vary in force  to match up with objects of different mass, when of the same material and features

Why would a magnet pull in a lighter object faster and further away from it, than a heavier object, when both are the same except for their mass?

It is using the SAME strength of force outward on both objects, and if you don’t think so, we have measured their strength as one level at any one distance outward.

If you throw two balls of the same material outward, like a shot put, the lighter ball will go out further than the heavier ball will.  Using the same force, obviously, it will NOT vary in strength, since YOU act as that force on the objects!

The variable here, of course, is their different masses. Nothing else differs at all

We have measured these forces for their strength, so we know it is one level of strength at any given distance outward.

A magnet will pull in objects of less mass than heavier objects because mass of objects WILL change what they do, how fast or slow they are pulled in by a magnet, how far you can throw them, and so on…

Winds will move the same object of one mass, at different distances, which is due to their difference in shape, which is the variable that makes each one react to the same force of wind in different ways.

Every actual force is based on the same features

They aren’t ‘proportional’ in strength to each objects mass, that is complete nonsense

You don’t know that forces cannot, are not, and will not, vary in strength to match up to the mass of objects?

Vs what?  Your return to origin earth magnet?

If there are no forces of attraction, then why would anything return to earth in your corrupted view of gravity?

The problem is mass attracting mass is a weak force where mass attracts mass. 

Anyway.  It’s lots easier pulling a BB sized ball bearing off a strong magnet or an iron filing than a relatively large piece of flat steel.

You don’t know that forces cannot, are not, and will not, vary in strength to match up to the mass of objects?

Why? Because you boldly proclaim that to pretend gravity can't be real?

What I know is that all forces have some factor (or multiple) that influence the magnitude of the force.
This applies to ALL forces.
So why can't mass be one?

Why would a magnet pull in a lighter object faster and further away from it, than a heavier object, when both are the same except for their mass?

Does it? Or is that just your empty claim.

It is using the SAME strength of force outward on both objects, and if you don’t think so, we have measured their strength as one level at any one distance outward.

Lying wont save you.
I already provided a video of an MRI showing a stronger force for a larger object.


So now you are just blatantly lying to everyone.
All to prop up your delusional fantasy.

So how about you try to provide this proof that a magnet will exert the same force on all objects?

If you throw two balls of the same material outward, like a shot put, the lighter ball will go out further than the heavier ball will.  Using the same force, obviously, it will NOT vary in strength, since YOU act as that force on the objects!

A human throwing something is not a fundamental force.
I can take the same object and throw it multiple times and have it go a different distance each time.
The variable here is the human, and how they are throwing it.

Forcing the force to be the same is just assuming your conclusion to be true.

Winds will move the same object of one mass, at different distances, which is due to their difference in shape, which is the variable that makes each one react to the same force of wind in different ways.

No, the different shape means the wind applies a different force to the object.
If it was the same force, they would accelerate the same.

Every actual force is based on the same features

And a fundamental aspect of that is that their force varies depending upon one or more factors.
Lying about that wont change that.

(edit: fixed broken quote)

Here you go.



We have lift off! Right?



Wrong. Re-backgrounded and resized shot. Then I quick spraypainted red and yellow below the "ship", made a duplicate layer and added black shadow to the ignited stream. 100% fake.

There is nothing real about this, it was done in GIMP. Before CGI, they did it using cutouts. Before that, they had talented painters.

Here you go.

Let it go.  You’re just stupid crazy at this point.

My model rocket launch vs your fake ass picture.





Vs a rocket that placed witnesses onboard in space by a control facility with people that witnessed and supported placing the rocket in space.



UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight



To the satellites placed in orbit by various countries and companies tracked by amateurs.  Satellites that allowed for communication out in the middle of the pacific when I was in the Navy.  And if the other countries were using floating platforms, we would have tracked them as aircraft. 

Meet the amateur astronomers who track secretive spy satellites for fun

https://www.popsci.com/zuma-spy-satellite-amateur-astronomer/?amp

Satellites that have added lights to the night sky over the last 50 years.

A brighter sky

As a cultural astronomer, I am interested in the role of the night sky in cultural traditions around the world. In particular, I am interested in how light pollution and increasing satellite numbers affect different communities.

The number of satellites in orbit is growing rapidly. Since 2019, the number of functional satellites in orbit has more than doubled to around 7,600. The increase is mostly due to SpaceX and other companies launching large groups of satellites to provide high-speed internet communications around the world.



Starlink satellites already leave streaks on astronomical photographs – but growth in satellites and debris will make the whole sky brighter.  Rafael Schmall / NOIRLab, CC BY

Only takes one satellite in orbit to destroy FE.  And the first man made satellite in orbit Sputnik did that decades ago. 


To not understand satellites in orbit are a thing, providing real services and broadcasts from space, and changing the night sky is just stupid at this point. 

We have lift off! Right?

Your obvious photoshop is quite poor.

And notice how it lacks the features you appeal to to pretend the other one is fake?

Demonstrating you can make a really crappy photoshop job doesn't mean everything is fake.
What you are really saying is you will just reject any evidence that shows you are wrong.

Here you go.



We have lift off! Right?



Wrong. Re-backgrounded and resized shot. Then I quick spraypainted red and yellow below the "ship", made a duplicate layer and added black shadow to the ignited stream. 100% fake.

There is nothing real about this, it was done in GIMP. Before CGI, they did it using cutouts. Before that, they had talented painters.

You know, there are courses you can do, to be good at Photoshop and other CGI programs.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 14, 2023, 10:13:50 PM

You don’t know that forces cannot, are not, and will not, vary in strength to match up to the mass of objects?

Why? Because you boldly proclaim that to pretend gravity can't be real?

What I know is that all forces have some factor (or multiple) that influence the magnitude of the force.
This applies to ALL forces.
So why can't mass be one?

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 14, 2023, 10:13:50 PM

Why would a magnet pull in a lighter object faster and further away from it, than a heavier object, when both are the same except for their mass?

Does it? Or is that just your empty claim.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 14, 2023, 10:13:50 PM

It is using the SAME strength of force outward on both objects, and if you don’t think so, we have measured their strength as one level at any one distance outward.

Lying wont save you.
I already provided a video of an MRI showing a stronger force for a larger object.


So now you are just blatantly lying to everyone.
All to prop up your delusional fantasy.

So how about you try to provide this proof that a magnet will exert the same force on all objects?

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 14, 2023, 10:13:50 PM

If you throw two balls of the same material outward, like a shot put, the lighter ball will go out further than the heavier ball will.  Using the same force, obviously, it will NOT vary in strength, since YOU act as that force on the objects!

A human throwing something is not a fundamental force.
I can take the same object and throw it multiple times and have it go a different distance each time.
The variable here is the human, and how they are throwing it.

Forcing the force to be the same is just assuming your conclusion to be true.


Winds will move the same object of one mass, at different distances, which is due to their difference in shape, which is the variable that makes each one react to the same force of wind in different ways.

No, the different shape means the wind applies a different force to the object.
If it was the same force, they would accelerate the same.

Every actual force is based on the same features

And a fundamental aspect of that is that their force varies depending upon one or more factors.
Lying about that wont change that.
[/quote]

Except if that was true, we’d be able to oppose your made up force that supposedly is proportional to their mass, right?

If it pulls all objects down with equal strength, it would resist us lifting them proportionally too!

A 10 ton object pulled down like a 2 lb object at the same rate of strength, by your ‘proportional force’ where all mass of objects is the same, but only when pulling things downward towards it, not when going against that force, right?

You cannot say a force is proportional only one direction, because its nonsense

You know, there are courses you can do, to be good at Photoshop and other CGI programs.

I see what you did there.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 27, 2023, 08:57:59 AM

I typically get an A or B in most classes.

Film class was not an exception. 12 pages of analysis, the only reason he had me redo the analysis was because he had trouble understanding the scene because it was too damned complicated. When I analyze a video, I analyze a video. Btw, this was the clip I analyzed. Though actually it was about 3 minutes before this.



This video of a shuttle taking off is bogus, and you guys know it. I dunno why you are so eager to defend its validity, but when you have to explain yourself to God after you die, I'm sure you can come up with a good excuse. "I was defending the great Masonic secret."

And he tells you, "Who the fuck cares about that?!? You could have stood up for truth, instead you doubled down on defending secrets."

Well, you just received an F in this class.

If you want to analyse a video, analyse the videos you posted up, with those numbskulls talking. Such flatearthwittery, it's almost beyond belief.

Oh, and, I'll answer to God everyday, not like you, pandering to your flat earth charlatans, refusing to see the world through your God given eyes.

L
Except if that was true, we’d be able to oppose your made up force that supposedly is proportional to their mass, right?

Hmm.  In your delusion what pulls things back to earth to return to origin? 

If it pulls all objects down with equal strength,

What physics book makes that claim.  Quote and cite.

You mean accelerate at the same rate when mass/density is great enough to make buoyancy negligible, adjusted for drag.

More mass the more attraction between objects.  But objects with more mass have more inertia, more sluggish to move. Basically when you can make air resistance negligible such as falling bodies in a vacuum, objects with different masses fall at the same acceleration. 

it would resist us lifting them proportionally too!

Isn’t that what happens.  I can lift a bowling ball and a car at the same rate.  It just takes more force to lift the car.

Falling is the reverse.  The earth and car have more mutual attraction than the earth and the bowling ball.  Because the car has more inertia it resists change in motion.  The objects accelerate at the same rate. 

A 10 ton object pulled down like a 2 lb object at the same rate of strength,

You might look up the definition of weight.  The 10 ton object has more force than a 2 pound object.  What you’re butchering is they accelerate at the same rate adjusted for drag.  Until terminal velocity. 

Except if that was true, we’d be able to oppose your made up force that supposedly is proportional to their mass, right?

No, if that was true, which it is, you would be able to oppose this REAL force, that is proportional to mass.
And guess what? You can. Have you ever tried jumping? Or standing?
That is you opposing that force.
What about lifting things?
And how as you lift heavier things, it is harder.

If it pulls all objects down with equal strength, it would resist us lifting them proportionally too!

And it does.
I can't lift a 1 tonne object, but I can easily lift a 1 kg object, and 1 g object feels like nothing at all.
So yes, it DOES resist us lifting them proportionally.
As we try to lift an object, we feel gravity resisting us lift it, and the heavier the object, the harder it is to lift.

where all mass of objects is the same

That is your strawman.
It has nothing to do with gravity or reality in general.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 20, 2023, 06:01:30 PM

L
Except if that was true, we’d be able to oppose your made up force that supposedly is proportional to their mass, right?

Hmm.  In your delusion what pulls things back to earth to return to origin? 

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 20, 2023, 06:01:30 PM

If it pulls all objects down with equal strength,

What physics book makes that claim.  Quote and cite.

You mean accelerate at the same rate when mass/density is great enough to make buoyancy negligible, adjusted for drag.

More mass the more attraction between objects.  But objects with more mass have more inertia, more sluggish to move. Basically when you can make air resistance negligible such as falling bodies in a vacuum, objects with different masses fall at the same acceleration. 

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 20, 2023, 06:01:30 PM

it would resist us lifting them proportionally too!

Isn’t that what happens.  I can lift a bowling ball and a car at the same rate.  It just takes more force to lift the car.

Falling is the reverse.  The earth and car have more mutual attraction than the earth and the bowling ball.  Because the car has more inertia it resists change in motion.  The objects accelerate at the same rate. 

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 20, 2023, 06:01:30 PM

A 10 ton object pulled down like a 2 lb object at the same rate of strength,

You might look up the definition of weight.  The 10 ton object has more force than a 2 pound object.  What you’re butchering is they accelerate at the same rate adjusted for drag.  Until terminal velocity.

Not if they’re both being pulled downward at the same rate of speed, and same rate of acceleration by your magical force.

Actual forces don’t act the same way on all objects.

If there were any sort of force that will pull down all objects with equal rate of speed towards it, then all objects would have to be the same mass, on Earth, or above Earth, in proportional terms.

Every other force that exists on Earth, does not act that way.

A magnet cannot pull in all metal objects of any mass, nor does any other force act that way either.

Your made up force would only pull all objects of different masses at the same rate of speed, meaning mass doesn’t differ at all. It’s pure Nonsense

Not if they’re both being pulled downward at the same rate of speed, and same rate of acceleration by your magical force.

Why not?
Stop just asserting the same pathetic BS.

Try to actually explain for once.

As you said, if the force is proportional to mass, we should feel resistance which is proportional to mass.
And that is exactly what we feel.
The more massive an object is, the harder it is to lift it.

Actual forces don’t act the same way on all objects.

Nor does gravity.
There is a larger force for a more massive object.

If there were any sort of force that will pull down all objects with equal rate of speed towards it, then all objects would have to be the same mass

No, they wouldn't.
Repeatedly asserting the same pathetic lie will not help you.
Again, the simple fact that you can cut an object in half shows just how insane your idea is.

Again, acceleration is given by a=F/m
If the force is proportional to mass, that means the acceleration would be the same.

If all objects had the same mass, then 2 objects of equal shape and size but different mass would fall identically.
And it would mean it would take the same force to lift them.
But in reality, the lighter of the objects has a lower terminal velocity, and heavier objects take a greater force to lift.

This shows your strawman is just delusional BS.

So discarding that BS idea of everything magically being the same mass; we are left with 2 objects of different mass accelerating equally. That means they have a force proportional to mass acting on them.

Every other force that exists on Earth, does not act that way.

Wrong again.
Every other force that exists acts proportional to something.
No force will magically apply the same magnitude of force to every object.

Sure it does

When a wind hits you and a piece of paper at the same time, it is the same force hitting you and the paper!

You do not fly back 20 feet away but the paper does, right?

Because the same force hits both you and the paper. Unlike your bizarro force, which would blow YOU 20 feet back like the paper, being it is a ‘proportional’ force!  Or farce 😊

Sure it does

When a wind hits you and a piece of paper at the same time, it is the same force hitting you and the paper!

You do not fly back 20 feet away but the paper does, right?

Because the same force hits both you and the paper. Unlike your bizarro force, which would blow YOU 20 feet back like the paper, being it is a ‘proportional’ force!  Or farce 😊

Hmm.

Lifting something 1 mile above the earth is more like a piece of paper being moved 10 miles from the outer edge of an eye of a hurricane to 11 miles away from the outer edge of the eye of a hurricane. 

Sure it does

When a wind hits you and a piece of paper at the same time, it is the same force hitting you and the paper!

Repeatedly asserting the same dishonest BS will not help you.
It is NOT the same force.
A piece of paper experiences far less force than a person.

Again, this was already shown to be BS by comparing 2 identical sheets of paper, but where one has been scrunched up.
The wind applies a different force due to the different shape and area.

But if you want to go down this BS path, how about when you have an open parachute attached to your back. The kind that will easily blow you away in the wind.

All forces are proportional to something.
The question is what are they proportional to.

No force magically exerts the same force on all objects.

Continually repeating the same dishonest BS just demonstrates you do not care about the truth at all, and you are happy to lie to everyone to prop up your delusional fantasy.
It also shows you know you cannot honestly and rationally defend your BS.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 19, 2023, 10:55:09 AM

Here you go.



We have lift off! Right?



Wrong. Re-backgrounded and resized shot. Then I quick spraypainted red and yellow below the "ship", made a duplicate layer and added black shadow to the ignited stream. 100% fake.

There is nothing real about this, it was done in GIMP. Before CGI, they did it using cutouts. Before that, they had talented painters.

You know, there are courses you can do, to be good at Photoshop and other CGI programs.

Like many other scams, Big Education purports to be a substitute for actual hands-on training and practice. After getting in student debt for a few years, I was lucky to get out of it. You know, most of the classes I took, we just sat around in class, purchased a $50 book which at the end of the semester, the student store wouldn't even give us the benefit of $5 back. Or... I could go to a library, rent a book for about 3 weeks, take notes, and learn the same thing. It just takes drive and focus. Add in the indoctrination you clearly get, and I know better than going back to school.

I've gotten better just from debating with you guys. But yes, I've also learned to identify fake pictures and even to make them for demonstration purposes.

Oh, and, I'll answer to God everyday, not like you, pandering to your flat earth charlatans, refusing to see the world through your God given eyes.

Me: This is a plains. It's flat and it's level. In fact it's so flat and level that if I were to enter "flat plains" into a search engine, I'd find this. Exactly as I just did.
You: Off in the distance you cannot see past the horizon. So this proves there is curvature.

My eyes were indeed given by God. Is there something wrong with yours?

Like many other scams, Big Education purports to be a substitute for actual hands-on training and practice.

Decent education gives you hands on training and practice to go along with that.

You know, most of the classes I took, we just sat around in class, purchased a $50 book which at the end of the semester, the student store wouldn't even give us the benefit of $5 back.

So you chose shit classes?

But yes, I've also learned to identify fake pictures and even to make them for demonstration purposes.

Yet your "arguments" to try and show something is a fake picture fails entirely.

refusing to see the world through your God given eyes.

Firstly, our eyes are the product of evolution, not your evil POS.
Secondly, that would be you; looking for whatever excuses you can to deny what you see.
E.g. instead of accepting that Earth is blocking the view, inventing a magical parabola which just magically behaves to produce the exact results expected for a RE.

Me: This is a plains. It's flat and it's level. In fact it's so flat and level that if I were to enter "flat plains" into a search engine, I'd find this. Exactly as I just did.

And how large is that field?
What kind of drop would you expect due to curvature?
And how can you tell it is flat?
How do you actually tell if it is curved or flat?

There are 2 ways, one is to use a device to measure it, where you are limited by the precision of the device.
The other is to view the edge, including the horizon on a RE.
From that image, you cannot easily tell if it is flat or curved.

Also from that image, a few regions selected based upon your "low" threshold of 40 (Red, yellow, magenta and black):

Guess you must think it is a fake image.

Like many other scams,

You want to stop running and changing the subject.

Again.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 19, 2023, 10:55:09 AM

Here you go.

Let it go.  You’re just stupid crazy at this point.

My model rocket launch vs your fake ass picture.





Vs a rocket that placed witnesses onboard in space by a control facility with people that witnessed and supported placing the rocket in space.



UNCUT: Loading, launching and landing of Blue Origin space flight



To the satellites placed in orbit by various countries and companies tracked by amateurs.  Satellites that allowed for communication out in the middle of the pacific when I was in the Navy.  And if the other countries were using floating platforms, we would have tracked them as aircraft. 

Quote

Meet the amateur astronomers who track secretive spy satellites for fun

https://www.popsci.com/zuma-spy-satellite-amateur-astronomer/?amp

Satellites that have added lights to the night sky over the last 50 years.

Quote

A brighter sky

As a cultural astronomer, I am interested in the role of the night sky in cultural traditions around the world. In particular, I am interested in how light pollution and increasing satellite numbers affect different communities.

The number of satellites in orbit is growing rapidly. Since 2019, the number of functional satellites in orbit has more than doubled to around 7,600. The increase is mostly due to SpaceX and other companies launching large groups of satellites to provide high-speed internet communications around the world.



Starlink satellites already leave streaks on astronomical photographs – but growth in satellites and debris will make the whole sky brighter.  Rafael Schmall / NOIRLab, CC BY

Only takes one satellite in orbit to destroy FE.  And the first man made satellite in orbit Sputnik did that decades ago. 


To not understand satellites in orbit are a thing, providing real services and broadcasts from space, and changing the night sky is just stupid at this point.

Like many other scams,

Speaking of scams.  See you still cling to the video that doesn’t explain sunsets at all, is based on falsehoods, doesn’t use your delusion parabola at all, and yes the sun would change apparent size throughout the day on a FE.  The cut off by the horizon wouldn’t happen.  The sun wouldn’t set on a flat earth.  The sun would be changing distance from the viewer and apparent size throughout the day.  Once over a FE California the sun would have to turn relative north and travel roughly parallel with the North America coast for a FE. 

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 20, 2023, 03:17:27 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 19, 2023, 10:55:09 AM

Here you go.



We have lift off! Right?



Wrong. Re-backgrounded and resized shot. Then I quick spraypainted red and yellow below the "ship", made a duplicate layer and added black shadow to the ignited stream. 100% fake.

There is nothing real about this, it was done in GIMP. Before CGI, they did it using cutouts. Before that, they had talented painters.

You know, there are courses you can do, to be good at Photoshop and other CGI programs.

Like many other scams, Big Education purports to be a substitute for actual hands-on training and practice. After getting in student debt for a few years, I was lucky to get out of it. You know, most of the classes I took, we just sat around in class, purchased a $50 book which at the end of the semester, the student store wouldn't even give us the benefit of $5 back. Or... I could go to a library, rent a book for about 3 weeks, take notes, and learn the same thing. It just takes drive and focus. Add in the indoctrination you clearly get, and I know better than going back to school.

I've gotten better just from debating with you guys. But yes, I've also learned to identify fake pictures and even to make them for demonstration purposes.

Quote

Oh, and, I'll answer to God everyday, not like you, pandering to your flat earth charlatans, refusing to see the world through your God given eyes.

Me: This is a plains. It's flat and it's level. In fact it's so flat and level that if I were to enter "flat plains" into a search engine, I'd find this. Exactly as I just did.
You: Off in the distance you cannot see past the horizon. So this proves there is curvature.

My eyes were indeed given by God. Is there something wrong with yours?

That flat plains photo. Tell us what the elevation is of the camera, that took the photo. It's obviously a very famous photo.

The elevation will tell us how far away the edge of the horizon of your flat plains, are.

My point is, if Earth is a globe, I wouldn't expect to see curvature from a photo taken from a camera, any less than maybe ten kilometres in elevation? So, from the elevation of the camera in this flat plains photo, over corn fields where you can see the bladrs if corn, the horizon being perfectly flat, is exactly what I expect to see.