Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?

What magic causes more dense objects to move at all?
Why does this make them go down?
Why does it magically make their apparent weight reduce when immersed into a fluid?

There’s nothing magical about it, there’s no need to make up magical fantasy forces for a lie to work as if it were true, which fails every time, anyway, and needs more lies to support it, which also fail to work.

Any object that has less or more density than air or water, will rise up or down within these two mediums, the only factor that decides their direction of movement, that makes them either rise upward or downward within air or water, is entirely based and explained by relative density, of any object, to the medium the object is within, that is the only factor.

You cannot use the pressure gradients over the air or water to explain it, they will rise up or go downward through their gradients of varied pressure, so nice try, but it’s all bs.

The helium balloon keeps on rising upward, when we put one out in air, it goes up higher and faster in air than a balloon filled with air does, being more dense than helium is, that’s why it rises slower and not as high up in air, being more dense than helium is, yet both rise up because both are less dense than the air is, causing them to rise upward in air.

Your made up force that exists within all objects, all things, air and infinite space, too….

You cannot understand how stupid and impossible to know what you’re claiming here?

That your entire claim is nonsense without any proof at all?

We know that air and water have variances of pressure, levels of more and less air or water content, at levels or in layers of Earth, that isn’t going to stop a helium balloon from rising upward in air, through the pressure gradients it goes through along the way upward, it’s not about pressure gradients.

You pile up more and more excuses, to cover up earlier excuses that failed to work out somewhere, so you made up another excuse for it, which failed as well, and so on..

You make up a term called buoyancy, which is actually what relative density is, because your first made up force of ‘gravity’ only works one direction, to pull things downward to Earth, not when things go upward, another force is made up for it!

This was their second made up force, called ‘buoyancy’, which they rarely said was a force, while at certain times they said it was a force, if needed to.


Buoyancy cannot be a force of objects density to that of air or water, that will make them ‘buoyant’ in air or water, to make them rise upward in air or water, because you claim that density is not a force, so you said that buoyancy used pressure gradients with objects of less density than air or water as a force making them rise upward in air or water, which is all bs.

Submarines rise upward or go downward in water, through a vast range of different pressure gradients or levels, it’s your bs excuse failing here as usual

Any object that has less or more density than air or water,

How does a ball thrown straight up slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance, stop midair, change direction of travel 180 degrees, then accelerate back to earth without a force acting on it called gravity.

Density is not a force.  Please show how to density a car up hill with the engine off if you think density is the “force” behind movement. 

There’s nothing magical about it

Yes there is.
You are claiming something moves with no force to make it move.
You are claiming something which has no directionality magically results in a directional movement.
That is magic.

But even worse for you, is that pressure gradients in fluids and empirically verifiable.
That means an object in a fluid has a force pushing it up.
So your magic not only needs to make the object magically go down, it needs to magically overcome this empirically verifiable force as well.

there’s no need to make up magical fantasy forces for a lie to work as if it were true, which fails every time, anyway, and needs more lies to support it, which also fail to work.

Which is why the RE works fine while your flat fantasy fails at every hurdle.

The RE, which use real forces, which can be measured and which work to explain reality in a consistent, coherent manner; compared to the FE, which needs to reject that and invent all sorts of magical BS to pretend it works.

Any object that has less or more density than air or water, will rise up or down within these two mediums

WHY?
Again, what magic causes it?
In order to move, you need a force.
That force needs a directionality.
What is giving it the directionality?
What is giving it its magnitude?

Why does this causes a pressure gradient in fluids?
How does this magically cause it to overcome that pressure gradient?

Density alone cannot explain it.
This is because density has no direction, and density cannot explain why the magnitude varies with location.

You cannot use the pressure gradients over the air or water to explain it

Because that is only part of it.
The pressure gradient explains why things rise and why things have an apparently reduced mass.
Gravity explains why these pressure gradients exist, and why things fall.

The helium balloon keeps on rising upward

Due to the force from the pressure gradient being greater than the force from gravity.
But eventually it reaches a point where it pops.

If instead we fill it with air, it is denser than air so it sinks.

Your made up force that exists within all objects, all things, air and infinite space, too….

You mean the real force, which is observed in everything we have tested so far.
So we take the simple option and assume it would apply to everything.

That's how science works.

Conversely, if we followed your BS of claiming we can't possibly know, then go grab a bowling ball you have never seen before, and have someone hold it above your leg and let it go. As you haven't seen this ball before, according to your BS you have no reason at all to believe the ball will fall.

We know that air and water have variances of pressure

Yes, we know they have pressure gradients, with the pressure greater the closer it is to Earth.
That pressure gradient acts to push everything up.
Without gravity or some force equivalent to it, everything would be pushed up, and these pressure gradients would be removed.

That is why your claim is BS.

that isn’t going to stop a helium balloon from rising upward in air

Again you wish to attack a strawman.
Why would the pressure gradient, the very thing pushing the balloon up, magically stop it?
What the pressure gradient would do is stop things falling.

e.g. if you take a solid piece of lead, and hold it in mid air, the force from the pressure below pushing up is greater than the force from the air above pushing down. This is because the pressure of the air below is greater than the pressure of the air above.
This should push the piece of lead up. Unless there is another force to counter that upwards force from the pressure gradient.

The pressure gradient should stop things falling and push them up.
You need a force to explain the existence of this pressure gradient and explain how objects overcome it TO GO DOWN!

You pile up more and more excuses

I am yet to use a single excuse.
I have explained how that pressure gradient and pushing things up is a direct consequence of gravity; that it is an expected result of gravity.
And what do you do in return? Entirely ignore the issue of objects falling down through that pressure gradient and instead pretend I object to the idea of an object rising up through it.

You make up BS excuse after BS excuse of why your delusional BS should still work, all while ignoring the multitude of problems with it; and repeat lie after lie to try to pretend the RE model doesn't work.

Again, your dishonest BS of focusing on the balloon while ignoring the air, is like focusing on the small kid on the see saw while ignoring the much heavier kid on the other side.
It just demonstrates how dishonest you are and doesn't show any fault with gravity or the RE model.

You make up a term called buoyancy

No, I don't.
That term has existed long before me, to describe the UPWARDS force an object gets from being immersed in a fluid.

first made up force of ‘gravity’ only works one direction

No, because the real force of gravity will create a pressure gradient in a fluid to push things up.
This is not an excuse, and instead of even trying to refute it, you just repeat this pathetic BS of it being an excuse and made up.

they rarely said was a force

I have explained why it is often insignificant.

Buoyancy cannot be a force of objects density to that of air or water

No, it is the upwards force from the pressure gradient.
It acts on all objects, regardless of their density.

which is all bs.

If it is all BS, why are you unable to show a single fault, and instead need to resort to lying about it, strawmanning it and claiming it is made up or excuses?
If it was actually BS you would easily be able to explain what was wrong.

Just like I am able to easily point out how density does not have a directionality, how it does not provide a magnitude to the force, and how it has no way to overcome the pressure gradient.

Any object that has less or more density than air or water, will rise up or down within these two mediums, the only factor that decides their direction of movement, that makes them either rise upward or downward within air or water, is entirely based and explained by relative density, of any object, to the medium the object is within, that is the only factor.

You have never, once explained why density pushes objects up instead of down, or sideways, or diagonal.

There has to be some force that determines which direction is up.  In the real world it's gravity.  In your made up world, it's what?

Why does a rock sink and not float?  What force or magical property in your world causes this?

Quote

What magic causes more dense objects to move at all?
Why does this make them go down?
Why does it magically make their apparent weight reduce when immersed into a fluid?

There’s nothing magical about it, there’s no need to make up magical fantasy forces for a lie to work as if it were true, which fails every time, anyway, and needs more lies to support it, which also fail to work.

Any object that has less or more density than air or water, will rise up or down within these two mediums, the only factor that decides their direction of movement, that makes them either rise upward or downward within air or water, is entirely based and explained by relative density, of any object, to the medium the object is within, that is the only factor.

You cannot use the pressure gradients over the air or water to explain it, they will rise up or go downward through their gradients of varied pressure, so nice try, but it’s all bs.

The helium balloon keeps on rising upward, when we put one out in air, it goes up higher and faster in air than a balloon filled with air does, being more dense than helium is, that’s why it rises slower and not as high up in air, being more dense than helium is, yet both rise up because both are less dense than the air is, causing them to rise upward in air.

Your made up force that exists within all objects, all things, air and infinite space, too….

You cannot understand how stupid and impossible to know what you’re claiming here?

That your entire claim is nonsense without any proof at all?

We know that air and water have variances of pressure, levels of more and less air or water content, at levels or in layers of Earth, that isn’t going to stop a helium balloon from rising upward in air, through the pressure gradients it goes through along the way upward, it’s not about pressure gradients.

You pile up more and more excuses, to cover up earlier excuses that failed to work out somewhere, so you made up another excuse for it, which failed as well, and so on..

You make up a term called buoyancy, which is actually what relative density is, because your first made up force of ‘gravity’ only works one direction, to pull things downward to Earth, not when things go upward, another force is made up for it!

This was their second made up force, called ‘buoyancy’, which they rarely said was a force, while at certain times they said it was a force, if needed to.


Buoyancy cannot be a force of objects density to that of air or water, that will make them ‘buoyant’ in air or water, to make them rise upward in air or water, because you claim that density is not a force, so you said that buoyancy used pressure gradients with objects of less density than air or water as a force making them rise upward in air or water, which is all bs.

Submarines rise upward or go downward in water, through a vast range of different pressure gradients or levels, it’s your bs excuse failing here as usual

Have you ever seen a movie or tv show about the fictional character called, "Superman"? The fictional character of Superman levitates and flies around wherever he wants to go, just by thinking about it.

Please explain what is stopping you, Trubalonium2, from flying around like Superman?

What's stopping you? Is it because your body is heavier than air? So, your weight is stopping you?

Explain what force makes all objects that are heavier than air, fall to the ground? When you stand on a set of scales, what force is pushing your body down on to the scales to produce a reading of your body's weight? If there is no force pushing you down when standing on scales, your body should weigh zero as should everything else heavier than air, yes?

You are being pushed down on to the scales, yes? If you place other items on the scales, the scales will show what weight they are. If it isn't the force of gravity pushing you and everything else down to the ground, what is pushing you to the ground? Is it a different force pushing you to the ground?

Do you need to phone a friend? Which of your flat earth priests would you like to speak to?

One day I'm going to write a book using three pseudonyms. "FLAT EARTH WORLD - by Trubalonium, Bulshitbeliefs, and Scepticmaniac."

You make up a term called buoyancy, which is actually what relative density is, because your first made up force of ‘gravity’ only works one direction, to pull things downward to Earth, not when things go upward, another force is made up for it!

Buoyancy predates RE ideas like gravity.

But the original formula does not have gravity in the equation. That's a revision by woke globalist shills.

Real buoyancy is identical to what you just described.

Have you ever seen a movie or tv show about the fictional character called, "Superman"? The fictional character of Superman levitates and flies around wherever he wants to go, just by thinking about it.

Please explain what is stopping you, Trubalonium2, from flying around like Superman?

What's stopping you? Is it because your body is heavier than air? So, your weight is stopping you?

I can answer this. Yes, the body is heavier than air. But it's a strange thing. Put a person inside an airship (not an "airplane" as most people call it), and the lack of density per square inch is the same reason that a person with a rock tied to their leg can sink outside a boat and float in it.
Moreover, the ship itself has thousands of lb in weight, yet its density is low and its propulsion is great enough to "swim" through the air. 

Also, Superman is a terrible example. The way he flies doesn't feel realistic. I wrote a better mechanic myself based on swimming through air when I made my superhero novel.

Buoyancy predates RE ideas like gravity.

Wrong again.
Gravity is a very old concept, from long before Newton.
And buoyancy certainly uses it, as the WEIGHT of the fluid in question.
Even the ancients recognised things have weight trying to move them down and buoyancy pushing them up.

The translation of Archimedes' principle is:

Any object, totally or partially immersed in a fluid or liquid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object.

Note key parts: Buoyancy is the UPWARDS force, as it is buoyed up.
And that this force is equal to the WEIGHT of the fluid displaced.

That is not revision. That is merely explaining the phenomenon with a more fundamental force.

Real buoyancy is identical to what you just described.

No, real buoyancy is an upwards force on an object immersed in a fluid from the pressure gradient in that fluid, with that pressure gradient caused by gravity.

That is what real buoyancy is.

I can answer this. Yes, the body is heavier than air. But it's a strange thing. Put a person inside an airship (not an "airplane" as most people call it), and the lack of density per square inch is the same reason that a person with a rock tied to their leg can sink outside a boat and float in it.
Moreover, the ship itself has thousands of lb in weight, yet its density is low and its propulsion is great enough to "swim" through the air.

Notice how in that you entirely failed to explain anything.
You provided no reason why things should fall.

Objects rise or fall due to their relative density to the medium they’re within.

Objects rise or fall due to their relative density to the medium they’re within.

Why?
What magic makes a denser object move in any particular direction and at a particular rate?
You have no explanation for that at all.
Gravity explains it.
It gives it the directionality, towards Earth.
It gives it the rate, based upon the mass of Earth and the distance to it (and more technically on the mass distribution as well).

If horizontal force is measured by acceleration x density x volume, why is vertical force measured by purely object density/fluid density?


And why when the displaced densoty × volume of fluid equals the density x volume of the object, does the object that previously fell, then float?

Objects rise or fall due to their relative density to the medium they’re within.

Explain why objects continue to be pushed down, even when on the ground. Explain why when you stand on a set of scales, your body pushes down on the scales to produce a weight reading.

Your explanation that objects rise or fall due to their relative density in air, does not explain the force which pushes everything to the ground.

You must concede this force exists. You must concede that this downward force is gravity. You therefore must concede that because gravity is real, the entire Earth as a flat plain, cannot be real because gravity would and does cause planets to be spherical.

Quote from: turbonium

You make up a term called buoyancy, which is actually what relative density is, because your first made up force of ‘gravity’ only works one direction, to pull things downward to Earth, not when things go upward, another force is made up for it!

Buoyancy predates RE ideas like gravity.

But the original formula does not have gravity in the equation. That's a revision by woke globalist shills.

Real buoyancy is identical to what you just described.

Quote

Have you ever seen a movie or tv show about the fictional character called, "Superman"? The fictional character of Superman levitates and flies around wherever he wants to go, just by thinking about it.

Please explain what is stopping you, Trubalonium2, from flying around like Superman?

What's stopping you? Is it because your body is heavier than air? So, your weight is stopping you?

I can answer this. Yes, the body is heavier than air. But it's a strange thing. Put a person inside an airship (not an "airplane" as most people call it), and the lack of density per square inch is the same reason that a person with a rock tied to their leg can sink outside a boat and float in it.
Moreover, the ship itself has thousands of lb in weight, yet its density is low and its propulsion is great enough to "swim" through the air. 

Also, Superman is a terrible example. The way he flies doesn't feel realistic. I wrote a better mechanic myself based on swimming through air when I made my superhero novel.

Hmm, I'd love to know this superhero novel you created. No flying without rocket propulsion or some other propulsion feels realistic. We can't just pretend to be at the bottom of a deep pool, kick our legs and stroke our arms, and expect to swim through the air.

Turbonium seems unable to explain what the force is that pushes down on us to produce a weight reading on a set of scales. Would you like to have a go at it? 

Quote from: turbonium2 on December 30, 2023, 12:51:41 AM

Objects rise or fall due to their relative density to the medium they’re within.

Why?
What magic makes a denser object move in any particular direction and at a particular rate?
You have no explanation for that at all.
Gravity explains it.
It gives it the directionality, towards Earth.
It gives it the rate, based upon the mass of Earth and the distance to it (and more technically on the mass distribution as well).

Why would every other force act differently on objects of different mass but your made up force, which doesn’t even act on objects of less mass than air or water?

A magnet pulls in heavier objects slower or not at all while pulling in lighter objects faster and from further away than heavier objects.

A wind blows away objects of lighter mass and more surface area than objects of more mass and less surface area.

You can’t throw a heavier object as far away as you can throw lighter objects, using the same force on both.

A cannon shoots a lighter cannonball further out than it does a heavier cannonball, using the same force on each ball.

Forces NEVER ‘equalize’ their strength to every object’s mass, your claim is completely ridiculous.

Forces act out with one strength at a time, towards all that is out there, in any direction. They don’t magically calculate each objects mass and adjust their strength to each one, making them all react equally!!

Forces do NOT care what objects they hit, they hit all the same, the objects themselves react differently TO that one same force.

The force acts on objects and their shapes, like a wind will blow away a 10 kg sheet of steel spread over 100 feet back, but not a 10 kg block of steel. Because wind is a force spread out over a distance, not a thin line. That’s why parachutes allow us to float down to Earth from the air, or plummet down in a free fall without one!

You make up excuses like this for your made up force because it fails to hold up as a valid force. Making up some magical force that magically identifies each objects mass and then magically adjusts its ‘pulling strength’ to each objects mass to make them all be ‘pulled down’ to Earth at the same rate of acceleration and speed, is a lot of bs to explain what really happens, which explains why objects also RISE up from the surface, why objects sink or rise up in water.

All of this is explained by the very SAME thing, which is why it is entirely consistent in all of it.  Simply their relative density to air or water, is why they either sink/fall down or rise up, and it is easily proven.

Helium is lighter than air, and a balloon filled with helium rises, being less dense than the air. Without being filled with helium, the balloon does not rise up, being more dense than air.

A sun rises up in water because its tanks are filled with air, which makes the sub less dense than water, and rise up within it. Same as why it sinks down in water when more dense than the water.

You cannot explain any of this with one OR two made up forces, and plug in ‘pressure gradients’ on top of it all, because this is all faked, made up bs that will NEVER hold up.

Do you realize that pressure gradients are spread over miles of altitude or heights? That is an absolute fact. When a helium balloon rises up from the surface, it goes up at the same speed, if all other factors are excluded, like a wind gusting at 30 feet up but not along the surface, for example.

Objects will both rise up in air or water, and fall down through air or water, at the same speed, or rate, regardless of their mass. Pressure will vary while they rise or fall, but has no effect on their rate of speed, in either direction.

If pressure gradients caused objects to be ‘pushed up’ into air, then lesser pressure higher up would push them up less and less, and they’d rise ever slower and slower when higher up. Not only that, objects being supposedly ‘pulled down to Earth’ by your first made up force would slow down when in greater pressure gradients nearer to the surface, ‘pushed upward’ by them, like you say happens with helium balloons.

We’re supposed to believe there are TWO magical forces that have the ability to identify what each objects mass and density are, and then adjust their strength to each of them, because the force wants all objects to rise up or fall down at the same speed, for absolutely no reason at all, except to be a bs excuse for the ball Earth fairy tale!

Quote from: JackBlack on December 30, 2023, 01:16:39 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on December 30, 2023, 12:51:41 AM

Objects rise or fall due to their relative density to the medium they’re within.

Why?
What magic makes a denser object move in any particular direction and at a particular rate?
You have no explanation for that at all.
Gravity explains it.
It gives it the directionality, towards Earth.
It gives it the rate, based upon the mass of Earth and the distance to it (and more technically on the mass distribution as well).

Why would every other force act differently on objects of different mass but your made up force, which doesn’t even act on objects of less mass than air or water?

A magnet pulls in heavier objects slower or not at all while pulling in lighter objects faster and from further away than heavier objects.

A wind blows away objects of lighter mass and more surface area than objects of more mass and less surface area.

You can’t throw a heavier object as far away as you can throw lighter objects, using the same force on both.

A cannon shoots a lighter cannonball further out than it does a heavier cannonball, using the same force on each ball.

Forces NEVER ‘equalize’ their strength to every object’s mass, your claim is completely ridiculous.

Forces act out with one strength at a time, towards all that is out there, in any direction. They don’t magically calculate each objects mass and adjust their strength to each one, making them all react equally!!

Forces do NOT care what objects they hit, they hit all the same, the objects themselves react differently TO that one same force.

The force acts on objects and their shapes, like a wind will blow away a 10 kg sheet of steel spread over 100 feet back, but not a 10 kg block of steel. Because wind is a force spread out over a distance, not a thin line. That’s why parachutes allow us to float down to Earth from the air, or plummet down in a free fall without one!

You make up excuses like this for your made up force because it fails to hold up as a valid force. Making up some magical force that magically identifies each objects mass and then magically adjusts its ‘pulling strength’ to each objects mass to make them all be ‘pulled down’ to Earth at the same rate of acceleration and speed, is a lot of bs to explain what really happens, which explains why objects also RISE up from the surface, why objects sink or rise up in water.

All of this is explained by the very SAME thing, which is why it is entirely consistent in all of it.  Simply their relative density to air or water, is why they either sink/fall down or rise up, and it is easily proven.

Helium is lighter than air, and a balloon filled with helium rises, being less dense than the air. Without being filled with helium, the balloon does not rise up, being more dense than air.

A sun rises up in water because its tanks are filled with air, which makes the sub less dense than water, and rise up within it. Same as why it sinks down in water when more dense than the water.

You cannot explain any of this with one OR two made up forces, and plug in ‘pressure gradients’ on top of it all, because this is all faked, made up bs that will NEVER hold up.

Do you realize that pressure gradients are spread over miles of altitude or heights? That is an absolute fact. When a helium balloon rises up from the surface, it goes up at the same speed, if all other factors are excluded, like a wind gusting at 30 feet up but not along the surface, for example.

Objects will both rise up in air or water, and fall down through air or water, at the same speed, or rate, regardless of their mass. Pressure will vary while they rise or fall, but has no effect on their rate of speed, in either direction.

If pressure gradients caused objects to be ‘pushed up’ into air, then lesser pressure higher up would push them up less and less, and they’d rise ever slower and slower when higher up. Not only that, objects being supposedly ‘pulled down to Earth’ by your first made up force would slow down when in greater pressure gradients nearer to the surface, ‘pushed upward’ by them, like you say happens with helium balloons.

We’re supposed to believe there are TWO magical forces that have the ability to identify what each objects mass and density are, and then adjust their strength to each of them, because the force wants all objects to rise up or fall down at the same speed, for absolutely no reason at all, except to be a bs excuse for the ball Earth fairy tale!

Explain why anything placed on your set of scales, Turbonium, applies force to the scales and produces a weight reading, and stop dicking around.

That's the force we are talking about. Gravity.

Why would every other force act differently on objects of different mass but your made up force

We have been over this pathetic BS of yours before.
Go back, read what I have already said, and respond to that.

ALL force act proportional to something.
For gravity that something is the mass of the object.

Forces act out with one strength at a time, towards all that is out there

No, they don't, as your statements above even directly indicates.
If they acted the same, then a parachute packed away into a bag would act the same as a parachute fully deployed. But everyone knows they act vastly differently.

And this was also clearly demonstrated by the MRI machine clearly applying a greater force to the chair compared to the shifter.

Again, ALL forces act proportional to something.
You lying about that will not change it.

All your pathetic lies do is demonstrate how little you care about the truth.

The force acts on objects and their shapes, like a wind will blow away a 10 kg sheet of steel spread over 100 feet back, but not a 10 kg block of steel.

No, it acts on various properties of the object.
For wind, a key property is the area.

Because wind is a force spread out over a distance

In the same kind of way that gravity is a force spread out over mass?

You make up excuses like this

You are the one making up excuses.
You are the one falsely claiming that all forces are magic and apply the same force to every object, only to turn around and make up excuses for why that isn't the case, with simple things like wind clearly showing you are spouting pure BS.

Conversely, gravity acts like a real force in every way.
The only thing special about it is that the property of the object it acts proportionally to is the mass of the object, whereas other forces act based upon other properties.
For example, wind acts based upon shape and area. The electrostatic force acts based upon charge. Magnetism is more complicated, depending upon if the object is diamagnetic, ferromagnetic, anti-ferromagnetic, paramagnetic or a superconductor (or possibly other things I have forgotten).
And like magnetism and electrostatics, gravity also depends on distance.

But otherwise, it is just like any other force.
You can measure it, you can test it, you can feel resistance when it try to oppose it, and if you apply a large enough force you can oppose it and have the object go the other way.

No excuses are needed for gravity, because it works.

Instead, you need to blatantly lie about gravity and about other forces to pretend that gravity is magically special.

All of this is explained by the very SAME thing, which is why it is entirely consistent in all of it.  Simply their relative density to air or water, is why they either sink/fall down or rise up, and it is easily proven.

Except as repeatedly explained, THAT EXPLAINS NOTHING!

That alone does not tell us why any object should move in any direction.
Who gives a damn if an object is more or less dense than the medium it is in. That doesn't magically give it a force and it entirely lacks directionality.

Why should being denser than air make an object fall?
Why is there a pressure gradient? What maintains this gradient and what causes objects to defy it to go down rather than up?
Why is an objects apparent weight reduced when it is in a medium, by an amount exactly equal to the weight of that medium?
Why does the weight of the object vary over Earth?
With your BS there is no reason.

But gravity provides a reason.
Gravity says that in the absence of other forces, the object should accelerate towards Earth.
This directly gives the directionality, things accelerate down to Earth.

This also applies to the air itself, which causes a pressure gradient, and sustains it.
And this pressure gradient then acts upwards on all objects (including the air which is why it is sustained at that particular pressure gradient).
This explains why the weight of objects is reduced, and why things less dense than the fluid they are in rises.
And the variation is explained in 3 parts. Firstly, the large scale changes are from the rotation of Earth and the varying distance. For example, at the pole, there is no effect of rotation (as it scales as w^2*r, so r=0 gives a=0) and the object is closest to Earth; at the equator the effect of rotation is maximised, and it is far away from the centre of Earth, so g is lower. But in addition to this broad variation, there are also more minor ones due to Earth not being homogenous.

No excuses needed, just simple explanations and application of gravity.

If you want to try and salvage your BS, then ditch the idea of buoyancy magically explaining it all, and instead accept a downwards force proportional to mass.
Because that is what all the evidence shows and it means you can have a coherent explanation.
You can then focus on trying to figure out what this downwards force is, and why it goes down.

You cannot explain any of this

Except with gravity as above.
It is trivial to explain and it has been explained to you repeatedly.
You can show no fault with the explanation so you instead just ignore them, and repeat these pathetic lies.

Like I said before, if all of what I have said is just "faked, made up bs that will NEVER hold up"; then it would be trivial to show the fault with my explanation.
But instead you just go on lying.

If pressure gradients caused objects to be ‘pushed up’ into air, then lesser pressure higher up would push them up less and less

Do you understand the difference between pressure and pressure gradient?
The pressure gradient is what is pushing them up, so a lower pressure doesn't necessarily mean a lower pressure gradient.
The pressure gradient depends on the density of air, and the value of g.
And there is the added complication of the size of the balloon. Unless the balloon is rigid, the reduced pressure will likely mean the balloon expands, this increases the volume displaced which in turn increases the upwards force.

But you also have more complicated factors, with the air resistance acting to slow them down. So it is much more complicated than simply "lower pressure so they should go up faster".

But most importantly for this, you have provided NOTHING to justify this claim that it ascends at a constant rate.

objects being supposedly ‘pulled down to Earth’ by your first made up force would slow down when in greater pressure gradients nearer to the surface, ‘pushed upward’ by them, like you say happens with helium balloons.

And they do. Just typically by a quite insignificant rate, with the effects of air resistance typically being more significant.

We’re supposed to believe there are TWO magical forces

No.
There is 1 real force, which acts on mass, meaning it is a force proportional to mass.
This causes a pressure gradient which pushes objects up.

Why would every other force act differently on objects of different mass

How?  What mass accelerates without a force acting on it.

How does a brick thrown straight up slow down faster that what is accounted for by air resistance.  What force caused the brick to slow to stop or pause mid air. What force causes the brick to change direction of travel 180 degrees to fall back down.  What force causes the brick to accelerate towards earth. 


Is the same force that makes it harder push a car up hill than on a flat surface.

It’s the same force that causes tides and tidal bores.

What causes a tidal bore to make a river reverse flow from the sea to up stream.  So much for that return to earth BS. 

The direction of things on Earth is based on where all things were created to be, except those which were created to be elsewhere.

Earth was first created, and is a designed as a controlled entity to hold His other creations, all life forms, and an environment they could exist within, and create the same life themselves, and so forth.

Earth was designed, from the void, from nothing at all, bound by no rules or guidelines, but to hold life on, and all things on, except those created to be in the heavens above Earth.

We have also created similar ‘worlds’ without life, or creations, but we have created a controlled environment for things, to hold life, and protect it, to provide the means to live within, but smaller and less complex than for the Earth.

The only difference is that we use things that already are created in a controlled environment, and create smaller versions of it.

When Earth is understood to be God’s creation, to hold life, exist as life, having a large flat surface to put it all on, makes perfect sense, and is the simplest surface to create for it all.

The air was created for things to breathe, and so was water for other life to ‘breathe’, and for us to drink, and so on.

That is why all things on Earth have more mass and density than above the surface, and if we go above the surface, we fall down to it again.

There is no need for an external force within Earth, to ‘hold things down to it’ or ‘pull things down to it from above it’, this is done by having more mass and density than what exists above the surface. It was designed that way. Why would you need to create any sort of external force to do that? You wouldn’t.

Would you create a ball to put things on, or a flat surface?

If you created a ball, you would need something that can hold them on the surface, so why wouldn’t you put them on a flat surface, where they don’t need to be held down on it?

What do you think makes things fall off a ball, or not stay on its sides?  Gravity?

They don’t fall off a flat surface, though.

So why wouldn’t you create a flat surface in the first place, where things stay on it without needing an external force to hold them down because you thought it’d be better to put them on a ball?  Why would you want that?

The direction of things on Earth is based on where all things were created to be

We have ben over this countless times.
It doesn't work.
Stop repeating the same pathetic BS.

If I pick up a ball and throw it upwards and to the right, it falls DOWN.
It doesn't go back to its origin, it goes DOWN!

So no, that is NOT the reason.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this lie, it wont magically become true.

There is no need for an external force within Earth, to ‘hold things down to it’ or ‘pull things down to it from above it’

Yes there is, to explain all the observed phenomenon which clearly demonstrates that.

by having more mass and density than what exists above the surface.

Except that doesn't magically draw things to the surface.

Would you create a ball to put things on, or a flat surface?

Considering that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that Earth was created, who gives a damn?

But if you really must know, I would make it flat, so you don't need to screw around with various map projections with different distortions, nor time zones. It could then even be infinite, so there would be unlimited space for everyone.

If you created a ball, you would need something that can hold them on the surface

Just like if you created something flat, you would need something that can hold objects to the surface.

The shape of Earth is not special in that regards.

And if you really did want to try exploring differences, the RE wins because you can have everything initially originate at the centre, and then move outwards to construct the surface below, so things fall towards the centre.

so why wouldn’t you put them on a flat surface, where they don’t need to be held down on it?

If there is nothing holding them down, then how do they stay down?

What do you think makes things fall off a ball, or not stay on its sides?  Gravity?

Yes, the gravitational attraction to Earth.
Just like if I pick up a flat surface, and hold it sideways, things don't magically stay on the flat surface, instead, they fall to Earth due to gravity.
So it doesn't matter if the surface is round or flat, objects still fall off it.

They themselves are holding themselves down to the surface, by their greater mass and density than what is above the surface, which supports them by its greater mass and density than they have.

Simple as can be, and works beautifully.

Why design a place for things that must be held down to a spherical surface?  You just need a flat surface and their mass holds them down to it.

A ball is a terrible shape for putting things on, so why would you have it? A flat surface is all we use, it’s most efficient and usable. Not curved surfaces at all.

Earth was designed for us to live on, our mass and density hold us to the flat surface of Earth. No need for a force to hold us down, we hold ourselves down with our own mass and density.

All things have more mass and density which holds them all down. That’s why a force must be used to put us up within the less dense air above us, while our mass makes us fall down through it afterwards, and our mass creates kinetic force from our falling downward. 

If there were a force within Earth pulling us down from air, all objects would be pulled down at different rates of speed and acceleration because the force would emit one level of strength outward at all times, all around Earth, to above Earth.

That is also where distance from the force itself would weaken more and more with more distance up in air, which does not happen either.

Both are explained by all things having more mass and density than all the air above Earth. That’s why all things fall at the same rate, at all heights in the air.

Logical and consistent in every way.  No fairy tales work, they’re made up garbage, and could never work as a real thing.

They themselves are holding themselves down to the surface, by their greater mass and density than what is above the surface,

Mass and density are not a force to make objects accelerate.  Mass and density a car up hill.

I can take a stick or log from the surface deep inside a cave.  Drop the log or stick and it always falls down towards the center gravity of earth. Down to the floor of the cave away from where it originated.  It falls straight down. 

How does the log or stick know to fall down.  Earth above and earth bellow, with thinner less dense atmosphere in the upward direction. Less resistance by thinner atmosphere in the direction of the surface were the log or stick orientated.  Why is down down?  Why always falling straight down. 

They themselves are holding themselves down to the surface, by their greater mass and density than what is above the surface

This does not work in any way.
There is no reason at all for greater mass and density to magically make things get held down.
There is no directionality to mass and density, no reason to move in any direction.

Every time something accelerates, we can find a force responsible, we can even measure the force due to gravity with things like a scale. If were to accept your BS, that would be true for everything, except things magically falling down with no force applied, and in defiance of the force due to the pressure gradient in a fluid.

This does not work in the slightest. Repeatedly claiming it does will not help you.

What you need is an explanation for why things fall, why it moves in a particular direction, why it goes at a particular rate, why this rate varies with location, why this causes a pressure gradient, why the pressure gradient depends upon density, why things defy that pressure gradient, and so on.

Why design a place for things that must be held down to a spherical surface?

Again, the shape doesn't change things.

A ball is a terrible shape for putting things on, so why would you have it? A flat surface is all we use, it’s most efficient and usable. Not curved surfaces at all.

And that has no impact on reality.
The best you get is showing that Earth was NOT designed for us to live on by a benevolent dictator.

If your ideal fantasy contradicts reality, your ideal fantasy is wrong, not reality.
So all you are doing is demonstrating that Earth was designed for us to live on by a being that is doing the best for us.

That’s why a force must be used to put us up

No, a force must be used for the same reason you need to use a force to pull a magnet away from something it is sticking to.
You need to provide a force to overcome the other force. It is because this force is resisting what you are doing.

If there were a force within Earth pulling us down from air, all objects would be pulled down at different rates of speed and acceleration

No, they wouldn't. You have already had that BS of yours refuted repeatedly.
Why repeat the same pathetic lies?
Again, NO FORCE acts like that.
All forces are dependent upon something.
For gravity that is mass. That means in the absence of other forces, it accelerates all objects at the same rate.

We can even see that the force is proportional to mass, with things called scales, which clearly measure that.

What we do know for sure, is that if there was no force, there would be no acceleration.

Regardless of what delusional BS you want to throw it, it acts as if there is a force proportional to mass trying to make it go down.
This downwards force explains what is observed. Without it, it makes no sense.
You can pretend gravity isn't real, and then explain what magic causes this force. But gravity makes sense. Your BS does not.

That is also where distance from the force itself would weaken more and more with more distance up in air, which does not happen either.

Which does happen.
You just dishonestly want to pretend the relevant distance should be to the bit on the surface directly below your feet while entirely ignoring the entire rest of Earth.
Going up 63.71 km is only an effective change in distance of 1%.

Logical and consistent in every way.  No fairy tales work, they’re made up garbage, and could never work as a real thing.

You mean gravity? Because gravity is logical and consistent. Your delusional BS is not, not in the slightest.

Ignoring the refutation of your BS and repeating the same pathetic BS (or similar BS) will not magically make your BS true.

Until you can explain those key issues, your BS remains BS with no chance of working in reality.

Quote from: turbonium2 on January 07, 2024, 12:48:18 AM

Logical and consistent in every way.  No fairy tales work, they’re made up garbage, and could never work as a real thing.

yet you are hiding behind your whole fairy tale of 'bUt GoD MAde a FlAT EarTH' . You try to reduce your god to being a simpleton like yourself, who couldn't possibly have made a universe consistent with what we actually observe and consistent with the laws of physics, which I assume would also be his own work.

But you don't actually observe this.

1. You observe people standing upright.
2. You observe water in concave objects (pools, tubs, basins, frypans) staying largely within those containers unless shaken or the water is boiling.
3. You observe the laws of buoyancy working. Even in terms of flying objects such as hot air balloons.
4. You do not observe gravity, because birds, squirrels, fish, and planes weighing several tons (in some cases hundreds of tons) fly, float, or glide. You observe what crank scientists have called gravity, even though it is rather blatantly defied at all turns.
5. In short, your grasp of "physics" (actually astronomy and earth science) is built on several layers of fraud.

Lastly, God is far cooler than you imagine, as both the tides and the sun and moon are built on perpetual energy. It is impossible for humans (as per the laws of thermodynamics) to generate perpetual energy, yet the tides and sun/moon have been in movement since the Earth began.

Reduce God? No, you're the one trying to shrink the Earth into a tiny marble in an enormous sea of stars that cares not at all for us.

A ball is a terrible shape for putting things on, so why would you have it?

This exactly. I'll give you guys a big ball of dough, and without rolling it flat, I task you with making a pizza. Meanwhile, I will make a conventional flat pizza.

I will expect:
1. An olive oil and herb brush to the dough
2. Mozzarella cheese
3. Tomato sauce
4. Mushrooms
5. Italian sausage
6. Anchovies (yes, I'm one of those people)
7.  Green onions

About the only thing Italian that is ball shaped is a meatball. Spheres can hold things inside, not atop themselves. Not without either flattening out, or finding that things fall off.  The pizza I make will have all toppings stay.

But you don't actually observe this.

Yes, we do. We just don't observe your pathetic strawmen.

1. You observe people standing upright.

Yes, with their feet towards Earth (i.e. down) and the heads away from Earth (i.e. up).
Notice that this orientation is relative to Earth.

2. You observe water in concave objects (pools, tubs, basins, frypans) staying largely within those containers unless shaken or the water is boiling.

No, we don't.
Instead it depends on the orientation of the object.
What we generally observe is water trying to go down to Earth. It continues until something obstructs its path.

3. You observe the laws of buoyancy working.

We can directly measure a pressure gradient and calculate the upwards force due to this pressure gradient which we then observe.
This acts on all objects, including those denser than the fluid which appear to weigh less in that fluid.
And yes, we observe the laws of buoyancy, where an object attempts to displace its WEIGHT in fluid, with this displacement resulting in an upwards force.

4. You do not observe gravity

Yes we do, with things clearly trying to move towards Earth.
In what way are we not observing it?

If you want, you can even set up an experiment like the cavendish experiment and observe it between 2 smaller masses.

because birds, squirrels, fish, and planes weighing several tons (in some cases hundreds of tons) fly, float, or glide.

Due to other forces at work.
Guess what?
These are denser than the air they are in, so this is just as much a refutation of your delusional BS as it is of gravity.
i.e. not at all.

Gravity isn't magic. It doesn't magically stick everything to the ground such that no force can overcome it.
Birds fly by flapping their wings. Planes fly by engines creating thrust to force air over the wings which generate lift.
And they can all glide by interacting with the air to generate lift.

5. In short, your grasp of "physics" (actually astronomy and earth science) is built on several layers of fraud.

No, your wilful rejection of physics is built upon desperately clinging to a fantasy; coming up with whatever dishonest, delusional BS you can think of to pretend there is a problem while ignoring that some times that non-problem applies equally to your BS, and being entirely incapable of showing any real fault with the RE model, nor being able to justify your fantasy.

Lastly, God

Has no evidence of its existence and is just a magic sky fairy you cling to because you can't handle reality.

both the tides and the sun and moon are built on perpetual energy.

No, they aren't.
The sun has a limited supply of fuel which it eventually burn through.
The tides, driven by gravitational interactions between Earth, the sun and the moon, is also not a free energy source, as it causes the moon to move outwards and Earth to slow down.

yet the tides and sun/moon have been in movement since the Earth began.

Which is not the same as perpetual.
Also no one things Earth was made by people.

you're the one trying to shrink the Earth into a tiny marble

No, we aren't.
Yes, the surface area of the fantasy FE is slightly larger than the real Earth. The fantasy Earth has an area of roughly 1.26 billion km^2, compared to the real Earth's ~170 million km^2. But that is just a factor of 10.
And that is just using the actual size.

in an enormous sea of stars that cares not at all for us.

Which is your real problem. You can't handle the fact that the universe doesn't give a damn about you.
So you want to shrink that universe down to basically nothing, so you can pretend the vast majority of the universe is Earth, and that it was created by a being that actually cares, even though it doesn't display this in any way.

It shows your position is based upon emotion and your inability to handle reality.

2. You observe water in concave objects

Then what causes.

High tide

The tide coming in to make it harder for a boat in a river going to sea.

Low tide.

Making it easier for a boat going out to sea from a river.

Tidal bores.  Where a wave from the sea travels up river, and the river at its mouth reverses flow.

Spring tides.


Movements that can be accurately and reliably predicted by gravity and the heliocentric model. 

They themselves are holding themselves down to the surface, by their greater mass and density than what is above the surface, which supports them by its greater mass and density than they have.

Simple as can be, and works beautifully.

Why design a place for things that must be held down to a spherical surface?  You just need a flat surface and their mass holds them down to it.

A ball is a terrible shape for putting things on, so why would you have it? A flat surface is all we use, it’s most efficient and usable. Not curved surfaces at all.

Earth was designed for us to live on, our mass and density hold us to the flat surface of Earth. No need for a force to hold us down, we hold ourselves down with our own mass and density.

All things have more mass and density which holds them all down. That’s why a force must be used to put us up within the less dense air above us, while our mass makes us fall down through it afterwards, and our mass creates kinetic force from our falling downward. 

If there were a force within Earth pulling us down from air, all objects would be pulled down at different rates of speed and acceleration because the force would emit one level of strength outward at all times, all around Earth, to above Earth.

That is also where distance from the force itself would weaken more and more with more distance up in air, which does not happen either.

Both are explained by all things having more mass and density than all the air above Earth. That’s why all things fall at the same rate, at all heights in the air.

Logical and consistent in every way.  No fairy tales work, they’re made up garbage, and could never work as a real thing.

In 3d space, a sphere is the most efficient shape where gravity can be more or less spread equidistant across Earth's surface because the centre of Earth's mass is in the centre of the sphere. Earth's core.

Gravity works equally on all objects, irrespective of their size or mass. A brick dropped from the same height as a pin, will strike the ground at the same time.

Isn't your God of the Bible, smart enough to create the laws of physics?

Luckily, the real God, outside your book of fairytales, is smart enough.

How many conflicts within your made up non-existent force, that you must make up excuses for, is astonishing!

That force of yours, which they said was real, which has no proof of even existing, cannot be TAKEN to be proven, as magic answer for a fairy tale story.

Holding the moon isn’t even possible if this force exists within Earth, which you claim is pulling down all things in its grasp, to the Earth’s surface, while the moon also has this force within it but doesn’t seem to pull in anything from above it, but has 1/6 of Earth’s pulling down force, as they had predicted it would have before they landed on it!!

Except we understand that all our actual forces are consistent in their behaviours and actions.

When a magnet pulls in metal objects, it cannot pull in objects too heavy for its pulling strength, or objects too distant from its reach of pull.

Forces cannot vary in strength to external objects or things beyond it.

Wind blows over the air somewhere, with one strength of force, outward, at one time, to everywhere beyond it.

Wind doesn’t vary in strength to each object, it acts as one thing, one force of energy, outward to all around it.

That’s how we know your made up force doesn’t exist. Forces don’t vary to what lies beyond it, as it is one force acting outward on all around it.

Where do we start to feel less of a pulling down on us, as a force acts gradually less or more with distance?

Why hasn’t anyone ever mentioned it at all? No papers mention it either.

It’s not talked about, it wasn’t accounted for when they faked it all.

Go up in gravity, then we all just start to float around in ‘space’, ok?

How many conflicts within your made up non-existent force, that you must make up excuses for, is astonishing!

None, just nice and simple gravity behaving the same way all the time, with no conflicts at all.
Nothing made up, nothing non-existent, and no conflicts.

That force of yours, which they said was real, which has no proof of even existing

You mean which has mountains of evidence which you just ignore because you hate it.

as magic answer for a fairy tale story.

No, that is what you have.
Your flat Earth is a fantasy.
Gravity destroys your fantasy.
So you need to invent magic to pretend your fantasy works.
If your magic was real, it would work just as well (if not better) with a round Earth.

So no, gravity is not a magic answer.
It is an honest explanation of what is observed.

Holding the moon isn’t even possible

Why?
Because you say so?
Again, all forces follow various laws. Gravity, like the electrostatic force follows an inverse square law.
That means there is never any magical point at which it magically stops.
This is true for all forces.
So in the absence of other forces, Earth's gravity will attract the moon and make it orbit.

the moon also has this force within it but doesn’t seem to pull in anything from above it

Based upon what?
You seem to want gravity to be magic, rather than behaving like every other force.

Except we understand that all our actual forces are consistent in their behaviours and actions.

Just like gravity, with you unable to show any fault and instead needing to resort to pathetic lies or other dishonesty.

it cannot pull in objects too heavy for its pulling strength, or objects too distant from its reach of pull.

Now why not try that more honestly?
If you are trying to lift an object, then that object has the force of gravity acting on it.
In order to be able to lift the object, the magnet needs to provide a force greater than that of gravity to get an upwards force.
If the object is too heavy, that doesn't happen so the object falls.

And this force varies with distance, so if the object gets far enough, the force is too weak and it falls.

And when you have them horizontal, you have friction to deal with.

And yet again it is trivial to show you are spouting pure BS.
Go get a bar magnet, and a plastic bowl that it will float in.
Stick the magnet to the bowl.
Now, place the bowl down on a rough surface and observe it do nothing. Feel free to leave it for an entire day.
Repeat this in a few different orientations.
Observe that the magnet remains as you leave it.
But now, put the magnet and bowl in a tray of water so it is floating. And now observe how it aligns with Earth's magnetic field.
Again repeat it with different starting orientations. If you want you can even start with it spinning. But observe how it always ends up aligned with Earth's magnetic field.

This demonstrates the issue is not magnetism magically stopping after some distance.
Instead, it is OTHER FORCES which affect the result.
Any time you see a magnet not able to attract a magnetic object, there is another force preventing it.

Forces cannot vary in strength to external objects or things beyond it.

Forces ALWAYS depend on something.

Wind blows over the air somewhere

And imparts a force proportional to the area and dependent upon the shape.
It does NOT impart the same force to everything. Stop repeating the same lies.

That’s how we know your made up force doesn’t exist.

So you know it doesn't exist because it behaves just like every other force?

Where do we start to feel less of a pulling down on us, as a force acts gradually less or more with distance?

This depends on what you mean by "feel".
Do you mean have it be significant enough for you to notice? If so, that is incredibly difficult unless you have a sudden change.

If you mean actually have it change, then after any altitude it will vary.

But again, it is an inverse square law.
i.e. the force scales as 1/r^2.
So if you take something at the surface, where r is 6371 km, and want to have that force reduce by 1 %, that means you need to increase r such that 1/r^2 = 0.99*1/r0^2
r^2=r0^2/0.99
Which works out to be 6403 km.
So you need to go up 32 km to have g decrease by 1 %.

Why hasn’t anyone ever mentioned it at all? No papers mention it either.
It’s not talked about, it wasn’t accounted for when they faked it all.

You really do love lying don't you?
And with things which are so trivial to confirm that you are lying.

If you bothered taking 10 seconds to do a google search for "variation of g with altitude", you would have found plenty of sources talking about it, including this paper which was the first result:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2008JA013081#:~:text=The%20gravitational%20acceleration%20decreases%20with,smaller%20than%208.7%20m%2Fs2.
You can even throw in measurement and use google scholar to get ones like this:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JZ065i001p00305

And likewise, it has been shown by plenty of measurements that g varies with latitude, being greatest at the poles and lowest at the equator.

Gravity explains why this varies quite well.
Your delusional BS can't account for it at all, because it has no explanation for the rate.

Go up in gravity, then we all just start to float around in ‘space’, ok?

No, you don't magically start to float around in space. You appear to float around relative to your surroundings, when it is all in free fall.
You don't need to go to space for this.



Care to stop spouting such clear BS?
Care to instead try defending your magic, by explaining why things should fall?

All objects of any mass and density greater than that of air they are first put up within, because they originated on the ground, and remain on ground by their mass and density, which is less than the surface below them, and more than the air above them. Which is why all things are on the surface or the waters on Earth, not above the surface in air, nor below the surface or going through it all, which is the most simple of designing a place for things to exist upon, that requires no force at all, let alone two forces, like you must have to explain your story of a ball Earth speeding through space.

You still don’t understand why things should always fall from the air downward, so perhaps it is the simplicity and logic of it, that eluded you in some way.

At first, do you understand that all things are on the surface, have always been known to be on the surface, and that nothing has ever come from above the surface from elsewhere, and was ever ‘pulled down’ to the surface by your made up force?

I mean, when you’ve tried to argue that there have been ‘comets’ from space that were ‘pulled down’ to Earth’s surface, there is no proof of that claim, to find a few rocks of some materials which exist in many objects on Earth, while nothing has ever been seen to come here from elsewhere and actually land down on Earth, that all would indicate they originate on the surface, like everything else does.

That explains why everything exists on the surface, why we can move in any direction around us, along the surface, which has more mass and density than us, and why we must use a force to jump up into the air, because we have more mass and density than the air. Mass is good since it holds us down to the surface, but it doesn’t help us go up into air, we need a force to do that.

We must be put in one direction to go upward, and one opposite direction downward again. They are both single directions, not only one going downward.

The distinction between an object that falls or sinks down in air or water, versus an object that rises up in air, or water….

Is the relative density of the object to the medium of air and water.

Objects only rise up in air, if they are less dense than air. When more dense than air, they fall down in air.

Same as with objects in water do.

That is the reason here, nothing difficult to understand.

Your made up force cannot use relative mass of object to medium to account for what direction they go in, nor does your other made up force save your story. Things of less density than their medium rise up in it, there is no second made up force pushing them upward in air or water, their lesser density than air or water makes them rise up in them.

Buoyancy is a made up force that also fails to work.

Why does an object only rise up or fall by their relative density to air or water? Because that’s the reason for it all.

If you weren’t on a speeding ball in endless space, no force is needed to hold us on the surface, since our greater mass and density than air, and the greater mass and density of the surface, is all we need for it. Why would you need a force to hold us down, our mass and density do that naturally.