Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?

Why would you expect to see that?

Your logic makes no sense.

If the Earth is round, you should expect to see your curvature.

Why would you expect to see that?

Your logic makes no sense.

If the Earth is round, you should expect to see your curvature.

From ground level or a few feet in the air like your favourite cornfield photo? Why should I?

Do yourself a favour and download the app, "Google Earth". Choose a tiny segment of the horizon on Google Earth, and tell me it isn't straight. Yet it's part of a circular horizon, isn't it? We only see a tiny segment of the horizon at any one time.

Admit it. My logic makes perfect sense. 

Why would you expect to see that?

Your logic makes no sense.

If the Earth is round, you should expect to see your curvature.

Your claims make no sense.
You just make bold claims with no justification at all.

Again, a sufficient small enough section of a large curved surface will "appear flat".
i.e. the curvature will be too small to notice.

If you look in the right way you can see the curvature, such as in the form of the horizon, and how it obscured the view to things over the horizon.

Just how do you think we should "expect to see curvature"?

Why would you expect to see that?

Your logic makes no sense.

If the Earth is round, you should expect to see your curvature.

And again..

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 22, 2023, 10:51:35 AM

Let's zoom in like a mother and see that indeed small sections of this cylinder are level.

The bubbles of the level are meaningless as employed in this fashion.

For example. If you laid the straight edge on top of a picture frame, or along the edge of a picture frame it would help you level the frame. 

The bubbles used in this fashion are useless. 

The important part is the straight edge against the tank.

And you ignored this.

What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?



https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip

[/quote]

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 24, 2023, 03:55:28 AM

No, all of our actual forces act the same, on ALL objects.

No they don't.
Grab a magnet. Try picking up a piece of plastic with it, then try picking up a paperclip.
We observe a different force for the 2 objects.

Consider wind, try it with a 100 g ball of aluminium, and a 100 g piece of aluminium foil.
Again, different effects.

Consider static electricity.
Get a few rods made of different materials, rub them a bunch with a cloth and place them on a watch glass for a pivot.
Also have a few rods made of the same material, but rubbed differently.
Then get a final rod, rub it a lot, and bring it close to the other rods.
Observe some rods moving with a different apparent magnitude of the force, and a different direction.

What we observe is that all forces have some variable that they act upon.

For wind, it is a function of area.
For magnetism, it is a function of the magnetic properties of the material.
For static electricity, it is a function of the mass to charge ratio (including its sign).
For gravity, it is mass.

So for gravity, you would expect a more massive object to have a greater force.

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 24, 2023, 03:55:28 AM

as a 'proportional force to objects', that's  completely absurd!

No, your claim that it is magically all the same is completely absurd.
Here is a video example:

The chair, having much more metal, has a much greater force.

What should happen if you take your 3 ounce nail and cut it up into tiny pins?
Should these pins accelerate at the same rate as the 3 ounce nail, meaning the pin and the nail should accelerate the same; or by cutting it up have you increased the force?
Have you actually tried the experiment? Because the above shows a greater force for more metal.

For gravity, the same argument can be made.
Take 2 identical 1 kg blocks, and cut one of these blocks in half.
What should happen when you drop these 3 objects?
Should cutting it in half magically double the force and make it fall faster?
How is your strawman of gravity sentient enough to recognise the cut block as 2 objects and apply twice the force but recognise the solid block as a single object to only apply 1 times the force?

It simply makes no sense.

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 24, 2023, 03:55:28 AM

But objects will all fall through air at the same rate, regardless of their mass, because all of them just require MORE mass than the air, they are within.

And that greater mass means a greater force.
We also see that isn't the case. An air filled balloon falls much more slowly. A CO2 filled balloon falls faster than the air filled balloon but more slowly than most objects.
A helium filled balloon falls up.

But if we place them on a scale, it isn't simply that they fall, but they exert a downwards force on this scale to produce a reading, a force that is proportional to their mass (until you get light objects where the upwards buoyant force becomes significant).

That means these objects are exerting a force which depends upon their mass.
So something is causing this force which depends on their mass.

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 24, 2023, 03:55:28 AM

That's why all objects fall at the same rate, being they all have more mass than air, which makes them move through the air at one rate of speed, and acceleration

Except when you go to a different location, that speed is different, as is the reading on a balance.

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 24, 2023, 03:55:28 AM

which would NOT happen if there was a 'pulling down' force causing it.

Why?
Because you boldly proclaim that to be the case?
If there was a downwards force proportional to mass, you would expect objects significantly denser than the air (to negate the effect of buoyancy) to accelerate at basically the same rate in a given location. Because the mass terms cancel.

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 24, 2023, 03:55:28 AM

It's ridiculous and funny, when they tell us that their made up force, adjusts it's strength to the mass of each object

Wrong again.
The very real force is simply proportional to mass.
Just like all other forces are proportional to something.

They are NOT proportional to anything at all!

If we take two identical metal objects, of 6 ounces each, and cut up one of them into 3 objects of 2 ounces each, the magnet pulls in the 3 lighter objects faster and from further away than it pulls in the one larger object, because the SAME force is used on all of these objects, at the same time, the 3 small objects weigh less than the other one does, which is why the same force is used, with different results due to their different masses!

They are NOT proportional to anything at all!

Repeating the same lies will not help you.

Again, if they were not proportional, then a flat sheet of paper and an identical sheet of paper scrunched up into a ball would be affected by the wind the same.
If they were not proportional, then a skydiver would have absolutely no change in their motion due to deploying their parachute. Either the force is already enough to slow them down, or it wont be enough when the parachute is deployed.
If they were not proportional, then the spanner and chair would have the same force on the MRI.
If they were not proportional, then a magnet would attract a piece of metal and a piece of paper the same.
If they were not proportional, a gentle breeze would be just as damaging as a hurricane.
If they were not proportional, a tiny magnet would be just as strong as an electromagnetic capable of lifting a car.

If we take two identical metal objects, of 6 ounces each, and cut up one of them into 3 objects of 2 ounces each, the magnet pulls in the 3 lighter objects faster and from further away than it pulls in the one larger object, because the SAME force is used on all of these objects

Again, the video I provided shows that is BS.

It is NOT the same force.
Repeatedly lying by claiming it is the same force just shows that you are desperate to reject reality.

Forces are created and die out, over and over again, except for magnetic forces, which are within some objects, and within the centre point of Earth, etc.

So your made up force would compare to magnetic force, which always is present, and attracts other objects towards it, but not just metal objects like magnetic force does, or as a guidance we detect as Earths central point with instruments like a compass

But when you claim that Earth has much more of that force than all objects have, which is the reason all objects are held down to Earth, pulled down from above Earth, with the same speed of pull downward, we could lift all objects on Earth the same way, too.

To be a proportional force of pulling down all objects of any mass, must work the opposite way too, against this proportional force.

Forces direct energy outward, not in some sort of variable or proportional strength of each objects mass. 

Forces are created and die out, over and over again, except for magnetic forces, which are within some objects, and within the centre point of Earth, etc.

So your made up force would compare to magnetic force, which always is present, and attracts other objects towards it, but not just metal objects like magnetic force does, or as a guidance we detect as Earths central point with instruments like a compass

But when you claim that Earth has much more of that force than all objects have, which is the reason all objects are held down to Earth, pulled down from above Earth, with the same speed of pull downward, we could lift all objects on Earth the same way, too.

To be a proportional force of pulling down all objects of any mass, must work the opposite way too, against this proportional force.

Forces direct energy outward, not in some sort of variable or proportional strength of each objects mass.

Which has nothing to do with I can look up and see satellites passing overhead.  Like the moon, a natural satellite.

You know.  Man made satellites.  The lights in the night sky that man has been adding to the last 50 years.

So your made up force would compare to magnetic force, which always is present, and attracts other objects towards it, but not just metal objects like magnetic force does, or as a guidance we detect as Earths central point with instruments like a compass

Note that magnetic forces can be turned on and off as well.
It is a fundamental force. And more like the electrostatic interaction as it is based upon monopoles, not dipoles, which means it follows an inverse square law.
But who cares.
None of this addresses the key fact, all forces are proportional to something.
No force magically applies the exact same force to every object.
The only way to do that is with some kind of control mechanism to control the force applied.

But when you claim that Earth has much more of that force than all objects have, which is the reason all objects are held down to Earth, pulled down from above Earth, with the same speed of pull downward, we could lift all objects on Earth the same way, too.

You sure do love strawmanning don't you?

The force attracting an object to Earth is proportional to the product of the mass of the object and the mass of Earth.
It isn't that Earth magically has more of the force. It is that it has a greater mass, so the attractive force between the object and Earth is quite significant.
And that force is proportional to the mass of the object.
What that means is that lifting objects (for simplicity, holding them at a constant altitude above the surface) will require a force proportional to their mass.
And that is what is observed.
A light object is very easy to lift.
A heavy object, with a much greater force pulling it to Earth, needs a much greater force to oppose it. And that greater force can be great enough to make it so a person can't lift it.

You aren't showing any problem with gravity. You are just continually clinging to dishonest delusional BS.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 27, 2023, 08:18:31 PM

So your made up force would compare to magnetic force, which always is present, and attracts other objects towards it, but not just metal objects like magnetic force does, or as a guidance we detect as Earths central point with instruments like a compass

Note that magnetic forces can be turned on and off as well.
It is a fundamental force. And more like the electrostatic interaction as it is based upon monopoles, not dipoles, which means it follows an inverse square law.
But who cares.
None of this addresses the key fact, all forces are proportional to something.
No force magically applies the exact same force to every object.
The only way to do that is with some kind of control mechanism to control the force applied.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 27, 2023, 08:18:31 PM

But when you claim that Earth has much more of that force than all objects have, which is the reason all objects are held down to Earth, pulled down from above Earth, with the same speed of pull downward, we could lift all objects on Earth the same way, too.

You sure do love strawmanning don't you?

The force attracting an object to Earth is proportional to the product of the mass of the object and the mass of Earth.
It isn't that Earth magically has more of the force. It is that it has a greater mass, so the attractive force between the object and Earth is quite significant.
And that force is proportional to the mass of the object.
What that means is that lifting objects (for simplicity, holding them at a constant altitude above the surface) will require a force proportional to their mass.
And that is what is observed.
A light object is very easy to lift.
A heavy object, with a much greater force pulling it to Earth, needs a much greater force to oppose it. And that greater force can be great enough to make it so a person can't lift it.

You aren't showing any problem with gravity. You are just continually clinging to dishonest delusional BS.

No, we’ve measured forces as one level of strength over any one distance away from them, in one area they act on.

A wind that blows over a path above Earth, is one strength, and all objects it hits differ in their reaction to that same strong wind.

A wind doesn’t blow around all objects it hits, why would it?

Your made up force would ‘pull down’ objects with the one, same strength outward to all objects, and the heavier objects would be pulled in slower than lighter objects would be. 

Like a magnet pulls in lighter objects faster than heavier objects, with one level of strength outward, and the objects vary in their speed towards it by their different masses.

So your made up force would not act like any other forces.

Your force will measure each objects mass, somehow, and adjusts multiple levels of strength to pull them down at the same speed!!

What a unique force you’ve got here!  The amazing ‘anti-force’

Except no forces act proportionally to objects, because they are real forces, not made up ones

Except no forces act proportionally to objects, because they are real forces, not made up ones

Then what makes objects accelerate by a downward force? 

No, we’ve measured forces as one level of strength over any one distance away from them, in one area they act on.

Where?
Care to provide evidence of that?

A wind that blows over a path above Earth, is one strength

Yet applies a different force to different objects.
So that does not support your delusional BS. It refutes your BS.

The strength in this case is the wind speed, not the force it applies to objects.

A wind doesn’t blow around all objects it hits, why would it?

Because not all objects have the same shape, or the same surface area to mass ratio.

Your made up force would ‘pull down’ objects with the one, same strength outward to all objects, and the heavier objects would be pulled in slower than lighter objects would be.

No. YOUR made up force would do that.
Very real gravity, being a real force, would be proportional to something. In this case mass.
That means a heavier object would have a greater force acting on it, with that countered by the greater force required to accelerate it.

Like a magnet pulls in lighter objects faster than heavier objects

Prove it.
Especially given the video you still keep on ignoring which shows a greater force on a chair than on a spanner.

So your made up force would not act like any other forces.

No. YOUR made up force would not act like any other force.
Because you keep on appealing to fantasy.

The very real force of gravity will act proportional to mass, just like all force act proportional to something.

adjusts multiple levels of strength to pull them down at the same speed!!

Wrong again.
Just like wind speed was the "strength" in your above example, the "strength" of gravity would simply be the gravitational field. That field then applies a force proportional to the mass of the object. So no need for multiple levels of strength for simple observations.

Except no forces act proportionally to objects, because they are real forces, not made up ones

Again, if that delusional BS was true, then a solid piece of aluminium should behave identically to a sheet of aluminium foil. A slight breeze which can blow the alfoil away should be able to blow away the solid block just the same.

All real forces act proportionally to something.
Repeatedly lying by pretending they don't just shows how desperate you are.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 28, 2023, 11:22:37 PM

No, we’ve measured forces as one level of strength over any one distance away from them, in one area they act on.

Where?
Care to provide evidence of that?

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 28, 2023, 11:22:37 PM

A wind that blows over a path above Earth, is one strength

Yet applies a different force to different objects.
So that does not support your delusional BS. It refutes your BS.

The strength in this case is the wind speed, not the force it applies to objects.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 28, 2023, 11:22:37 PM

A wind doesn’t blow around all objects it hits, why would it?

Because not all objects have the same shape, or the same surface area to mass ratio.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 28, 2023, 11:22:37 PM

Your made up force would ‘pull down’ objects with the one, same strength outward to all objects, and the heavier objects would be pulled in slower than lighter objects would be.

No. YOUR made up force would do that.
Very real gravity, being a real force, would be proportional to something. In this case mass.
That means a heavier object would have a greater force acting on it, with that countered by the greater force required to accelerate it.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 28, 2023, 11:22:37 PM

Like a magnet pulls in lighter objects faster than heavier objects

Prove it.
Especially given the video you still keep on ignoring which shows a greater force on a chair than on a spanner.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 29, 2023, 12:08:00 AM

So your made up force would not act like any other forces.

No. YOUR made up force would not act like any other force.
Because you keep on appealing to fantasy.

The very real force of gravity will act proportional to mass, just like all force act proportional to something.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 28, 2023, 11:22:37 PM

adjusts multiple levels of strength to pull them down at the same speed!!

Wrong again.
Just like wind speed was the "strength" in your above example, the "strength" of gravity would simply be the gravitational field.

Quote

That field then applies a force proportional to the mass of the object. So no need for multiple levels of strength for simple observations.

It applies a force proportional to each objects mass?

Tell me how it does that.,you left that most important part out!

Let’s say a 10 ton block of steel is in the air, and directly above it is a 5 lb block of steel, a few inches above it….

How does your made up force know that the 6 lb block is directly above the 10 ton block, and how would it pull both objects down at the same speed if it doesn’t know there’s another object above it?

What does your made up force physically exert from the ball Earth ‘core’?

Let’s assume it emits waves of ‘gravity’ outward….

These waves dont know what objects it hits, does it?

If you claim it does, that’s a problem, in itself..

Forces emit energy as waves in some form, or they use physical contact which is transformed into kinetic energy that acts on objects and propels them outward.

So if your made up force really exists, it must emit some form of energy outward, right?

Let’s assume your magical force emits waves outward from the ball Earth ‘core’,.,

How would these waves be emitted? All the time, all around the ball Earth?

If you have a different explanation, I’d like to hear it….

Now we have two objects in air, a 10 ton block and a 5 lb block, with the 5 lb block just above the 10 ton block….

How would your made up force ‘know’ there is another block much smaller in mass above the 2 ton block?

What ‘waves’ or whatever are emitted from your ball Earth ‘core’?

Every actual force emits energy outward in some form, so what is emitted from your made up force?

You don’t know, right?

But somehow you know it emits some phantom energy from a ball Earth ‘core’ outward, to all above the ball Earth, and identifies the mass of each object above Earth, then adjusts its strength to each objects mass, to pull them down at the same speed!!!!

Yes, that’s exactly what all actual forces do, of course!! 

Are you off your rocker??

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 29, 2023, 12:30:47 AM

Except no forces act proportionally to objects, because they are real forces, not made up ones

Again, if that delusional BS was true, then a solid piece of aluminium should behave identically to a sheet of aluminium foil. A slight breeze which can blow the alfoil away should be able to blow away the solid block just the same.

All real forces act proportionally to something.

No they don’t. The force from a wind covers over a large area above Earth, right?

If you focused that wind through a small area, what happens? The force only hits the small area.  It is the same force, only less spread out than before.

So the sheet of metal is only hit in the middle, instead of everywhere on it. And it blows back less than before.  The same force always comes forth, but the object or area makes it vary in its reaction

A magnet attracts two m

Every actual force emits energy outward, right?

So how do they emit that energy?

A magnet of some type emits waves outward, as magnetic force, at ONE level of strength…

It does not emit waves of various levels of strength outward, does it?

Of course not, that’s stupid..

Forces emit energy outward from their sources, at one moment, or continuously at one moment.

A magnet always emits energy outward at the SAME strength, yes?

That does not change at all.

A wind varies in strength because it covers over large areas above Earth, so it will vary over distance or area.

When you say two objects of the same mass don’t blow away the same distance when a wind hits them, it is not due to the wind being a ‘proportional’ force, because if we put a 10 ton block out and a 10 ton ball slab, the wind won’t move either one away.  Each object has a different surface area and the same weight, but they both don’t move from the wind because of their mass..

The wind only blows away lighter objects of ANY surface area.  It blows away grains of sand, which are little spheres, yet does not blow away a 50 lb slab of granite sticking up from the ground, which has far greater surface area than the grains of sand.

So wind is NOT a proportional force of an objects surface area.  It is the mass of the object which is the main variable to it..

No they don’t. The force from a wind covers over a large area above Earth, right?

Just wilfully rejecting reality will not save you.
The same wind acting on 2 different objects will apply a different force.

If you focused that wind through a small area, what happens?

You end up with faster wind.
Are you trying to suggest the force is proportional to the area of the object?

Every actual force emits energy outward, right?

No, but I get what you are getting at.
For gravity, there are 2 explanations.
One is just like magnetism and electrostatics.
It generates a gravitational field.
That field has a certain strength.
An object in that field will experience a force based upon the strength of that field, and some property of the object.

A magnet always emits energy outward at the SAME strength, yes?

In terms of field, yes. In terms of force applied to an object NO!

When you say two objects of the same mass don’t blow away the same distance when a wind hits them, it is not due to the wind being a ‘proportional’ force

Yes, it is.
Because the force of wind is proportional to the area of the object, and its shape.
So a ball with minimal area doesn't get as large a force as a long thin sheet.

because if we put a 10 ton block out and a 10 ton ball slab

Is it a ball or a slab?
How about shaping it into a long thin sheet. Then guess what? It gets blown by the wind.

Again, wilfully rejecting reality will not save you.

The wind only blows away lighter objects of ANY surface area.

Again, if that was the case a parachute would slow you down the same when it is tucked away in the bag and when it is deployed.
A sail on a boat would work just as well when deployed and tight as when folded away.
Your claims are pure BS.

It blows away grains of sand, which are little spheres, yet does not blow away a 50 lb slab of granite sticking up from the ground, which has far greater surface area than the grains of sand.

And also far greater mass.
When considering this, don't forget to consider the square-cube law.
That law means that if you take an object and double a linear dimension, any area will go up by a factor of 4x, and the volume will go up by 8x.
That means the mass to area ratio will double.
That means if you take an object and simply make it bigger, while keeping the aspect ratio the same, you will have a greater mass to area ratio, so you will need a faster wind speed to make it move the same.

A grain of sand, at its largest is 2 mm in diameter. Assuming it is a sphere, that would have an area of 12.6 mm^2, and a mass of roughly 6.7 mg.
If you want to use that same material, but make it a solid 25 kg slab, to have the same mass to area ratio you need an area of roughly 47 m^2, from a volume of 0.016 m^2.

If you made that slab 1 m wide, that means 1*w*l=0.016, while 2*(1*w+1*l+w*l)=47.
Or, to rearrange, w=0.016/l, and w=(47/2-l)/(1+l).
Solving that, you get a "slab" which is 1 m, by 23.4 m by 0.7 mm.
i.e. you need your "slab" to be thinner than the grain of sand.

Again, try an honest comparison.
The simplest is 2 sheets of paper. Take 2 identical sheets. Scrunch one up tightly into a ball, and leave the other as a sheet.
Then use a fan on them and see what happens.

You are not making a valid comparison. You are changing two variables at once, the mass and the surface area.
An honest comparison would be to keep the mass the same and change the surface area only.
Does a deflated beachball get blown along the same as when it is fully inflated? The only difference is the surface  area exposed to the wind.

Does a boat sail faster with its sails set or with them stowed below? There would be no change to the mass of the boat in either case. Using your 'logic' it would sail faster if you simply threw the sails overboard and reduced the mass of the boat.

Yes, you’re on the right track!

Except it is YOUR side who is adding another variable with wind!

Wind blows over large areas of air above the surface, spreading its force outward.

That means a 10 ton block of metal doesn’t move, while a 10 ton sheet of metal will blow away from the same wind, right?

So the wind is not changing strength to the objects mass, the shape of the object is changed, being the same mass!!

If you put your hand up against a wind, it hits your hand backwards, right?

Your hand spreads out over more of the wind, causing resistance from it

Your HAND is the variable, not the force of the wind!!

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 30, 2023, 09:52:03 PM

That means a 10 ton block of metal doesn’t move, while a 10 ton sheet of metal will blow away from the same wind, right?

So the wind is not changing strength to the objects mass, the shape of the object is changed, being the same mass!!

You are just Agreeing with what I stated. So you agree with JackBlack. The force to move the object in your example is Proportional to it's surface area. The force is Proportional to a property of an object. Just like with gravity.

No, a wind is not proportional to anything.


A 10 ton sheet of metal which is 3 feet thick won’t move at all in a hurricane, let alone a strong wind. 

What is the variable here?

It’s still a 10 ton object, but doesn’t move at all even though it had 2000 times more surface area than the block does!


You’re arguing that wind has surface area as a variable, not mass.  But both are variables involved here,
 
What is your variable for your made up force?

The same wind blows one object but not another, but it has more surface area than the one blown around, while both weigh 10 tons.  The objects are the variable here.

Except it is YOUR side who is adding another variable with wind!

No, it is YOU who is doing whatever they can to avoid it/ignore it.
You know the force of wind is proportional to area, yet you want to pretend it isn't so you can pretend forces are magically all the same.

So the wind is not changing strength to the objects mass, the shape of the object is changed

The "strength" in the sense of wind speed is not changing. But the force applied to the object does.
Wind (or more generally air resistance) is proportional to area, not mass.

Your HAND is the variable, not the force of the wind!!

Just like the object is the variable which results in a different force due to gravity.
It doesn't require the gravitational field of Earth to change strength.

No, a wind is not proportional to anything.

The FORCE from the wind is proportional.

What is the variable here?

Surface area. When you want to consider how much it moves, that would be surface area to mass ratio.

It’s still a 10 ton object, but doesn’t move at all even though it had 2000 times more surface area than the block does!

Just what metal are you using?
Even if you want to use water, with a density of 1000 kg/m^3, 10 tonne of water is only 10 m^3.
So if it is 3 ft thick, that is only roughly 10 m long.
That is NOT 2000 times more surface area than the block.

The same wind blows one object but not another, but it has more surface area than the one blown around, while both weigh 10 tons.  The objects are the variable here.

No, it doesn't. That is your fantasy.

Again, we don't even need a different object.
We can use the same object, e.g. a parachute.
When stuffed into the bag it doesn't slow the sky diver down. But when deployed, it does.
What changes? Its shape and area.

Because a wind hits over a large area, objects with more surface area are hit by that wind at the same time, so more of the force acts on the object.

That doesn’t happen with your made up force. A helium filled balloon has the same mass when no helium inside it, so your made up force is not proportional at all in this case. 

We can account for wind force hitting over surface areas of objects at one time which moves them further away than if smaller surface of it, which makes the same object two different shapes.

So how can we make the same object change how fast it is ‘pulled down’ to earth my your made up force?

It should pull down a helium filled balloon the same as all other objects, if it is a ‘proportional’ force to mass of all objects!

Because a wind hits over a large area, objects with more surface area are hit by that wind at the same time, so more of the force acts on the object.

i.e. the force of wind is proportional to the area of the object.
An object with a larger area gets a larger force.

i.e. the very thing you have repeatedly denied.

The force due to wind has something which it is proportional to.
Likewise, gravity does.

That doesn’t happen with your made up force. A helium filled balloon has the same mass when no helium inside it, so your made up force is not proportional at all in this case.

No, your strawman is not proportional.
A helium filled balloon has MORE mass when it has helium inside it. That is because the helium adds to the mass.
But now you are involving multiple forces.
The force of buoyancy, i.e. an upwards force due to a pressure gradient in a fluid due to gravity, is proportional to the volume of fluid displaced (and its density, and the strength of the gravitational field).
The helium filled balloon is larger and so displaces more volume of the fluid so has a greater upwards force acting on it due to that.
If you try the experiment with different gases filling the balloon, but such that the balloon has the same volume; then we see a clear effect of mass.

So how can we make the same object change how fast it is ‘pulled down’ to earth my your made up force?

How about you stick to a real force? Rather than continually appealing to your made up fantasy.
If you want to change how fast an object is pulled down, you need other forces to act on it.
e.g. put a parachute on it to slow down the descent due to air resistance.
Use a rocket to make it go up or down.
Make it a large volume to increase the upwards buoyant force.

It should pull down a helium filled balloon the same as all other objects, if it is a ‘proportional’ force to mass of all objects!

And in a vacuum it does. But in the air, it also needs to pull the air down.
As I have said many times, saying a helium filled balloon refutes gravity is like setting up a see-saw, putting a light kid on one side so they are near the ground, and then putting a heavy kid on the other side; then only focusing on the light kid going up, and acting like that refutes gravity.

Ignoring other forces which are significant just shows how dishonest and desperate you are.

Actual forces are always felt when acting on us.

A wind is felt hitting us in another direction. We feel it resist us when walking against a wind.

We feel a metal object being pulled to a magnet close by it, feel the magnet resist us when we pull it away from it.

We feel ourselves being pulled down from below, when a rope is on our foot and is pulled downward by someone.

But we don’t feel ourselves being pulled down when falling through air, by some force below us.

Yet we do feel air resistance in a fall through air, which is an actual force.

We’ve been told to forget our senses, for that made up force isn’t felt at all pulling us down from below us, it is not like all other forces are, because it’s made up!

You need to make up another force called ‘buoyancy’ to resolve flaws in your first made up force, ‘gravity’

You claim gravity is a proportional’ force that applies more or less strength to their various masses, pulling all down at same rate if speed and acceleration.

Yet it fails to pull down a helium filled balloon, showing it is not proportional to their mass at all.

That’s where you make up another force called ‘buoyancy’ to resolve for it not being consistent, like actual forces are, and no need to find cover for problems like your force must have

Actual forces are always felt when acting on us.

So what, you have given up from one like of BS and you are now jumping to another line of BS?

We do not feel forces acting on us. We feel forces being transmitted through us.

When the wind pushes against us, we feel that transfer of force through our body.

We feel a metal object being pulled to a magnet close by it, feel the magnet resist us when we pull it away from it.

Just like when you lift a heavy object, you feel Earth resist us when we pull the heavy object away from it.
You feel that force being transmitted through you.

We feel ourselves being pulled down from below, when a rope is on our foot and is pulled downward by someone.

Yes, we feel gravity applying a force which is transmitted through our body.

But we don’t feel ourselves being pulled down when falling through air, by some force below us.

Because it acts directly on our entire body, without any need to transfer the force through our body. Just like you wouldn't feel yourself being pushed or pulled by a magnet if the magnet was acting directly on your entire body.

Yet we do feel air resistance in a fall through air

No, we feel the force being transmitted through us.

We’ve been told to forget our senses

No, you lie, and invent an elaborate fantasy about what we are told.
You should look are your senses, and critical evaluate them. What do you actually feel.
e.g. go grab a heavy weight. Start with it resting on the floor, but in your hand. Do you feel anything? No. Because the force is not being transmitted through you.
But then lift it up off the ground, and as you do, you do feel the force.
You can also see how when you hold something quite heavy, while standing, you feel that force going through your legs. But when you sit down, you don't.
That is because you clearly feel forces being transmitted through you.

We also clearly see with these observations that there is a force trying to move those heavy objects down. And we see that that force is proportional to the mass of the object.

But you want us to ignore all that, and pretend that we just magically feel forces; and that when we lift heavy objects there magically isn't anything resisting us.

Your dishonest BS is just as honest as claiming magnetism isn't real because I can pull a magnet off the fridge.

You need to make up another force called ‘buoyancy’ to resolve flaws in your first made up force, ‘gravity’

No, you need to lie, and entirely ignore reality, so you can pretend there are flaws.
You need to literally ignore the air around the balloon to pretend there is a flaw with gravity.

The pressure gradient is directly measurable. The known effects of pressure gradients, that they push objects, is also quite well established and easy to test.

So there is nothing made up about it.
But because it destroys your blatant lie, you need to dishonestly dismiss it as "made up".

You claim gravity is a proportional’ force that applies more or less strength to their various masses, pulling all down at same rate if speed and acceleration.

No. I honestly state that the force of gravity is proportional to mass, and that in the absence of any other significant forces gravity will accelerate all objects at the same rate.
And that key part you want to ignore is that "absence of any other significant forces".

When you have an object like a steel block, the buoyant force is negligible.
When you have a balloon, the buoyant force is significant.
And when you have a helium filled balloon, the buoyant force is greater than the gravitational force.

So you are still yet to show a flaw.

What other object pulls in another object to it?

If we suspend two objects in air with cranes, holding them against earths gravity trying to pull them down, and put a 50 ton boulder a few inches from a 1 lb rock, the boulder would pull in the rock, if gravity existed in them, but there’s no pulling in at all.

Let’s take earths gravity out of it. When your ‘astronut leaves the spaceship, and goes out into ‘space’, both astronut and spaceship have gravity within them, right?

The spaceship weighs much more than the astronut weighs, so why wouldn’t they attract to each other with their pulling in force?

This would be where two objects near each other would attract to one another, without any other force acting on them, in ‘space’, but they forgot to add their made up force when they faked these ‘space walks’!

Of course, what they wanted us to see was that we ‘float around aimlessly’ in ‘space’, which has no gravity at all, or in 0 g. They should’ve shown astronauts being tugged in by the big spaceship, but faking 0 gravity was what they wanted us to see, not what would have shown that they didn’t make up gravity in the first place!!

If we suspend two objects in air with cranes, holding them against earths gravity trying to pull them down, and put a 50 ton boulder a few inches from a 1 lb rock, the boulder would pull in the rock, if gravity existed in them, but there’s no pulling in at all.

Sure, in the same manner than a fridge magnet will pull it if that boulder is made of a magnetic material.
The force between them is so insignificant that it cannot be easily measured.

Have you bothered to calculate the forces expected? No. Because that would show you are spouting crap.

The gravitational force is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance squared.
If you want to just focus on the field expected on the surface of a sphere, then the distance is the radius, and the mass is proportional to the cube of the radius.
Combing that, that means the field (and thus force) expected on the surface of a sphere, is proportional to the radius.
Earth has a radius of 6371 km and a value of g of roughly 9.8 m/s^2
So if you scale it down to 2 m radius, you would expect the value of g for that sphere to drop to roughly 3 um /s^2
A factor of roughly 3 million less than Earth.
That would result in a deflection of roughly 0.06 arc seconds.

But your 50 ton boulder would also be less dense than Earth, less than half the density of Earth, further reducing the force and expected angle.
You are looking at trying to measure a deflection of 0.03 arc seconds.

Have you tried doing that? Have you even shown that you can measure that?

Let’s take earths gravity out of it. When your ‘astronut leaves the spaceship, and goes out into ‘space’, both astronut and spaceship have gravity within them, right?

Insignificant amounts, just like a fridge magnet.

but they forgot to add their made up force when they faked these ‘space walks’!

You mean they have honestly filmed it, rather than faking it and making the fake match your fantasy which is so far removed from reality it isn't funny.
If they did fake it like that, it would be quite obvious it is fake, as astronauts should not be magically stuck to the space craft.

The other big issue for you there is that they are still well within the Roche limit of Earth, meaning the effects of the small changes in distance of Earth's gravity are more significant than the force of gravity holding them to the space craft.

So yet again you are making up pure BS to pretend there is a problem when there is none.

If your made up force was some sort of ‘proportional’ force, when pulling down objects towards it, at the same speed, they are effectively all the same mass, when they are picked up from the surface, or pulled down towards the surface.  When we pull them up, their mass should be the same resistance from that made up force, but they are not the same mass, of course.

When we need more of our own force to lift a heavier object than we do for a lighter object, it means there is no force acting on them from Earth. It cannot pull them all down at the same speed, but hold them down without being proportional to their mass, this is a contradiction.

When there are NO such forces which vary in strength to objects, you cannot try to invent one out of need.

To have force that equates all objects to be the same mass, then it would work the same when objects are lifted against that force,

If your made up force was some sort of ‘proportional’ force, when pulling down objects towards it, at the same speed, they are effectively all the same mass

You mean your made up BS delusional force; which bears virtually no similarity to gravity, and is just your delusional strawman you repeatedly bring up to pretend gravity is BS because you can't show any fault with gravity itself.

Back in reality; with the very real force of gravity, your claim is pure BS.
They are NOT effectively all the same mass.

Gravity provides a force proportional to mass, which results in the downwards acceleration of the object (if there are no other significant forces) being equal.
What it means is the ratio of gravitational mass to inertial mass is the same for all.

When we pull them up, their mass should be the same resistance from that made up force

Again, back in reality, with real gravity, instead of your delusional BS; the force is proportional to mass.
That means an object with more mass will have a greater force pulling it down.
That means it will require more force to lift and hold up against gravity.

When we need more of our own force to lift a heavier object than we do for a lighter object

As if there is a downwards force acting on it, pulling it down to Earth, with that force being proportional to the mass of the object. That sure sounds like gravity.

It cannot pull them all down at the same speed, but hold them down without being proportional to their mass, this is a contradiction.

No, it isn't.
It is you wilfully rejecting a fundamental property of gravity so you can pretend it doesn't work.
If you discard that dishonest BS of yours, and instead accept that the thing that gravity is proportional to is mass, there is no problem at all.

That is likely why you are so hell bent on claiming forces are magic and just magically apply the exact same force to every object; even though that is clearly delusional BS.

When there are NO such forces which vary in strength to objects

How about you stop bringing up your fantasy, and instead stick to reality; where forces ARE PROPORTIONAL to some property of the object?

Forces like that due to the magnet in the MRI machine, which resulted in a greater force on the chair than the spanner.
Forces like wind, which depend upon shape and surface area.

These are things which are trivial to test and trivially show you are spouting pure BS.

No, you’re made up force that supposedly adjusts all objects of any mass, as if they’re all the SAME mass, pulling them all down at the same speed and acceleration within the air.

The reason all objects fall from air at the same speed and acceleration, is because they all have more mass and density than the air does, so they all fall through it at the same speed. There is no force pulling things down to the surface.

That is confirmed with objects of less mass or density than the air, which rise up in air, not fall down through it.

The same reason objects fall down from air, is why other objects rise up in air, their mass and or density compared to that of the air.

Your made up force is supposed to pull down all things from air, and adjust in strength to their mass, yet balloons rise up in air, while they also have mass, proving that no force exists, because it would pull down balloons too, since density of every other object will vary, even more than a balloon does, yet they are still ‘pulled down’ by that goofy force.

A balloon has the same or more mass when it is rising up in air, so they would be pulled down by this force that varies in strength to their mass. 

This alone showed there was no force involved here, it is claimed to pull down all objects, regardless of their mass or density. That killed their claim of a force, at that alone, but it didn’t

Why not make up another force, that will solve this mess?

And they said there is another force called ‘buoyancy’, to excuse the problems that killed their first made up force, which had failed to work as actual forces do.

Yet we know that only objects that are less or more dense than air, fall or rise up in air.

Their mass and density explain both of these things, as it always does when it is true.