Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?

So where does your made up force start to weaken?

Somewhere that has no proof of existing, not ever seen, nor ever flown in planes, of course!

Unlike all actual forces, which weaken more with distance from their sources, over the ENTIRE distance out from their sources, and are felt and measured as weakening with more distance away, this imaginary made up force is the SAME 'strength' at ALL distances away from it's non-existent 'source', until at a made up 'altitude' which nobody sees, nor flies at, because we fly up to 50000 feet, at most, nowhere high enough for the magical force to weaken at all yet!! 

But when high enough, it cuts off suddenly, and we all start to 'float around', in 'space'!


Sure, that makes perfect sense!

A ball doesn't move by itself, some external force must act on it, causing the ball's motion, it cannot move unless by a force acting on it.

If it is stationary, it requires a force to make it move, that is correct. Yet you pretend it just magically moves for no reason at all.

Why would the ball rise up after the force has acted on it, for a split second?

The force accelerates the ball.
Then if there is no force acting on the ball, it continues, until another force acts.

The force is still acting on the ball, causing it's motion throughout, until the force dies out, causing the ball to slow down

Pure BS, as clearly demonstrated by directing the ball in different directions and through different mediums.
It is clear that the force is not magically dying out.
Instead, other forces act to change the motion of the ball.

Using one force, moves the ball up to 10 feet in air, and using a greater force moves the ball up to 25 feet in air, while BOTH forces act on the ball for the same split second of time.

Wrong. 2 forces move the ball up to 10 feet in the air. The initial force accelerating the ball, and then whatever force causes the ball to accelerate towards Earth.

So where does your made up force start to weaken?

Continually asking this question just further demonstrates your dishonesty.
There is no "start to weaken".
As the distance increases, the force weakens.
The force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

There is no magical step before which the force is constant and after which it weakens.

Somewhere that has no proof of existing, not ever seen, nor ever flown in planes, of course!

If you are referring to space, there are mountains of proof that it exists, from a variety of sources, and plenty of people have been. You just dismiss them all as liars.

this imaginary made up force is the SAME 'strength' at ALL distances away from it's non-existent 'source'

You sure do love repeating this same lie.
YOUR made up, imaginary strawman force is the same strength at all locations.
But in reality, the very real gravity DOES vary in strength.

e.g. at the equator, things weigh less.

You just ignore this, blatantly lying about the very thing you are trying to refute.
You do this, because you cannot honestly refute gravity.
So instead you need to make up lies and attack a pathetic strawman.

it cuts off suddenly, and we all start to 'float around', in 'space'!

Wrong again.
Gravity is still there. They are still accelerating towards Earth.
But their horizontal velocity means they remain in orbit, in free fall.

And just like all forces, unless a force is transmitted through you, you don't feel it.

The same thing happens in the vomit comet, just for a much shorter time, because they are suborbital.

Sure, that makes perfect sense!

No, your blatant lies make no sense.
But gravity does.
You lying about gravity wont change it.

Objects ALWAYS have different mass, or 'weight', within different environments, temperatures, and humidity, among other factors. In cold temperatures, objects have more mass than in normal or high temperatures, because the cold temps change it's physical make up, and is more dense in cold temps than in lower temps, for example. This will happen at the SAME place on Earth, n fact. Objects will have more mass in winter than in summer, at the same place.

Several factors act on the mass of objects, making it vary as a result.


Nice try, but it's all BS, same as usual.

Objects will have more mass in winter than in summer, at the same place.

Ok.  My steel dumbbells.  How do they gain more molecules and atoms in the winter?  And what are the newly acquired molecules and atoms, and why do the magically disappear in the summer.  Why doesn’t the entire mass of say a five pound dumbbell entirely disappear in summer? 

I think this is called humidity.

It isn't that it goes away but that heat scatters moisture as it evaporates.

It isn't molecules so much as moisture. Or to be more specific, if you're leaving them outside, the added mass is called "snow."

Objects ALWAYS have different mass, or 'weight', within different environments, temperatures, and humidity, among other factors.

No they don't.
The mass does not change. But the weight does.
We can measure mass independent of weight.

Nice try, but it's all BS, same as usual.

That does seem to sum up your post quite well.
Just assert whatever BS you can to pretend your fantasy is true.

Again, your claim is a blatant lie.
It is an experimentally verifiable fact that the acceleration due to gravity (and also an objects weight due to gravity) varies around Earth.

You trying to pass that off as something different will not save you from your prior claim being a blatant lie.

I think this is called humidity.

It isn't that it goes away but that heat scatters moisture as it evaporates.

It isn't molecules so much as moisture. Or to be more specific, if you're leaving them outside, the added mass is called "snow."

And that can easily be controlled for. Try again.

Actual forces, like magnetic force, are measurably weaker and weaker over more distance away from their sources, the magnet itself. All actual forces work the same way.

Your made up force has one same 'strength', over all distances away from the 'source', objects in air fall at the same rate, at all distances away from it's 'source', far down below us!

No actual force has the same strength, or even CLOSE to the same strength, with more distance away from their sources. Throughout the distance out, most strength is lost, and diminishes afterwards, less and less, with more distance away.

Your made up force, if it DID exist as you believe, would be MUCH stronger when closer above it in the air, and would 'pull things down' from air, faster when closer to the surface of Earth, which proves it's a made up BS 'force', yet again.

How can we always feel ourselves being ACTUALLY 'pulled down' from any ACTUAL force below us, or behind us, except for your made up force, where nothing is ever felt at all as a 'pulling down on us'?  We also feel RESISTANCE when opposing actual forces, unlike your made up force, where no resistance is felt at all when opposing it, going up into air.

We certainly have more strength than an insect does, to OPPOSE your made up 'holding down/pulling down' force.

Actual forces, all of them, behave the very same way, all are measurable, proven, and provable, and they are FELT when acting on us, and always weaken, measurably so, with more distance from their sources. They RESIST opposing forces.

Just because they needed to make up a 'pulling down/holding down' force for their ball Earth lie, it cannot become true, or real. It's fairy tale crap.

We certainly have more strength than an insect does,

Weight is proportional to mass.

How does anything accelerate without being acted on by unbalanced forces? 

As in.  Why does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  Change direction 180 degrees, and accelerate back to earth


Take a car.  It’s on a hill.  The wheels give it the same mechanical advantage to move up or down.  There is a buoyant force from the atmosphere.  More pressure and density below, less pressure and density above.  Place the car in neutral and pop the brake.  Why does the car accelerate down into more resistance.  When the atmosphere offer’s less resistance up. 

Actual forces, like magnetic force, are measurably weaker and weaker over more distance away from their sources, the magnet itself. All actual forces work the same way.

Just like gravity.

Your made up force has one same 'strength'

No. YOUR made up force, your strawman of gravity, has a constant strength.
The strength of gravity various measurably.

No actual force has the same strength, or even CLOSE to the same strength, with more distance away from their sources.

If the distance is close to the same, then the strength will be close to the same.

Your made up force, if it DID exist as you believe, would be MUCH stronger when closer above it in the air, and would 'pull things down' from air, faster when closer to the surface of Earth, which proves it's a made up BS 'force', yet again.

No, that is if it exists as YOU believe, with only the point on the surface causing it; instead of us we (i.e. those who accept reality) believe, which is where the entire mass of Earth causes it.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, the reference needs to include all of Earth, which (due to its roughly spherical symmetry) means you use the centre.
That means you are starting 6371 km away.
Going up a few m means the distance is basically the same so the force will be basically the same.

So all this is proving is your own dishonesty.

How can we always feel ourselves being ACTUALLY 'pulled down' from any ACTUAL force below us

We can't.
What we need is the force to be transferred through our body, and be significant enough to feel.
For example, if someone puts a piece of string on my foot, I don't magically feel that pulling me down.
But if they tie a rope with a 100 kg weight, I do.

We also feel RESISTANCE when opposing actual forces

Just like we do with gravity, like when we stand up, jump, or try to lift objects.

Gravity certainly seems to match what is expected of actual forces.
But you just keep on lying about it to pretend it doesn't.

Actual forces, all of them, behave the very same way, all are measurable, proven, and provable, and they are FELT when acting on us, and always weaken, measurably so, with more distance from their sources. They RESIST opposing forces.

Just like gravity. Your lies wont change that.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, the reference needs to include all of Earth, which (due to its roughly spherical symmetry) means you use the centre.
That means you are starting 6371 km away.
Going up a few m means the distance is basically the same so the force will be basically the same.

The deepest into Earth, as of now, is only a few miles down into Earth's surface, which is only a few hundred feet, at most, lower than our ocean floors are, at it's deepest points.

It's funny when your side says I have no proof that there is a dome above Earth, which holds waters within it, but at least we can actually SEE it, and IS blue, like waters would be, that alone is more evidence of a dome, which CAN be proven to exist, at any time, but for some strange reason, they don't want to prove there's NOT a dome, which would prove, and leave no more doubt, or debate, and the world would know the TRUTH, that's what we all WANT, isn't it?

Metals are attracted to a magnet's SURFACE, and are HELD to the magnet's surface, because a magnet's source of magnetic force, is the entire magnet itself, not a core in it's center point, if it even HAD any 'core' to begin with.

But let's assume your ball Earth is true, and is speeding through endless 'space', and all things are held down to the speeding ball by your magical, super-duper 'force', and nobody has to ever KNOW or SEE or MEASURE any sort of 'core', being found to exist within the 'exact center', of the ball Earth, because they tell us the ball Earth has a core, and have tested things on it, and so on.....

So what is proven by magnetic force, with a magnet, using it's magnetic force within it, causing objects to be in motion, from this force acting on them, to pull them in towards the magnet, and cling to it's surface, and remain there forever, unless acted on by other forces, afterwards.

Your 'core excuse', is complete nonsense. Outside of the fact you're using other BS claims to try and support it, of course.

You do realize that nobody has gone into the Earth's surface, below a few miles, and before we DID go down to that point, we didn't have any clue about what we'd find there, and don't know squat about it. It'd be like digging down to sand, and assuming it's all sand, at that depth of Earth, which would be completely stupid to assume.

That's no better than when they claim to know Earth has a 'core', in the center of their 'ball Earth', when we've gone down a few miles, at best!!

How amazing that they would 'know' about the other thousands of miles down in their ball Earth, and that there's an actual 'core', in the very 'center', is truly stunning, indeed.

The deepest into Earth

Is entirely irrelevant to the dishonest BS you are trying to pull.
Even if you want to focus on just the outside shell of Earth, you still need to consider all that mass.
And while you might be 1 m from the surface directly below your feet, you are roughly 12750 km from the other side.
It is incredibly dishonest to focus on the 1 m distance changing while ignoring all the rest changing.

It's funny when your side says I have no proof that there is a dome above Earth, which holds waters within it, but at least we can actually SEE it, and IS blue

No, we cannot see your dome, and as proven by plenty of things, it is not what makes the sky blue.
There is no evidence of your magical dome at all.

for some strange reason, they don't want to prove there's NOT a dome

They have put countless things into space. You even have blue origin having pointless flights for rich people which would smash through your dome as well.
And you just ignore it all.

Why would they bother wasting their to "prove" something to you, when it has already been proven beyond any sane doubt?
You are not interested in proof.
You are interested in whatever dishonest BS you can pull to pretend your imaginary dome is real.

So there is no doubt for any honest person.
The doubt only exists for people like you, people who do not want the truth, people who flee from the truth at all costs.

Metals are attracted to a magnet's SURFACE

No, they are attracted to a magnet. Not just magically to its surface.

because a magnet's source of magnetic force, is the entire magnet itself

Just like how Earth, as a source of Earth's gravitational field, is the entire Earth; not just a tiny spot beneath your feet like you repeatedly pretend.

your magical, super-duper 'force'

No, lets stick with the real force, a force which is quite weak.

nobody has to ever KNOW or SEE or MEASURE any sort of 'core'

Your wilful ignorance of those measurements do not change it.
Seismic measurements show a core exists.

found to exist within the 'exact center'

There is no requirement for it to be the exact center.

You are just making shit up to try to ridicule, because you don't care about the truth at all.

So what is proven by magnetic force, with a magnet, using it's magnetic force within it, causing objects to be in motion, from this force acting on them, to pull them in towards the magnet, and cling to it's surface, and remain there forever, unless acted on by other forces, afterwards.

Quite like gravity, attracting objects towards Earth, holding them to its surface (or further down if possible) unless acted on by other forces.

Your 'core excuse', is complete nonsense.

No, your pathetic deflection to focus so heavily on the core is complete nonsense.

Again, for an inverse square law like gravity; a spherically symmetric shell can be approximated as a point at the centre for any object outside the shell.
i.e. for any object outside a spherically symmetric shell, the force due to gravity acting on the object is the same as if you took the entire mass of the shell and concentrated it into a point at the centre.

WE DO NOT NEED A CORE TO POINT OUT YOUR CLAIM IS BS!
Stop just focusing on the tiny patch of Earth beneath your feet, and instead focus on ALL OF EARTH!

Quote from: JackBlack on September 02, 2023, 10:25:10 PM

As has been explained to you repeatedly, the reference needs to include all of Earth, which (due to its roughly spherical symmetry) means you use the centre.
That means you are starting 6371 km away.
Going up a few m means the distance is basically the same so the force will be basically the same.

The deepest into Earth, as of now, is only a few miles down into Earth's surface, which is only a few hundred feet, at most, lower than our ocean floors are, at it's deepest points.

It's funny when your side says I have no proof that there is a dome above Earth, which holds waters within it, but at least we can actually SEE it, and IS blue, like waters would be, that alone is more evidence of a dome, which CAN be proven to exist, at any time, but for some strange reason, they don't want to prove there's NOT a dome, which would prove, and leave no more doubt, or debate, and the world would know the TRUTH, that's what we all WANT, isn't it?

Metals are attracted to a magnet's SURFACE, and are HELD to the magnet's surface, because a magnet's source of magnetic force, is the entire magnet itself, not a core in it's center point, if it even HAD any 'core' to begin with.

But let's assume your ball Earth is true, and is speeding through endless 'space', and all things are held down to the speeding ball by your magical, super-duper 'force', and nobody has to ever KNOW or SEE or MEASURE any sort of 'core', being found to exist within the 'exact center', of the ball Earth, because they tell us the ball Earth has a core, and have tested things on it, and so on.....

So what is proven by magnetic force, with a magnet, using it's magnetic force within it, causing objects to be in motion, from this force acting on them, to pull them in towards the magnet, and cling to it's surface, and remain there forever, unless acted on by other forces, afterwards.

Your 'core excuse', is complete nonsense. Outside of the fact you're using other BS claims to try and support it, of course.

You do realize that nobody has gone into the Earth's surface, below a few miles, and before we DID go down to that point, we didn't have any clue about what we'd find there, and don't know squat about it. It'd be like digging down to sand, and assuming it's all sand, at that depth of Earth, which would be completely stupid to assume.

That's no better than when they claim to know Earth has a 'core', in the center of their 'ball Earth', when we've gone down a few miles, at best!!

How amazing that they would 'know' about the other thousands of miles down in their ball Earth, and that there's an actual 'core', in the very 'center', is truly stunning, indeed.

where is the apex of the dome; it seam that it is straight up no mater where you are, this can only happen on a globe.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 02, 2023, 10:25:10 PM

As has been explained to you repeatedly, the reference needs to include all of Earth, which (due to its roughly spherical symmetry) means you use the centre.
That means you are starting 6371 km away.
Going up a few m means the distance is basically the same so the force will be basically the same.

The deepest into Earth, as of now, is only a few miles down into Earth's surface, which is only a few hundred feet, at most, lower than our ocean floors are, at it's deepest points.

It's funny when your side says I have no proof that there is a dome above Earth, which holds waters within it, but at least we can actually SEE it, and IS blue, like waters would be, that alone is more evidence of a dome, which CAN be proven to exist, at any time, but for some strange reason, they don't want to prove there's NOT a dome, which would prove, and leave no more doubt, or debate, and the world would know the TRUTH, that's what we all WANT, isn't it?

Metals are attracted to a magnet's SURFACE, and are HELD to the magnet's surface, because a magnet's source of magnetic force, is the entire magnet itself, not a core in it's center point, if it even HAD any 'core' to begin with.

But let's assume your ball Earth is true, and is speeding through endless 'space', and all things are held down to the speeding ball by your magical, super-duper 'force', and nobody has to ever KNOW or SEE or MEASURE any sort of 'core', being found to exist within the 'exact center', of the ball Earth, because they tell us the ball Earth has a core, and have tested things on it, and so on.....

So what is proven by magnetic force, with a magnet, using it's magnetic force within it, causing objects to be in motion, from this force acting on them, to pull them in towards the magnet, and cling to it's surface, and remain there forever, unless acted on by other forces, afterwards.

Your 'core excuse', is complete nonsense. Outside of the fact you're using other BS claims to try and support it, of course.

You do realize that nobody has gone into the Earth's surface, below a few miles, and before we DID go down to that point, we didn't have any clue about what we'd find there, and don't know squat about it. It'd be like digging down to sand, and assuming it's all sand, at that depth of Earth, which would be completely stupid to assume.

That's no better than when they claim to know Earth has a 'core', in the center of their 'ball Earth', when we've gone down a few miles, at best!!

How amazing that they would 'know' about the other thousands of miles down in their ball Earth, and that there's an actual 'core', in the very 'center', is truly stunning, indeed.

Have you investigated how Scientists know there is an actual core at the very centre of the Earth? What instruments do you think Scientists have used, to penetrate deeper than a few miles as with a drill?

So is the entire ball Earth, the source of your made up, non-existent force, or only the 'core', or mostly the 'core', and why would they call Earth's 'gravity' 1g, if it is much stronger at the core?

You have no clue if there's a 'core', nor if it was the strongest point of your made up force.

All we DO know, and can measure from, is the surface of Earth. If you claim Earth is the source of your made up force, all of the Earth must be the source, not only the 'core', way down below the surface. So it would weaken with distance from the surface, right away, and continue to weaken more and more with more distance away.

It must also show it weakening gradually.  We would slowly start to 'float' around, not ALL AT ONCE, like they staged it.

That's why you cannot tell me what altitudes we start to 'float' at would be, or even a range of altitudes.

So is the entire ball Earth, the source of your made up, non-existent force, or only the 'core', or mostly the 'core', and why would they call Earth's 'gravity' 1g, if it is much stronger at the core?

You are the one appealing to a magical, made up, non-existent force.

I'm appealing to gravity, something you feel the need to repeatedly lie about.

The source of gravity of Earth is the entire Earth. As explained, repeatedly.

1 g is just the value at the surface. And even that is not constant the surface. So it is either used as a placeholder, as whatever the value is; or it is used as a standardised value (often taken as 9.8, or 9.81 m/s^2).
We pick this, because this is where we live.
I don't know about you, but I live on the surface of Earth, not all the way down at the core.

It is NOT stronger at the core.
Have you not paid any attention at all to what I have said?
A spherically symmetric shell can be approximated as a point IF YOU ARE OUTSIDE THE SHELL.

If you are inside, then it can be approximated as nothing.

So as you go into Earth, you start to ignore more and more mass.

If Earth was of uniform density, then we would have the specific force due to gravity treating Earth as just a smaller and smaller sphere, following the formula:
Fs = GM/r^2, where M=(4/3)*pi*r^3;
So Fs = (4/3)*pi*G*r^3/r^2 = (4/3)*pi*G*r

i.e. it would be linearly proportional to distance from the core. Being 0 at the core, and g at the surface.

But as Earth is not of uniform density, this is not the case in reality.
Instead, as you go down, it will increase slightly as you go through the mantle until you reach the core at which point it will decrease as you go through the core.
This is due to the core having a greater density.

You have no clue if there's a 'core', nor if it was the strongest point of your made up force.

Again, your wilful ignorance of reality has no impact on what we know or have clues about.
There are mountains of evidence pointing to a core.
Your wilful rejection of that just means you have no clue.

All we DO know, and can measure from, is the surface of Earth. If you claim Earth is the source of your made up force, all of the Earth must be the source, not only the 'core', way down below the surface. So it would weaken with distance from the surface, right away, and continue to weaken more and more with more distance away.

Again, STOP FOCUSING ON THE TINY POINT BELOW YOUR FEET!
Even if you want to restrict it to the surface, you need to use the ENTIRE surface.
That means the point below your feet, as well as the point almost 13 000 km away.

So it would reduce with distance to the ENTIRE surface, not just the point below your feet.
That means you need to consider the point 13 000 km away, not just the point directly below your feet.

You don't just get to ignore the rest of Earth so you can spout dishonest BS.

Even if we were to only consider the gravity from the surface of Earth, if you want to just use a single distance you still need to use the distance to the geometric centre of that spherical shell.

Now again, stop repeating the same dishonest BS.

It will decrease gradually, based upon your distance from the geometric centre roughly following an inverse square law.
So if you go 1 km up, it will decrease to (6371/6372)^2 = 99.97% of what it was on the surface.
And that is assuming you aren't climbing a mountain. A mountain would make it more complex, because as you climb, you have more of the mountain below you. So it will actually change by less than that 0.03%.

We would slowly start to 'float' around, not ALL AT ONCE, like they staged it.

That's why you cannot tell me what altitudes we start to 'float' at would be, or even a range of altitudes.

No, we wouldn't.
You don't float around because gravity has weakened enough.
You float around when you are in free fall, i.e. a 0 g environment.
That is why you can easily do it on the vomit comet, still well within Earth's atmosphere; while if you aren't following such a trajectory you can't.

Astronauts in space aren't floating around because gravity is too weak. They are floating around because they are in orbit.

The best you get from gravity weakening is it allowing you to jump really high.
The only time that would give you "floating" is if the velocity of the jump exceeds terminal velocity.
This would be person dependent.
And it would depend on both the strength and agility of the person.
You can't just take the jump velocity on Earth, as that is based in part on their weight which will vary with the strength of gravity.
But you also can't just take the force, as that ignores the additional motion of parts of their body, and that the force doesn't just hit max instantly, and that they can't move their body instantly.

And while the velocity is easy to calculate, using force is harder.
Taking the first result I found, the jump velocity is 2.5 m/s.
The terminal velocity can be calculated as sqrt(2*G*M/d)
At the surface, that is roughly 11 km/s.
To have it drop to 2.5 m/s, you need a distance of roughly 127 Tm. That is 127 000 000 km.
But at that distance, the sun would be the most significant body, so it would require a different calculation.

So again, people aren't floating in orbit and the vomit comet due to gravity being weak enough. They are floating because they are in free fall, and so is the craft they are in.

So is the entire ball Earth, the source of your made up, non-existent force, or only the 'core', or mostly the 'core', and why would they call Earth's 'gravity' 1g, if it is much stronger at the core?

You have no clue if there's a 'core', nor if it was the strongest point of your made up force.

All we DO know, and can measure from, is the surface of Earth. If you claim Earth is the source of your made up force, all of the Earth must be the source, not only the 'core', way down below the surface. So it would weaken with distance from the surface, right away, and continue to weaken more and more with more distance away.

It must also show it weakening gradually.  We would slowly start to 'float' around, not ALL AT ONCE, like they staged it.

That's why you cannot tell me what altitudes we start to 'float' at would be, or even a range of altitudes.

Not just that. Gravity is called a constant. That is, the "law" of gravity includes a specific numeric value to equations. With no word as to where this value came from. But if it's a constant, then how can we talk about the moon's gravity, or Jupiter's gravity, or a gravitational field? That's the definition of a variable. And a variable is something you can just insert any number you want for, like the x in math. If gravity is a mere variable, that kinda detracts from the who set in stone nature of the "law." I mean, I could say gravity is 5.16 or something. This is probably why they cheat using g-force and just value things at 1g or 10g or whatever. And then there's the problem that g also stands for grams. If gravity is supposed to be a constant, why didn't they come up with a unique symbol for it? It's like they don't mind it getting overshadowed by virtually everything.

Not just that. Gravity is called a constant. That is, the "law" of gravity includes a specific numeric value to equations. With no word as to where this value came from.

Just like all inverse square laws, there is a constant which relates the thing causing the force, to the force.
In the case of gravity, this is relating mass and distance to the force.

This was obtained by experimental measurement.

Not that this it the universal gravitational constant, i.e. G in F=GMm/d^2.
It is not the value of g on Earth.
The value of g on Earth varies.

It is often approximated as constant for simple things, like calculating gravitational potential energy if you lift things up 1 m.
But it is not actually constant.
It varies over Earth, and with time.

And then there's the problem that g also stands for grams. If gravity is supposed to be a constant, why didn't they come up with a unique symbol for it?

Well gravity is g, grams is g.
One is italic, the other isn't.

But this isn't unique to gravity. Ignoring italics:
e is used for the numerical constant e and also used as the symbol for an electron, and for the charge of an electron.
m is used for meter and molality.
sigma is used for stress and standard deviation.
V is used for electric potential (also known as voltage), the unit volt, and as a symbol to represent volume.

Lots of symbols have multiple uses.

It is far easier to remember a few symbols, and understand their meaning either in context or with it explicitly written out; than to have countless symbols.

Why would they claim their made up magical 'force', is a constant, if they thought it was NOT a constant, was obviously NOT what they thought, unless they were a bunch of morons, so it IS a constant, not  variable. They are completely different, and are NOT interchangeable terms.

It is one or the other, that's it.

You just use whatever fits your argument at the time, and move along to other issues.

When you make up a 'force', and have no proof it exists, you can solve all problems easily, just say 'gravity' is doing this or that, or it is PARTLY doing it, and nobody can prove you wrong! Because gravity HAS no proof at all, to start with! 

Why would they claim their made up magical 'force', is a constant, if they thought it was NOT a constant

They don't. You do.

They claim the real phenomenon of gravity follows what can be approximated as an inverse square law in the simple case (more complex for high energy situations), F=GMm/r^2.

For the surface of a planet, for a reasonable height, it can be approximated by a single value to make calculations simpler. This can either be over the entire surface, or just for a region for some altitude. It varies depending on what level of accuracy is needed.

G is a constant, g is variable.

When you make up a 'force', and have no proof it exists, you can solve all problems easily, just say 'gravity' is doing this or that, or it is PARTLY doing it, and nobody can prove you wrong! Because gravity HAS no proof at all, to start with!

Again, that would be you, and your magical force, which has no proof at all.
Gravity, something clearly demonstrated to be real, has mountains of evidence supporting it.
It is entirely logical and consistent (at least once you recognise the purpose of approximations).

Notice how you just object to the idea of it being constant, even though you are the one here claiming it is constant?
You are setting up a strawman to attack.

Now again, where is the proof of your magical dome?

Why would they claim their made up magical 'force'

WTF?

vs your ignorant and uneducated rebranding of gravity?

The fact that everything has existed on the Earth's surface or it's waters, while nothing at all has ever come down to Earth from elsewhere, over thousands of years time, would indicate they originate on Earth, no indication of being anywhere else, nor evidence of anything at all.

Everything on Earth, has always been on Earth, was created to be on Earth, which is the reason we have no NEED for a 'pulling down, holding down' force to ever exist at all, and none DOES exist at all.

Earth was created for all life to exist on it's surface, or within it's waters, but not within air, except to breathe it, and fly within it, among many other uses beyond, of course.

Why would we need a 'force' to hold things 'down' to Earth's surface, when mass and density keep us on the surface all the time?

It all depends on where all things originate from, doesn't it? And if we cannot prove where things on Earth, first came to exist, we can only look at where they are now, where they once were, and if anything comes to Earth from elsewhere, or not.

Based on all the available evidence, over thousands of years, my argument is far stronger than yours is, and it's not even close. 

It works perfectly.

Other that not everything originates on earth. Your version still requires mass of earth to attract things. 

Why would they claim their made up magical 'force', is a constant, if they thought it was NOT a constant, was obviously NOT what they thought, unless they were a bunch of morons, so it IS a constant, not  variable. They are completely different, and are NOT interchangeable terms.

It is one or the other, that's it.

You just use whatever fits your argument at the time, and move along to other issues.

When you make up a 'force', and have no proof it exists, you can solve all problems easily, just say 'gravity' is doing this or that, or it is PARTLY doing it, and nobody can prove you wrong! Because gravity HAS no proof at all, to start with!

It would be nice if you could come up with a name for what everybody else calls gravity, wouldn't it? I've never once seen you use the word, "denpressure", so I assume you disagree with Sceptimatic's substitute?

Gravity is the downward force we all experience, while buoyancy is the upward force we all experience, especially in a swimming pool. Gravity goes down and buoyancy goes up.

No force of gravity equals no force of buoyancy.

Buoyancy does not want to keep everything down on the Earth, it wants to do the opposite, but is stopped by gravity.

So, if gravity is made up, then so is buoyancy.

But you accept buoyancy don't you, Turbonium? So, what is the name of this downward force buoyancy fights against, if it isn't the force everybody else calls gravity?

Please enlighten us all with your wisdom, Turbonium.

Oh, and gravity is a constant, whose strength is dependent on the size of a mass and it's density, and the distance of a smaller mass from that object. It's been proven.

The only thing that is magical, is any alternative explanation that you, or your fellow globe earth science deniers, can come up with, in the place of gravity.

Turbonium probably doesn't. As we've said, we have three different theories.

I don't accept (or know anything about) Denpressure.

It's buoyancy.

And I use buoyancy to mean both the upward and downward force. It's an if else equation.

There is no reason in this system to require gravity. In fact, the equation for buoyancy predates Isaac Newton's theory by around 1800 years. Archimedes discovered displacement in 212 BC. And people knew about boats before that.

The actual theory of displacement was simply buoyant force = weight of displaced fluid. So... how could buoyant force involve gravity if gravity wasn't a part of the theory? Answer: it couldn't! So, buoyancy does in fact work, but the model which involves gravity is fabricated. It's a fake equation.

Assuming Archimedes' principle to be reformulated as follows,

Did you hear that? Reformulated. As in, they remade the formula.

The actual formula is...

Po > Pf: object sinks
Po < Pf: object floats
(P is density, o is object, f is fluid)

The entire process is the force of buoyancy. It is not a force/opposing force dichotomy. 

Turbonium probably doesn't. As we've said, we have three different theories.

I don't accept (or know anything about) Denpressure.

It's buoyancy.

And I use buoyancy to mean both the upward and downward force. It's an if else equation.

There is no reason in this system to require gravity. In fact, the equation for buoyancy predates Isaac Newton's theory by around 1800 years. Archimedes discovered displacement in 212 BC. And people knew about boats before that.

The actual theory of displacement was simply buoyant force = weight of displaced fluid. So... how could buoyant force involve gravity if gravity wasn't a part of the theory? Answer: it couldn't! So, buoyancy does in fact work, but the model which involves gravity is fabricated. It's a fake equation.

Quote

Assuming Archimedes' principle to be reformulated as follows,

Did you hear that? Reformulated. As in, they remade the formula.

The actual formula is...

Po > Pf: object sinks
Po < Pf: object floats
(P is density, o is object, f is fluid)

The entire process is the force of buoyancy. It is not a force/opposing force dichotomy.

Buoyancy doesn't make things go down. Buoyancy makes things go up, Bulma.

It's a one way street for buoyancy - up.

The force which resists buoyancy is you guessed it - gravity. It is commonly known as gravity. You can call it whatever you want, but you can't call it buoyancy. Like I said, buoyancy only exists because of the force we call gravity.

Archimedes took gravity for granted when he formulated for buoyancy. What do you think buoyancy is resisting against, if not gravity?

Buoyancy is what allows things to float in water like a cork or float in the air like helium balloons.

Your body is not buoyant in air Bulma. You cannot float around in the Earth atmosphere, Bulma. You can only fall. Water is a different story for you.

Turbonium probably doesn't. As we've said, we have three different theories.

None of which are a theory.
Instead, they are just baseless incoherent claims of fantasy.

It's buoyancy.

Buoyancy is an upwards force dependent upon gravity. You can get things equivalent to buoyancy with something equivalent to gravity, such as an accelerating car or a centrifuge.

Buoyancy is caused by the pressure gradient in a fluid.
This gradient (in normal conditions) is based upon gravity and the density of the fluid.
Buoyancy cannot be the cause of this gradient. You need something to cause it.

And I use buoyancy to mean both the upward and downward force. It's an if else equation.

Unlike basically everyone else, that use it as an upwards force.
This includes your very claim below, where the buoyant force is simply the weight of displaced fluid.
That is as an upwards force.

There is no reason in this system to require gravity. In fact, the equation for buoyancy predates Isaac Newton's theory by around 1800 years. Archimedes discovered displacement in 212 BC. And people knew about boats before that.

The actual theory of displacement was simply buoyant force = weight of displaced fluid. So... how could buoyant force involve gravity if gravity wasn't a part of the theory?

Newton didn't invent gravity.
He simply came up with an idea for how it can work.
Even Aristotle had ideas about gravity, separate from buoyancy.
But it is there as a part of the theory, a key part you are overlooking, which I have emphasised for you.
No gravity = No weight = No buoyant force.

So buoyancy relies upon gravity or a substitute for it.
It CANNOT work alone.

That is why it doesn't work in 0g.

But more dishonest of you is how this doesn't involve density at all, yet you want to claim that is the cause.
So even though it has weight (i.e. gravity, i.e. a downwards force proportional to mass) you boldly claim it doesn't have gravity, while trying to entirely reformulate it to be either an upwards or downwards force which depends on density?

Did you hear that? Reformulated. As in, they remade the formula.

So you found a website, and clung to that?

Without providing a reference at all?

Are you pulling it from one of these sites:
https://www.engineersedge.com/fluid_flow/buoyancy.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
https://ljfaye14.wordpress.com/guide-page/
https://galwaymathsgrinds.wordpress.com/maths-topics/applied-maths/hydrostatics-q8/

That isn't reformulating it to add in gravity.
It is more inline with your fantasy, trying to switch it to density.
But do you know how you go to density? By using gravity and volume.
i.e. W = g*rho*V

So to get your nonsense from Archimedes principle, you need gravity.

The only source I found that made that explicit was this:
https://studylib.net/doc/7200267/archimedes--principle.

The actual formula is...

You already provided it. No need for extra BS from you.
B=W(fluid displaced)

i.e. the buoyant force (defined to be upwards) is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced.

No need for your BS.

Again, if you want to go down that path, the total force on an object (defined to be downwards) is given as:
F= W(object) - B = W(object) - W(fluid displaced).

If you want to invoke density, you need something to connect the weight to the density.
e.g. using W=m*g = rho*V*g.

Then we have:
F=rho(object)*V*g - rho(fluid)*V*g = g*V*(rho(object) - rho(fluid).

So if g is positive, i.e. gravity is going down, then:
if rho(object) > rho(fluid), the downwards force is positive and the object goes down.
if rho(object) < rho(fluid), the downwards force is negative and the object goes up.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 19, 2023, 08:30:45 PM

Turbonium probably doesn't. As we've said, we have three different theories.

I don't accept (or know anything about) Denpressure.

It's buoyancy.

And I use buoyancy to mean both the upward and downward force. It's an if else equation.

There is no reason in this system to require gravity. In fact, the equation for buoyancy predates Isaac Newton's theory by around 1800 years. Archimedes discovered displacement in 212 BC. And people knew about boats before that.

The actual theory of displacement was simply buoyant force = weight of displaced fluid. So... how could buoyant force involve gravity if gravity wasn't a part of the theory? Answer: it couldn't! So, buoyancy does in fact work, but the model which involves gravity is fabricated. It's a fake equation.

Quote

Assuming Archimedes' principle to be reformulated as follows,

Did you hear that? Reformulated. As in, they remade the formula.

The actual formula is...

Po > Pf: object sinks
Po < Pf: object floats
(P is density, o is object, f is fluid)

The entire process is the force of buoyancy. It is not a force/opposing force dichotomy.

Buoyancy doesn't make things go down. Buoyancy makes things go up, Bulma.

It's a one way street for buoyancy - up.

The force which resists buoyancy is you guessed it - gravity. It is commonly known as gravity. You can call it whatever you want, but you can't call it buoyancy. Like I said, buoyancy only exists because of the force we call gravity.

Archimedes took gravity for granted when he formulated for buoyancy. What do you think buoyancy is resisting against, if not gravity?

Buoyancy is what allows things to float in water like a cork or float in the air like helium balloons.

Your body is not buoyant in air Bulma. You cannot float around in the Earth atmosphere, Bulma. You can only fall. Water is a different story for you.

Why do you think it has to have a counterforce? Now, true the word buoyancy inherently implies that something floats, making it a less than ideal word.

But the idea that something demands another force to go in another direction is stupid.

If I were to set up a crude wooden rollercoaster with two hills, and place a marble at the first hill, momentum carries it to the right and down the hill, then carries it to the right and partially up the next hill only I built it too high, so it goes left and down, carries partially left and up, and finally back and forth until the momentum runs out.

From this we know two things about forces. (1)Directionality doesn't require giving a force a new name as momentum moves the marble right down, left, and even up.
(2) Forces can and do reduce in energy as they proceed. This is because energy is not perpetual, short of miraculous things.

So what do we know about gravity? Well we are told that it's a steady force (which btw is impossible, because of the problem of perpetual energy), and yet despite it being supposedly omnipresent, creatures like birds, and aerodynamic objects can bypass it temporarily. What we supposedly know about gravity then is that propulsion and aerodynamics allows objects to fly on the air, and hollow object like balloons can float due to being filled with air.
The entire narrative breaks down when you realize these same principles are identical in the water. But here's the funny thing. Air has no water, yet buoyancy is still present. Almost as though the mechanism for buoyancy is the same with or without water. Meanwhile, despite all the nonsense about gravity in the equation it really just boils down to density and propulsion. I throw a brick into the water, it sinks straight away. But if I can skip stones, I might be able to skim a brick on the water as well.

Your theory requires the assumption of a constant that there doesn't seem to be any use for.

Bird - (propulsion + upward lift) < fluid (air): flight
Bird - (propulsion + upward lift) > fluid (air): faling

With humans, they are petty completely unaerodynamic , so no upward lift no matter how they are propelled. Usually. I suppose ppl fired from a cannon would disagree. But they don't stay airborne long.

Think about this. If the force is gravity and not a part of buyancy, then by virtue of an object having no propulsion, they would sink in water and air, and nothing could change that. But that's not so! Despite me being a heavy human in comparison to air and water, and socially awkward to boot, I can lie on a raft or boat and stay above the water just fine. Despite me being like 160 lb and the boat being a metal boat around 40 lb or something, and my mom weighing 160 lb or so too, and my dad weighing like 240, all three of us can get in a canoe and stay above the water.  Not just that. In olden days, galley ships might have 100 people rowing while people on top used catapults or ballista. Adding gravity to the equation, all of that would sink, except what we're looking at is density and buoyant foece making an object that floats carry objects that would all sink if outside the boat.  In other words, the total mass of all objects based purely on numbers  should have all total mass sink the ship. But its low density actually pushes things up. There is no counter force of gravity here, just one force balancing things. A light object is lifting heavier ones, rather than a force that makes a bunch of heavy objects push down a lighter one. But we insist that can never happen outside the water... only it does!

 A man in a lawnchair and a bunch of helium balloons, with no propulsion was able to float 16k feet above the ground by creating greater upward force than his mass through the use of helium balloons clustered together. He descended through popping some of them with a pellet gun.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawnchair_Larry_flight

Buoyant force does not use gravity. It is the same buoyancy you'd get from sitting on a canoe. Heavier than water? You sink unless using (hydro)dynamics and movement. Heavier than air? You fall unless using (aero)dynamics and movement. Lighter than air/water? You float unless you have ballast. Think about this: an anchor inside a ship doesn't affect its speed, but it immediately stops when it is released from the boat. When a weight is released from the main body of the ship though, it pulls it down. Likewise adding water into a ship affects its hydrodynamic qualities and it lowers to get under bridges.

Why do you think it has to have a counterforce?

Well we can start with what you have already said:
"buoyant force = weight of displaced fluid"

So in order to get a buoyant force, we need a force for weight.
The buoyant force makes things go up. Weight makes things go down.

But for a more fundamental level, an actual understanding of it.
Again, we observe a pressure gradient in all fluids.
This pressure gradient is proportional to the density of the fluid.
This will exert an upwards force on objects immersed in that fluid.
That upwards force is buoyancy.

It relies upon a force to create that pressure gradient.

We see the same effect in an accelerating car.
The car accelerates, which creates a horizontal pressure gradient in the car, which pushes objects forwards.
This results in this behaviour:


So no force (gravity) means no pressure gradient, means no buoyant force.

So it is entirely rational to realise buoyancy is the effect of gravity, and that without gravity (or an equivalent), there would be no buoyancy.

If I were to set up a crude wooden rollercoaster with two hills, and place a marble at the first hill, momentum carries it to the right and down the hill, then carries it to the right and partially up the next hill

No. Gravity accelerates it down the first hill, giving it momentum, which carries it up the next hill and against friction.
If it doesn't make it up the hill, it then falls back down, and oscillates until friction brings it to a stop.

It isn't magically running out of momentum.

From this we know two things about forces. (1)Directionality doesn't require giving a force a new name as momentum moves the marble right down, left, and even up.

Momentum simply carries it in the direction it is going.

(2) Forces can and do reduce in energy as they proceed. This is because energy is not perpetual, short of miraculous things.

No, they don't.
Forces accelerate an object, and then momentum means it keeps going until another force acts to accelerate it.

Well we are told that it's a steady force (which btw is impossible, because of the problem of perpetual energy)

Wrong again.
While the force is steady, that does not provide perpetual energy.
The only way to get energy out is to allow the object to fall.
If it falls, it then loses potential energy as there is less it can fall.

creatures like birds, and aerodynamic objects can bypass it temporarily.

By providing a different force which counters it.

The entire narrative breaks down when you realize these same principles are identical in the water. But here's the funny thing. Air has no water

Air and water are both fluids.
For this discussion, the main differences are density and viscosity.

Almost as if the mechanism for buoyancy is based upon a fluid having a pressure gradient in it. A pressure gradient due to gravity.

Think about this. If the force is gravity and not a part of buyancy, then by virtue of an object having no propulsion, they would sink in water and air, and nothing could change that.

Unless by "propulsion" you mean any force at all, WRONG!
The pressure gradient caused by gravity is an upwards force.
That means there will be an upwards force acting on all objects in a fluid when subjected to gravity.
If this upwards force is greater, the object will rise.

So yes, plenty can change that.

So it is only if you ignore the buoyant force due to gravity.

And do you know a simple analogy to show your claim is pure BS:
Consider a see-saw, on one side you place a skinny kid and on the other a really fat kid.
According to your delusional BS, both kids have to go down, requiring the see-saw to break.

But logic dictates that in order for 1 to go down the other must go up.
So the heavier kid, i.e. the one with a greater force due to gravity goes down.

The same happens with objects in a fluid.
If you have the object go down, by necessity the fluid goes up.

So if you try doing your dishonest BS more honestly, you would need to claim both go down, which is impossible. One must go up.

Adding gravity to the equation, all of that would sink

Only when you ignore buoyancy.

Again, how is it meant to sink without pushing the water up?
Why isn't the water going down?

But we insist that can never happen outside the water... only it does!

You might, as might other flat Earthers to try to pretend gravity isn't real such as by using a helium filled balloon.
But honest people recognise it can happen in any fluid.

Buoyant force does not use gravity. It is the same buoyancy you'd get from sitting on a canoe.

i.e. the same buoyant force that relies upon gravity?

Think about this: an anchor inside a ship doesn't affect its speed, but it immediately stops when it is released from the boat.

Which is dealing with drag, and also attaching to the ocean floor.

So what do we know about gravity?

Enough to accurately model and produce practical solutions for flight, ballistics (bullets to dropped balls), to building structures and amusement rides. 

What’s flat earth’s greatest scientific breakthrough?  Figuring out the world is spherical.

😂

Quote from: Smoke Machine on September 19, 2023, 10:04:29 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 19, 2023, 08:30:45 PM

Turbonium probably doesn't. As we've said, we have three different theories.

I don't accept (or know anything about) Denpressure.

It's buoyancy.

And I use buoyancy to mean both the upward and downward force. It's an if else equation.

There is no reason in this system to require gravity. In fact, the equation for buoyancy predates Isaac Newton's theory by around 1800 years. Archimedes discovered displacement in 212 BC. And people knew about boats before that.

The actual theory of displacement was simply buoyant force = weight of displaced fluid. So... how could buoyant force involve gravity if gravity wasn't a part of the theory? Answer: it couldn't! So, buoyancy does in fact work, but the model which involves gravity is fabricated. It's a fake equation.

Quote

Assuming Archimedes' principle to be reformulated as follows,

Did you hear that? Reformulated. As in, they remade the formula.

The actual formula is...

Po > Pf: object sinks
Po < Pf: object floats
(P is density, o is object, f is fluid)

The entire process is the force of buoyancy. It is not a force/opposing force dichotomy.

Buoyancy doesn't make things go down. Buoyancy makes things go up, Bulma.

It's a one way street for buoyancy - up.

The force which resists buoyancy is you guessed it - gravity. It is commonly known as gravity. You can call it whatever you want, but you can't call it buoyancy. Like I said, buoyancy only exists because of the force we call gravity.

Archimedes took gravity for granted when he formulated for buoyancy. What do you think buoyancy is resisting against, if not gravity?

Buoyancy is what allows things to float in water like a cork or float in the air like helium balloons.

Your body is not buoyant in air Bulma. You cannot float around in the Earth atmosphere, Bulma. You can only fall. Water is a different story for you.

Why do you think it has to have a counterforce? Now, true the word buoyancy inherently implies that something floats, making it a less than ideal word.

But the idea that something demands another force to go in another direction is stupid.

If I were to set up a crude wooden rollercoaster with two hills, and place a marble at the first hill, momentum carries it to the right and down the hill, then carries it to the right and partially up the next hill only I built it too high, so it goes left and down, carries partially left and up, and finally back and forth until the momentum runs out.

From this we know two things about forces. (1)Directionality doesn't require giving a force a new name as momentum moves the marble right down, left, and even up.
(2) Forces can and do reduce in energy as they proceed. This is because energy is not perpetual, short of miraculous things.

So what do we know about gravity? Well we are told that it's a steady force (which btw is impossible, because of the problem of perpetual energy), and yet despite it being supposedly omnipresent, creatures like birds, and aerodynamic objects can bypass it temporarily. What we supposedly know about gravity then is that propulsion and aerodynamics allows objects to fly on the air, and hollow object like balloons can float due to being filled with air.
The entire narrative breaks down when you realize these same principles are identical in the water. But here's the funny thing. Air has no water, yet buoyancy is still present. Almost as though the mechanism for buoyancy is the same with or without water. Meanwhile, despite all the nonsense about gravity in the equation it really just boils down to density and propulsion. I throw a brick into the water, it sinks straight away. But if I can skip stones, I might be able to skim a brick on the water as well.

Your theory requires the assumption of a constant that there doesn't seem to be any use for.

Bird - (propulsion + upward lift) < fluid (air): flight
Bird - (propulsion + upward lift) > fluid (air): faling

With humans, they are petty completely unaerodynamic , so no upward lift no matter how they are propelled. Usually. I suppose ppl fired from a cannon would disagree. But they don't stay airborne long.

Think about this. If the force is gravity and not a part of buyancy, then by virtue of an object having no propulsion, they would sink in water and air, and nothing could change that. But that's not so! Despite me being a heavy human in comparison to air and water, and socially awkward to boot, I can lie on a raft or boat and stay above the water just fine. Despite me being like 160 lb and the boat being a metal boat around 40 lb or something, and my mom weighing 160 lb or so too, and my dad weighing like 240, all three of us can get in a canoe and stay above the water.  Not just that. In olden days, galley ships might have 100 people rowing while people on top used catapults or ballista. Adding gravity to the equation, all of that would sink, except what we're looking at is density and buoyant foece making an object that floats carry objects that would all sink if outside the boat.  In other words, the total mass of all objects based purely on numbers  should have all total mass sink the ship. But its low density actually pushes things up. There is no counter force of gravity here, just one force balancing things. A light object is lifting heavier ones, rather than a force that makes a bunch of heavy objects push down a lighter one. But we insist that can never happen outside the water... only it does!

 A man in a lawnchair and a bunch of helium balloons, with no propulsion was able to float 16k feet above the ground by creating greater upward force than his mass through the use of helium balloons clustered together. He descended through popping some of them with a pellet gun.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawnchair_Larry_flight

Buoyant force does not use gravity. It is the same buoyancy you'd get from sitting on a canoe. Heavier than water? You sink unless using (hydro)dynamics and movement. Heavier than air? You fall unless using (aero)dynamics and movement. Lighter than air/water? You float unless you have ballast. Think about this: an anchor inside a ship doesn't affect its speed, but it immediately stops when it is released from the boat. When a weight is released from the main body of the ship though, it pulls it down. Likewise adding water into a ship affects its hydrodynamic qualities and it lowers to get under bridges.

Bulma, I see you are trying hard to believe the Earth is not a globe and gravity is yet another lie fed to you by authority. You are making a simple concept, so unnecessarily complex, to suit your flat earth model in your mind.

I see you agree buoyancy is an upwards force. Ok, good.

Experiment: Hold an inanimate object like a marble between your thumb and forefinger, and outstretch your arm and your hand. Now, release the marble.

What do you think will happen to the marble?

It's not going to rise into the air because of buoyancy, and keep rising, is it? It's not going to hover there in space where it was, before you released it, is it? It will drop to the ground.

Tell me, Bulma. Tell me what force causes the marble to drop to the ground?

Don't give me any stupid shit answer like it's density causes it to drop to the ground. Yes, we all know the marble has density from it's mass, but it's density isn't propelling it to the ground, is it? The atmosphere isn't crushing it to the ground, is it? Please dont insult me with Universal acceleration, either. But, a separate force is still moving it to the ground.

That separate force is what humans have decided to call gravity. Now, explain to me again, how gravity doesn't exist.

Look at how a real force will act, in the same situation.

If we use a metal surfaced balloon, and place it near the magnet, when it is not inflated with air or helium, say at a distance of 4 inches away, the magnet pulls it in.  Does it not pull it in when it's inflated? 

There will be two opposing forces in play - the less dense balloon, which will rise up within the more dense air, and will become more dense than air when deflated, and falls through the air, for the same reason.

But with more inflation, and/or with a bigger metal covered balloon, both forces act as nearly the same in strength, and the balloon jerks back and forth, from the opposing forces acting on it at the same time.

You don't think that your arms or legs are forces, but they become forces, when you make them act as a force, and it is just as real of a force, as any others are, at the time.

Objects that rise up in air, become a force of upward motion, within the air, like those which fall through the air downward, act as a force of motion through air, as well.

If 'gravity' was real, and 'pulled things down from air', and 'held things down to the surface', it would act and behave like all actual forces do. That's what happens when you try to invent a magical force, out of nothing, it falls apart instantly. Because it isn't real, or true.

Birds would never fly up into air, and would be held down to the surface, by such a massively powerful force, which it would have to be, not weak here, but strong elsewhere, and so on...

L
If 'gravity' was real, and 'pulled things down from air', and 'held things down to the surface', it would act and behave like all actual forces do. That's what happens when you try to invent a magical force, out of nothing, it falls apart instantly. Because it isn't real, or true.

Birds would never fly up into air,

Why would birds never fly up.  All the have to do is create more lift than the weak force of gravity.  Birds that weigh just ounces.  The whole thing proportional to mass.

Now.  Hold a 50 pound weight straight out at arms length and tell me there is no gravity.  Or no force attracting things down to earth.

Must be some sort of force if you bastardize gravity into your delusional force of retuning to origin.  Reality is mass attracts mass.  Not really much different than you proclaiming earth things attract earth things.