Flat Earth: What flying an aircraft would be like

Prompted by recent flat Earth discussion
on various radio shows, as a pilot myself,
I wondered how it would be to fly an
aircraft above a disk-shaped planet.

As can be seen in the illustration posted
below, gravity TILTS as one moves away
from the center, and near the "rim" (aka
the South Pole) gravity is tilted rather
steeply.

(That image is oversimplified; actually
the tilt would be less than shown, but
still quite noticeable.)

What does this mean for a pilot who
wants to fly "straight and level?"

It means the aircraft must be kept in a
BANK (lateral tilt) so the wings are at
right angles to the tilted gravity.

This would NOT require holding or
trimming aileron pressure (lateral
pressure on the stick or yoke.)

The aircraft, when trimmed properly
neutral ("centered needle and ball"
for pilots,) would naturally fly in a
banked position without any tendency
to slip or turn, when at a distance
from the center (aka North Pole.)

But the sight picture from inside the
aircraft would sure look weird!

This is yet another item of proof that
Earth is NOT a disk-shaped flat planet.

-- EleanorW (see image below)

APOLOGIES:  I'm not able to paste an
image into this post.  The URL below
shows a disk-shaped Earth, and how
gravity on such a planet would TILT
toward the center, the farther one was
located from the center.

[img]https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/01/09/17/29/1000_F_109172986_nIG7taNeGPRXaKEQuc8TqMLrbHI4vZgZ.jpg[img]

Welcome to FES. The reason your image didn't post is because you didn't close the tag.



You have to put a / in front of img at the end.

It should look like this

[img]https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/01/09/17/29/1000_F_109172986_nIG7taNeGPRXaKEQuc8TqMLrbHI4vZgZ.jpg[/img]

There IS no 'gravity' to begin with, nor any NEED for such magical made up forces, either.

Objects put up into air, acted on by a force, fall back down to the surface, due to their greater mass/density than that of air.

This explains why objects fall at the same rate of speed, same rate of acceleration, regardless of their mass or density compared to other objects. No matter what ALTITUDE in air, that rate is still the very same.

If it was due to some sort of 'pulling down' force, it would vary, based on altitude and mass/density of each object in air, being closer or farther away from the SOURCE of that 'force'.

All actual forces - magnetic, wind, etc, - are stronger near their sources, weaker or not present with more distance AWAY from their sources.

Actual forces are measurable, proven, provable at all times, if one desired to see proof, in person, etc.

'Gravity' is pure BS..

There IS no 'gravity' to begin with, nor any NEED for such magical made up forces, either.

No need for any magic, just very real gravity. You are yet to provide any viable alternative.

Objects put up into air, acted on by a force, fall back down to the surface, due to their greater mass/density than that of air.

Why?
Why should their greater mass/density cause them to move at all?
Why should it make them move in a particular direction (i.e. why down?)
And why should it make them accelerate at a particular rate?

Your claim explains nothing. It is nothing more than an empty assertion.

Edit: Also a bonus, it doesn't explain why the pressure gradient of the atmosphere doesn't push the air up. For that you need force acting on the air, the air which has the same density as the air beside and a lower density than the air below.

If it was due to some sort of 'pulling down' force, it would vary, based on altitude and mass/density of each object in air, being closer or farther away from the SOURCE of that 'force'.

It DOES vary in magnitude.
Gravity is not constant.
It varies based upon distance from Earth, and based upon the irregularities under the surface.
It is just that these variations require sensitive equipment to detect.

As the downwards force is due to all the mass of Earth, you need to consider the distance to ALL of Earth, not just the bit directly below your feet.

That means even if you go 1 km into the air, that has only changed the distance to be 0.016% further. It would make the downwards rate of acceleration lower by 0.03%.


Edit: missed this part but got reminded when doing later math for other response. As the force is based upon mass of the object, the acceleration will be the same (unless other forces like air resistance or buoyancy are significant).
This is because the force will be given by F=GMm/d^2, and F=ma.
This means the mass term cancels, and we are left with a=GM/d^2.
So no, it wouldn't vary based upon density of the object.

Conversely, with your fantasy force, why should being denser than the atmosphere result in a downwards force which is equal regardless of density?
Surely the more logical option would be a force which is proportional to the difference in density?

Actual forces are measurable, proven, provable at all times, if one desired to see proof, in person, etc.

Just like gravity.

You intentionally ignoring evidence doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist.

Every object, except those above Earth, exists on the surface of Earth, or within it's waters.

They have to be PUT UP into air, from the surface, which is why they fall through the air, to the surface again, with their greater mass/density than the air. Where else would you have them go, up in air, like a balloon?

I've explained why they all fall downward, air cannot hold them up, or fling them up higher in air, or whip them sideways in air, or whatever, that's just ridiculous!

Every object, except those above Earth, exists on the surface of Earth, or within it's waters.

They have to be PUT UP into air, from the surface, which is why they fall through the air, to the surface again, with their greater mass/density than the air. Where else would you have them go, up in air, like a balloon?

I've explained why they all fall downward, air cannot hold them up, or fling them up higher in air, or whip them sideways in air, or whatever, that's just ridiculous!

Again.  If there is no gravity.

One, why does a car have to use more fuel, increase RPMs, and/or gear down to get up hill at 55 MPH into thiner atmosphere vs traveling 55 MPH on a flat plane.

Two, what forces make regenerative braking work for going downhill.

Three, as pointed out by others.  What makes an accelerometer work in a cellphone.

Four.  Why does a brick thrown straight up in the air slow down faster that what is accounted for by air friction, stop, change direction of travel 180 degrees to fall back to earth through the thicker atmosphere and greater path to resistance.

Five.  For a leaf dropped underground in a calm rock cave.  Why does the leaf fall always down into more dense atmosphere and towards the center of the earth.   How does it know not to fall up?

Why did the brick go up into air, to begin with?

A force acted on the brick, that's why it went up into air, right?

That force was the ONLY reason it went up into air, nothing else was involved in it.

Using more force on the brick, makes it go up higher, and in air for longer, than less force used on it, even if both forces act on it for the same time, 1/1oth of a second, let's say.

So it is the initial force acting on the brick, which will vary, and will die out, at various lengths of time, too.

That's the main reason the brick slows down and stops going up, because the initial force which MADE it go up into air, dies out, and the brick slows down and stops, within air, and it's greater mass and density than air, cause it to fall back to the surface.

Simple as that.

Why did the brick go up into air, to begin with?

A force acted on the brick, that's why it went up into air, right?

Which has nothing to do with why it slows down by a force other than air resistance, and what force changes its direction of travel.  No different than trying to figure out the paths of billiard balls.  Or why a bullet shot at a 45 degree angle arches and returns to earth without losing forward momentum.

That force was the ONLY reason it went up into air, nothing else was involved in it.

It takes a force for it to slow down.  And it slows down faster than what is accounted for by air friction.

It takes a force for the brick to change direction to fall back to earth into a path of greater air density.  Like it takes a force to cause a bullet shot up at a 45 degree angle to change its upward motion to downward motion while not losing forward momentum.

Using more force on the brick, makes it go up higher, and in air for longer, than less force used on it, even if both forces act on it for the same time, 1/1oth of a second, let's say.

And the height it will achieve, and the time it’s in the air is accurately and repeatably calculated by using the mathematical value of gravity.  The same value used in bridge building and other engineering models.

So it is the initial force acting on the brick, which will vary, and will die out, at various lengths of time, too.

Again you’re ignoring why the brick slows down faster than what is accounted for by air friction.  And what force causes a bullet’s trajectory to arch to fall back to earth. Trajectories accurately predicted by using the value of gravity. 

That's the main reason the brick slows down and stops going up,

No, there is a reason the brick slows down faster than what is accounted for by air friction because you’re trying to change the subject, blatantly ignore proven physics,  and use blatantly intellectually dishonest arguments.

While you completely have to ignore the post in its full context.

You ignored…

One, why does a car have to use more fuel, increase RPMs, and/or gear down to get up hill at 55 MPH into thiner atmosphere vs traveling 55 MPH on a flat plane.

Two, what forces make regenerative braking work for going downhill.

Three, as pointed out by others.  What makes an accelerometer work in a cellphone.

Five.  For a leaf dropped underground in a calm rock cave.  Why does the leaf fall always down into more dense atmosphere and towards the center of the earth.   How does it know not to fall up?

@OP: was going to do the math, but its hard.
To put it simply, a sphere can be approximated as a point due to it being spherically symmetric. A disc cannot.
This results in the math being a lot more complicated, but in general, for a disc gravity will not necessarily be towards the centre of the disc.

They have to be PUT UP into air, from the surface

We have been over this plenty of times.
This in no way explains why they fall.
Objects are not simply put up into the air.
They are taken from one location and moved to another.
This could be straight up, or it could be at an angle.
In the case of a cliff face, it could be directly sideways, away from the surface, and in the case of an overhang it could even be down away from the surface.

Objects don't magically fly back to the surface they came from.

So that explains nothing.

Where else would you have them go, up in air, like a balloon?

Without a force like gravity, you could pick them up and place them wherever you want, including in mid-air, and they would remain there as there would be no force trying to move them.

I've explained why they all fall downward

No you haven't.
You have repeatedly spouted pure nonsense and had it refuted.

air cannot hold them up, or fling them up higher in air, or whip them sideways in air, or whatever, that's just ridiculous!

Instead it can just magically throw them down.

Without a force like gravity, just what is air holding them up against?
The entire idea of holding them up implies a force like gravity trying to pull them down.

As a comparable example, consider a car. You can attach a rope to the car, and hold it.
As long as the car is stationary, there is no issue with "holding" it in place, as you aren't actually holding it.
But if someone hops in the car, turns it on and goes to drive, such that the car applies a force to move it forward, then you struggle to hold it and likely wont be able to.

And the same applies with objects in the air.
Unless there is a force trying to draw the objects downwards (i.e. gravity), then there air doesn't need to hold it up.

Your claim makes no sense. i.e. it is nonsense.

Why did the brick go up into air, to begin with?

Forget about moving it up.
Take a brick and move it to the right.
Why did it go to the right to begin with?

A force acted on the brick, that's why it went to the right, right?

That force was the ONLY reason it went to the right, nothing else was involved in it.

Using more force on the brick, makes it go further right, and remain in motion for longer, than less force used on it, even if both forces act on it for the same time, 1/10th of a second, let's say.

So it is the initial force acting on the brick, which will vary, and friction causing it to decelerate.

That friction is the main reason the brick slows down, and stops going right. It has nothing at all to do with any initial force magically dying out.

We can also show this by throwing it up at an angle.
If your delusional garbage was true and it was just the initial force magically dying out that makes it slow down, it would travel in a straight line, slowing down as it does so.
But instead, the horizontal component of the velocity remains effectively unchanged. This is because it is just slowed down by a tiny bit of air resistance.
Meanwhile, the vertical velocity changes dramatically resulting in the object following an approximately parabolic trajectory, clearly indicating that there is a downwards force acting on it.

So no, it isn't that the original force magically dies out, it isn't that the object started on the surface, or any other delusional BS like that.
Instead, there is a downwards force acting on the object.

So what is that force in your fantasy?

and it's greater mass and density than air, cause it to fall back to the surface.

And notice how here you completely disconnect from the idea of the initial force.
It isn't the initial force magically making it go back to the surface.
Instead it is the greater mass and density than air causing it to magically fall back to the surface.
But no reason why.

So no, not as simple as that. You have no explanation.

And what this also shows is that your claim of the force magically dying out or the object originating on the surface and so on is just an entirely irrelevant deflection. You bring it up to pretend you have a justification for the directionality, for why things fall down; but it doesn't help you at all.

In your fantasy, being denser than the air magically makes things go down, for no reason at all.

That's the main reason the brick slows down and stops going up, because the initial force which MADE it go up into air, dies out, and the brick slows down and stops, within air, and it's greater mass and density than air, cause it to fall back to the surface.

Simple as that.

Quite simply, what causes this "dies out" you speak of?

I'd like to remind everyone here that the First Law of Motion is that "if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force." That initial force has to be canceled out by another force. Mass, density, and buoyancy are all properties, not forces.

So the question is. what's the second force taking the brick down?

Round Earth's given it's answer; it's Flat Earth's turn.

Forget about moving it up.
Take a brick and move it to the right.
Why did it go to the right to begin with?

A force acted on the brick, that's why it went to the right, right?

That force was the ONLY reason it went to the right, nothing else was involved in it.

Using more force on the brick, makes it go further right, and remain in motion for longer, than less force used on it, even if both forces act on it for the same time, 1/10th of a second, let's say.

So it is the initial force acting on the brick, which will vary, and friction causing it to decelerate.

That friction is the main reason the brick slows down, and stops going right. It has nothing at all to do with any initial force magically dying out.

We can also show this by throwing it up at an angle.
If your delusional garbage was true and it was just the initial force magically dying out that makes it slow down, it would travel in a straight line, slowing down as it does so.
But instead, the horizontal component of the velocity remains effectively unchanged. This is because it is just slowed down by a tiny bit of air resistance.
Meanwhile, the vertical velocity changes dramatically resulting in the object following an approximately parabolic trajectory, clearly indicating that there is a downwards force acting on it.

So no, it isn't that the original force magically dies out, it isn't that the object started on the surface, or any other delusional BS like that.
Instead, there is a downwards force acting on the object.

So what is that force in your fantasy?

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 15, 2023, 03:47:10 AM

and it's greater mass and density than air, cause it to fall back to the surface.

And notice how here you completely disconnect from the idea of the initial force.
It isn't the initial force magically making it go back to the surface.
Instead it is the greater mass and density than air causing it to magically fall back to the surface.
But no reason why.

So no, not as simple as that. You have no explanation.

And what this also shows is that your claim of the force magically dying out or the object originating on the surface and so on is just an entirely irrelevant deflection. You bring it up to pretend you have a justification for the directionality, for why things fall down; but it doesn't help you at all.

In your fantasy, being denser than the air magically makes things go down, for no reason at all.

How did that force first come to exist, before it was used to throw the brick go into air?

There WAS no force before that, right?  So this force 'magically' came into existence, then?

It isn't magical, it is real, and exists out of nowhere, and dies out into nowhere, afterwards. Nothing 'magical' about it.

That force didn't exist until you created it, using your arm as a force, acting on the brick. Energy is created from things that already exist on Earth, or above it.

And here's the part you still don't get - energy that is created out of nothing, dies out after it is used up, spent away. The energy was used to make the brick go upward into air, that's where it is all spent, and dies out. Energy is not an infinite power, it is always limited and dies out, even our Sun will die out, one day. 

And friction is only a minor factor acting on the brick, it is the loss of initial energy which made the brick go up to begin with, which dies out, causing the brinck to slow down and stop, as the brick's mass and force come into play, and that's why a brick thrown to the right, will start t arc downward, from it's mass and density, while the initial energy is waning away.

Air resistance does slow down the brick's movement, but only slightly, and is NOT the main reason it slows down and stops going up, that is from the energy dying out.

We can see whether or not the initial energy is what makes it slow down and stop, mainly, or if it is due to 'friction', or air resistance.

When it slows down, say, at 15 feet up, and stops, say at 18 feet up, while the initial force acting on it is the same throughout, as YOU believe it would be, then why doesn't the brick start to slow down for the first 14 plus feet? Air resistance would be constant, and act on the brick all the way up, right? It doesn't start acting on it at 15 feet up. It's acting on it, throughout the brick's passage upward, so it cannot be the main reason it slows down, at 15 feet up, obviously.

And when it stops moving up completely, at 18 feet up, it also cannot be due to friction, though it IS a minor factor in it, as I said.  There is no more friction at 18 feet than at 15 feet, so it cannot be what makes the brick stop, either.

What is happening when the brick starts to slow down, and then stop, is how energy always works on things. It starts off with power, and dies away, over time.

If more energy acted on the brick, and it went up to 40 feet, it would slow down at, say, 35 feet, and stop at 40 feet. Now, there would be 34 plus feet of friction not slowing it down at all, until it is at 35 feet up, and starts to act on the brick, and stops it only 5 more feet up!

That's nonsense, obviously, so why don't you accept that it's nonsense? You have a religion, a faith, that you choose, despite any truth, any facts, any reality.
 

Notice how yet again, you just resort to more deflections, rather than even attempting to address the issue?

How did that force first come to exist, before it was used to throw the brick go into air?

Who cares.
This in no way helps explain what this downwards force is.

Also note that the force only exists to throw the brick into the air.
The exact force will depend on what does it.
For example, if you use a spring based mechanism to throw it, the force is due to the compression of the spring.
That force remains, until the spring is released.

You could also use your arm, with forces from tiny interactions in your arm adding up.

And ultimately, there will be some electrostatic force either in the form of preventing objects passing through each other, or friction, which accelerates the brick.

But importantly, once that brick is in the air, the force is gone.
The force doesn't continue acting on the brick to keep it moving.

And as clearly shown by the diagonal example, it doesn't magically die out.

The force acts to accelerate the brick. Once the brick is moving OTHER FORCES act to change its motion.
For a brick thrown diagonally upwards, the downwards force due to gravity accelerates the brick downwards. This means the vertical velocity drops to 0 and then increases as the brick accelerates towards Earth.

Again, if it was the force magically dying out then we would expect the brick to travel in a straight line, just slowing down, with the horizontal and vertical velocity both being lost at comparable rates.

And here's the part you still don't get - energy that is created out of nothing, dies out after it is used up, spent away.

The energy was NOT created out of nothing, and it does die out. Instead it changes form.
Energy was converted from some form, such as chemical potential energy from your food, into kinetic energy of the brick.
Then as the brick was moving upwards through the air it was turned into gravitational potential energy.

But without a force like gravity, the brick does not need to spend energy continuing to move.

So how about you stop with the pathetic deflection, and tell us what this magical downwards force is?

And friction is only a minor factor acting on the brick

That's right, so it can be ignored, with the horizontal velocity effectively not changing.
Again, this demonstrates beyond ANY sane doubt that it is not any magical loss of force or energy which causes the brick to magically slow down and stop.

If it was a magical loss of energy, then the brick should lose horizontal and vertical velocity. Instead, it is only the vertical component which is lost.

Again, this demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that it is a downwards force.

No one (other than your pathetic strawman) is suggesting it is air resistance that is stopping the brick.
It is GRAVITY causing the brick to accelerate downwards.
Friction is what stops it sliding along a surface.

and that's why a brick thrown to the right, will start t arc downward, from it's mass and density, while the initial energy is waning away.

Pure BS.
If that delusional BS of yours was true, the brick would move upwards in a STRAIGHT LINE, with the velocity of the brick reducing in both the horizontal and vertical component.
And then it would come to rest in mid air, until some other force acts on it.

If there was some magic which made it want to go back to where it started, then instead of stopping and staying in mid air, it would go back towards the location it was thrown from.

None of your delusional BS explains why it would follow an arc.

Do you know what does explain an arc? A downwards force.
A downwards force acts on the brick to change its vertical velocity while leaving its horizontal velocity unchanged.

We can see whether or not the initial energy is what makes it slow down and stop, mainly, or if it is due to 'friction', or air resistance.

That's right, we can, but don't forget the other possibility, gravity. You hating gravity doesn't exclude it.
By throwing it at the same velocity in various directions (including down, to the side and up).
If it was the initial energy magically dying out, then it should stop in the same amount of time regardless of what direction it was thrown in.
But it doesn't.
Instead, for most directions it doesn't even stop, instead following an arc.
If we monitor the velocity, including its horizontal and vertical component, what we observe is a near constant change in the vertical component of the velocity, just like you would expect from a downwards force like that due to gravitational attraction to Earth.

This shows the main contributing factor in this case is GRAVITY!
You not liking that wont change it.
If you want to say it isn't gravity, then you need to provide a different downwards force.

We can also try other experiments, this time entirely horizontal, where we have setups with different amounts of friction (e.g. magnetic levitation, ball bearing, bushing, sliding over ice, sliding over sandpaper, etc). We could also try the same with setups with different air resistance.
If the object mainly slows down due to magically losing its energy, then the different amount of friction should have negligible impact on how long it takes to stop.
But anyone who has driven a car knows that friction (such as what happens when you apply the breaks) plays a MASSIVE part.

There is no evidence at all of objects magically losing energy to slow down from no applied force.

while the initial force acting on it is the same throughout, as YOU believe it would be

No. That is YOUR delusional fantasy.
The initial force acts when the object is being accelerated by that force. Once the brick is released, that initial force stops entirely. It is no longer being applied to the brick, it is no longer acting on the brick. Instead, the brick is continuing to move due to its own inertia.

then why doesn't the brick start to slow down for the first 14 plus feet?

It does.
The acceleration is roughly constant (relative to time).
As the brick moves upwards, it is slowing down.

That's nonsense, obviously, so why don't you accept that it's nonsense? You have a religion, a faith, that you choose, despite any truth, any facts, any reality.

And there you go with more projection.
What you have provided is pure nonesnse.
You are desperate for Earth to be flat, you hate reality, and will attack anything that shows your delusional garbage to be wrong.

What we have is a model which actually works to explain reality, backed up by mountains of evidence.

Now again, why don't you try explaining what this downwards force is. It is the only thing which explains what is observed when you throw a brick up at an angle.

And here's the part you still don't get - energy that is created out of nothing, dies out after it is used up, spent away. The energy was used to make the brick go upward into air, that's where it is all spent, and dies out. Energy is not an infinite power, it is always limited and dies out, even our Sun will die out, one day.

Can you predict when the brick "dies out" and begins to fall back to earth? Knowing the weight of the brick, the amount of force to toss it upward, known air resistance, even wind? Can you do that? We can. Jack has already showed you. Can you predict when it will die out™? How would you calculate that?

That's nonsense

What is nonsense is you lie and try to distract paragraph after paragraph about a brick, and still can’t explain theses other demonstrations of gravity.

 One, why does a car have to use more fuel, increase RPMs, and/or gear down to get up hill at 55 MPH into thiner atmosphere vs traveling 55 MPH on a flat plane.

Two, what forces make regenerative braking work for going downhill.

Three, as pointed out by others.  What makes an accelerometer work in a cellphone.

Five.  For a leaf dropped underground in a calm rock cave.  Why does the leaf fall always down into more dense atmosphere and towards the center of the earth.   How does it know not to fall up?

But importantly, once that brick is in the air, the force is gone.
The force doesn't continue acting on the brick to keep it moving.

If the force is 'gone', the brick would stop moving. It does not move by itself, only if a force acts on it, to CAUSE it to be in motion. The force acts on it for a split second, and that's it, but the brick holds the energy from that force, and that's why it keeps moving after that point.

That is how kinetic energy works, by transferring energy from a force, into a stationary object, with one shot of that energy, to the object, which makes it move over a period of time. That's why when MORE energy is applied to the object, it moves faster, and further out, because it holds more energy than it did before.

The FORCE is gone in a split second, but it's ENERGY remains within the object, which keeps it in motion until the energy dies out. Not the actual force itself, the energy from the force. To be more specific, that is what I meant to say earlier.

I'd like to remind everyone here that the First Law of Motion is that "if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force." That initial force has to be canceled out by another force. Mass, density, and buoyancy are all properties, not forces.

So the question is. what's the second force taking the brick down?

Round Earth's given it's answer; it's Flat Earth's turn.

Their greater mass and density than the air they are within, causes them to fall through the air to the ground.

Newton made up a BS claim, and deemed it as a 'Law', which is nothing but BS, with a phony label of being a Law.

I've explained all this before, though.

 only if a force acts on it,

Hello, McFly..

What force is acting to make it slow down faster than air friction, what force is greater in basic ballistics where air resistance is often negligible, what force causes an artillery shell to arch, what force causes a car traveling at a constant speed to exert more energy to get up hill vs traveling on a flat plane, and makes an accelerometer work? 

If the force is 'gone', the brick would stop moving. It does not move by itself, only if a force acts on it, to CAUSE it to be in motion. The force acts on it for a split second, and that's it

Great job contradicting yourself, and further demonstrating ignorance and inability to understand very simple concepts.

Forces act to accelerate objects.
The force acts on the brick to accelerate it.
Once the force has accelerated the object, it stops acting. It no longer exists.
And you even admit that with saying the force acts for a split second and that's it.

There is no reason for the brick to magically stop as soon as the force is gone.
Such claims just show a fundamental lack of understanding of motion.

The FORCE is gone in a split second, but it's ENERGY remains within the object, which keeps it in motion until the energy dies out.

Wrong again.
The energy doesn't magically die.
The object keeps moving until another force acts on it.

Their greater mass and density than the air they are within, causes them to fall through the air to the ground.

So yet again, fleeing from your prior garbage and jumping to something else.
Again, this is saying that where the originated from doesn't matter at all.
That the original force causing the object to move has nothing to do with why it falls.

Instead, it is making the claim that being denser than air provides a downwards force.
That is much closer to an explanation, in that it actually matches what is observed in the simple case rather than your prior delusional BS, but it still doesn't explain anything, as it has no explanation for the directionality or the magnitude of the force, and still has issues with things like the air.

Newton made up a BS claim, and deemed it as a 'Law', which is nothing but BS, with a phony label of being a Law.

Wrong again.
Newton came up with an idea, which allowed the formation of a model which works to explain and describe reality.
That has subsequently been tested incredibly well, with plenty of evidence supporting it.

But because this shows your delusional BS doesn't work, you reject it at all costs.

I've explained all this before, though.

You mean you have spouted the same delusional BS before and had it refuted.
You haven't explained anything.

The closest you have ever gotten to explaining why things fall is saying that being denser than the air makes them fall. But you have no reason for why.

Once more, why does being denser than the air make it move at all?
Why down?
Why at a particular rate which depends only negligibly upon density?
Why doesn't the air which is as dense as the air get pushed up by the pressure gradient in the air (alternatively, what causes the pressure gradient)?

Quote from: Magicalus on April 15, 2023, 08:56:01 PM

I'd like to remind everyone here that the First Law of Motion is that "if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force." That initial force has to be canceled out by another force. Mass, density, and buoyancy are all properties, not forces.

So the question is. what's the second force taking the brick down?

Round Earth's given it's answer; it's Flat Earth's turn.

Their greater mass and density than the air they are within, causes them to fall through the air to the ground.

Newton made up a BS claim, and deemed it as a 'Law', which is nothing but BS, with a phony label of being a Law.

I've explained all this before, though.

I would like to point out where I said that mass, density, and buoyancy are all properties. You can't claim a property is acting on an object, because a property is something you measure. it's like saying "This book's width is what makes it drift sideways." Mass and density are factors. In RE, they both apply to gravity. You have yet to provide an explanation as to what force they're factors in in FE.

Also, please elaborate on why Newton's law of motion are false. You say you've debunked this before, but I went to your most recent post talking about Newton, and found that's not the case. Here, I'll quote it in full for you.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 25, 2022, 03:43:34 PM

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 25, 2022, 02:41:13 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on November 13, 2022, 05:06:26 AM

Are you retarded?

How the object came into motion is irrelevant.  Once an object is in motion, the object will remain in motion until acted on by an opposing force.

It's only 'retarded' to say it doesn't matter HOW an object first BECAME in motion, because none ARE in motion unless acted first on by a force!

Why do you think the object IS in motion? By magic? Get serious, bud.

Oceans are in motion.  How did the oceans first become in motion?  I'll wait.

Um, no, Newton was referring to objects in general, here on Earth. Not about clouds, or stars, or humans, which ARE 'objects', that DO move, he wasn't referring to humans, as objects in motion, which stay in motion unless acted on by another force, but let's say he was.....

When we walk around, do we walk forever and ever, unless stopped by another 'force'? No, we just stop walking ourselves, there's no 'force' that MAKES us stop walking, right?

Nothing makes us STOP moving, if we want to stop moving, it's OUR energy that CAUSED our moving, our walking, and our ENDING of energy that stops our moving around, too!

Every object which DOESN'T move by itself, as we do, must be ACTED on BY A FORCE, and it also will STOP moving, when that force dies out, later on.

Nice try at twisting it, but no dice!

So he was talking about objects, after put into motion, will tend to STAY in motion, unless acted on BY ANOTHER FORCE!


There ARE NO OBJECTS IN MOTION, without being PUT into motion by a FORCE acting on them, BEFORE they ARE in motion, AFTERWARDS. 

Why would THAT possibly be RELEVANT to this? Hmm, any idea?

Because 'when objects are in motion', is complete BS, and is just another TRICK! They use many tricks, like this, over and over again. 

Objects 'in motion' - let's start with that - ignore WHY they're 'in motion', TO BEGIN WITH!


All good to go, after that point, right?

First off, the force that makes you stop walking is you actuating your muscles to adjust your weight so you don't move anymore. Secondly, the first law of motion exists. Please read it. Yes, we use our energy to move by ENACTING FORCE USING OUR MUSCLES to stop walking, both by moving to a standing position and adjusting your weight so you aren't falling forward, because that's how you walk on two legs. This is basic human anatomy.

You haven't debunked anything, just ignored how forces work. Again. A force can't change direction. A force is one directional. To change direction, you need a second force. The force of a ball leaving your hand can't magically turn down; there needs to be a second force. So what is it?

After objects are put up into air, from the surface, they are in a completely different medium than they exist within, that being on the surface, while the air is above them to breathe.

At that point, they are in a medium with less mass and density than that of the objects. There is only ONE drection they CAN move in, because all other directions require some external force acting on these normally stationary objects to make them move anywhere else BUT downward through the air. That medium they are within cannot support their mass and density, and they cannot propel themselves up in air, or sideways in air, their mass and density causes their downward movements to the ground, which uses their mass and density to create their movement through air, which creates more energy by their movement.

As for Newton's 'law' - it begins by saying 'When an object is in motion...'

So what is Newton ignoring here? What's missing?

That objects are NOT FIRST 'in motion', as if they all are just zipping around endlessly, by themselves, for no reason at all!

Newton ignored the fact that objects must first be PUT into motion, to then say 'when an object is in motion'...At least it should say 'when an object is PUT into motion', but that's not good for Newton either.

Any idiot knows an object has to be PUT into motion, right? Why do you think Newton skipped the most important part of it? Any idea?

He made up a non-existent, magical 'force', called gravity, along with other liars, and to sell off his crap as being real, he made up some 'Laws', like this one, which they soon claimed as proof of that magical force.

So he ignored the ACTUAL force which CAUSED objects to be in motion, and just started with 'when an object is in motion'!

Clever scumbags, indeed. That's only ONE example of their dirty work, many more exist.


Objects must be PUT into motion, first of all. This dirtbag writes up a 'Law' of motion, that deliberately IGNORES how objects must be PUT into motion!!  Are you kidding!

That objects are NOT FIRST 'in motion', as if they all are just zipping around endlessly, by themselves, for no reason at all!

Stop trying to change the subject.

Answer the question Turbo..

What force is acting to make it slow down faster than air friction, what force is greater in basic ballistics where air resistance is often negligible, what force causes an artillery shell to arch, what force causes a car traveling at a constant speed to exert more energy to get up hill vs traveling on a flat plane, and makes an accelerometer work?

After objects are put up into air

You have already demonstrated where they started is entirely irrelavent.

Stop with the deflections and try to explain why they should fall.

At that point, they are in a medium with less mass and density than that of the objects. There is only ONE drection they CAN move in, because all other directions require some external force acting on these normally stationary objects to make them move anywhere else BUT downward through the air.

Pure nonsense.
Moving in ANY direction will require a force, as the object accelerates.
We can even see this with things like water wheels which can be pushed down by the water flowing down.

Motion downwards requires a force just like in any direction.

That means there is NO direction they can move in. Instead they should remain static.

That medium they are within cannot support their mass and density

Unless there is a force trying to pull them down, there is no need for the medium to support anything.
Just what do you think it is supporting?

Again, it is like holding a slack rope tied to the back of a car. You aren't holding the car back as there is no force moving the car.

they cannot propel themselves up in air, or sideways in air

Nor can they propel themselves downwards, they need a force for that.

their mass and density causes their downward movements to the ground, which uses their mass and density to create their movement through air, which creates more energy by their movement.

Why?
What magic causes this?
You have energy literally coming from nothing, with objects magically moving for no reason at all, accelerate without any force applied.

So what is Newton ignoring here? What's missing?

You're delusional fantasy that every object in existence began to exist stationary.
Something you cannot prove at all.

Can you prove objects didn't start in motion and forces caused them to become stationary?
No.

Any idiot knows an object has to be PUT into motion, right?

No.
Only an idiot would think that.
An object already in motion does not need to be put into motion. An object in motion will continue in motion until a force acts to stop it.
It is only a stationary object which must be put into motion to be into motion.

Why do you think Newton skipped the most important part of it? Any idea?

They didn't.
Why do you think you keep on skipping the actual important part? That objects don't magically stop for no reason, that they need a force?

It's because you hate reality and want to pretend no force is needed so you can pretend gravity isn't needed so you can pretend gravity doesn't refute your delusional BS.

Clever scumbags, indeed.

I agree you are a scumbag, but you certainly don't appear clever.

Objects must be PUT into motion, first of all. This dirtbag writes up a 'Law' of motion, that deliberately IGNORES how objects must be PUT into motion!!  Are you kidding!

Before you go on an unsupported rant about something you know nothing about, you might want to actually do a little poking around. What you wrote makes you seem like a total idiot. I'm not saying you are an idiot, just hat a post like yours is derived from idiocy.

Note the original Latin and translation from Newton's Philosophić Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), originally published in 1687 of Lex II, Law II. See the underlined bit:

Lex I
First law of motion in original Latin
Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.

Law I
English translation of First law of Motion
Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

Lex II
Second law of motion in original Latin 
Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur.                           

LAW II
English translation of  Second  law of Motion
The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.

Lex III
Third  law of motion in original Latin
Actioni contrariam semper et ćqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse ćquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.

Law III
English translation of  Third law of Motion 
To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

After objects are put up into air, from the surface, they are in a completely different medium than they exist within, that being on the surface, while the air is above them to breathe.

At that point, they are in a medium with less mass and density than that of the objects. There is only ONE drection they CAN move in, because all other directions require some external force acting on these normally stationary objects to make them move anywhere else BUT downward through the air. That medium they are within cannot support their mass and density, and they cannot propel themselves up in air, or sideways in air, their mass and density causes their downward movements to the ground, which uses their mass and density to create their movement through air, which creates more energy by their movement.

As for Newton's 'law' - it begins by saying 'When an object is in motion...'

So what is Newton ignoring here? What's missing?

That objects are NOT FIRST 'in motion', as if they all are just zipping around endlessly, by themselves, for no reason at all!

Newton ignored the fact that objects must first be PUT into motion, to then say 'when an object is in motion'...At least it should say 'when an object is PUT into motion', but that's not good for Newton either.

Any idiot knows an object has to be PUT into motion, right? Why do you think Newton skipped the most important part of it? Any idea?

He made up a non-existent, magical 'force', called gravity, along with other liars, and to sell off his crap as being real, he made up some 'Laws', like this one, which they soon claimed as proof of that magical force.

So he ignored the ACTUAL force which CAUSED objects to be in motion, and just started with 'when an object is in motion'!

Clever scumbags, indeed. That's only ONE example of their dirty work, many more exist.


Objects must be PUT into motion, first of all. This dirtbag writes up a 'Law' of motion, that deliberately IGNORES how objects must be PUT into motion!!  Are you kidding!

Objects are always in motion relative to something. This claim makes no sense. The force causing a ball to be in motion is someone throwing it. Also, stop lying. The law is "An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force." Stop ignoring that Newton absolutely did include the scenario in which an object isn't moving.

For someone who keeps screaming that Newton ignores things, you seem to ignore what he says a lot.

You won't hear back from Turbo for 5 days or so. Apparently his parents only let him use the computer on the weekends - He never posts during the school week.

So far he has lost the firmament debate by demanding a test made up of criteria he provided. The tests meeting and exceeding his criteria showed him to be wrong. So that one is dusted and done. Debate settled. He lost.

Now all he has left is gravity. And the way this is going I expect the same result. There's nothing worse than a debater not understanding what they are debating against. Seems to happen fairly frequently. One must understand the other side's position and arguments basically as much as the person(s) they are up against. This issue is not solely an FE one. Some GEr's fall into the same trap. I know I have from time to time.

But it's clear here that he doesn't fully understand the laws used everyday from aerospace engineering to roller coaster design and everything inbetween. That's unfortunate for him as his arguments are basically meaningless. It will be intersting to see how he recovers from this trainwreck in just under a week or so's time.

Again.  If there is no gravity.

One, why does a car have to use more fuel, increase RPMs, and/or gear down to get up hill at 55 MPH into thiner atmosphere vs traveling 55 MPH on a flat plane.

For the very reason of a thinner atmosphere.
The atmosphere is layered.
It becomes less dense by the layer all the way up.
Or to make it simpler there are fewer atmospheric molecules to each layer as those layers stack higher and higher.

Once a vehicle ( in this instance) angles upwards it is angled into layers of the atmosphere with the denser being at the very back end and less dense at the front which becomes less dense as the vehicle pushes through.
In order for it to push through it has to take in more air and fuel mix to create a bigger push of the vehicle's dense mass through the atmospheric crush back that is always imparted onto that vehicle's dense mass.

This is why at various elevations for vehicles basically lose power because the air intake against fuel is not enough to allow propulsion up that elevation to overcome the atmospheric pressure upon the dense mass of the vehicle.

Two, what forces make regenerative braking work for going downhill.

The reaction to the force required to elevate the vehicle which now becomes potential energy.
If I lifted a big rock up on a rope and held it in place I'd put a lot of energy into that lift.
I can now rest knowing that rock is now anchored and left in the air ready to be released to release that energy back to the ground.
It can be done via a dynamo on a pulley to act as an energy boost to something, or basically not too far off from your downhill car braking system.
To raise something requires energy and you only get back what you put into something, nothing more and nothing less.
It's just about using whatever it is as efficient as possible at the actual instance of the energy applied to getting back as much of it as possible to the immediate source.

Three, as pointed out by others.  What makes an accelerometer work in a cellphone.

It works by movement/vibration.
It won't work if no effort is put into it.

Four.  Why does a brick thrown straight up in the air slow down faster that what is accounted for by air friction, stop, change direction of travel 180 degrees to fall back to earth through the thicker atmosphere and greater path to resistance.

Because the energy applied to the brick overcomes the dense atmosphere which immediately acts to slow it down as you throw it until the friction of the atmosphere stops it dead.
It then becomes a dense brick that starts off in a lesser atmosphere at the point of release but with a lot more atmosphere above crushing it back down through a more dense atmosphere but not enough of it to counter the brick itself and the atmosphere already above which stopped the brick dead in the first place.
So although the return of the brick goes against a denser atmosphere it is crushed back down by a denser atmosphere with each layer it is crushed through, meaning it cannot be severely slowed or stopped until it hits something way denser which would be water or ground, respectively.

Five.  For a leaf dropped underground in a calm rock cave.  Why does the leaf fall always down into a more dense atmosphere and towards the center of the earth.   How does it know not to fall up?

Because the leaf like anything that is under pressure is always pushed or crushed back down if it is pushed up.
Just remember that anything that stays on the ground does so because the dense makeup of any object still takes up that amount of atmosphere and creates a compression back against that atmosphere which is trying to compress it.

There's no gravity story required.
Gravity is fiction. A good story but that's all it is.

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 15, 2023, 06:33:31 AM

That's the main reason the brick slows down and stops going up, because the initial force which MADE it go up into air, dies out, and the brick slows down and stops, within air, and it's greater mass and density than air, cause it to fall back to the surface.

Simple as that.

Quite simply, what causes this "dies out" you speak of?

Atmospheric pressure/friction.
It's no different than throwing a brick from underwater using the floor as leverage along with your dense body mass and energy to try and overcome the water pressure above you and around you and also the brick you hold and is trying to push it through the water by force.
You know the water pressure will quickly impart back onto the brick because you are pushing water out of the way and creating a lower pressure below which creates an instant crush back.

The only difference between water and atmosphere is simply density of it but the same thing applies.

Once a vehicle ( in this instance) angles upwards it is angled into layers of the atmosphere with the denser being at the very back end and less dense at the front which becomes less dense as the vehicle pushes through.

And with the pressure of the atmosphere being proportional to density, that means the back has a greater force pushing it forwards (and up) than the front has pushing it back.

That means it clearly is NOT the atmosphere causing it.

We can also see that it isn't the air because we can vary the atmospheric pressure and find no significant change.
And it applies regardless of propulsion method, so it has nothing to do with the air-fuel mix.

The reaction to the force required to elevate the vehicle which now becomes potential energy.

So gravity.

To raise something requires energy and you only get back what you put into something, nothing more and nothing less.

And the question is why?
What makes it need energy?
If there wasn't a force like gravity trying to hold the object to Earth, then it wouldn't need energy.

Just like if you have a level surface, and move something to the right, while it takes energy to get it moving, it doesn't take energy to keep it moving, nor does it magically provide energy by moving back to the left.

But if instead of letting it role, you attach a spring to hold it, then it does take energy to move it, with more energy required the further you move it, and it does provide energy as it goes back.

Because the energy applied to the brick overcomes the dense atmosphere which immediately acts to slow it down as you throw it until the friction of the atmosphere stops it dead.

Great job entirely ignoring the question.
We know it ISN'T the air.
Importantly, your nonsense fails just like Turbos. If your claim was true it would travel diagonally upwards in a straight line. It does not.
That means you need something else, specifically a downwards force.

Because the leaf like anything that is under pressure is always pushed or crushed back down if it is pushed up.

The point is that it wasn't pushed up. It was taken from the ground, and pushed down to be underground.
Yet it still falls.

So it isn't just getting pushed back.
And again, if it was being pushed back, you would expect it to be pushed back regardless of direction.

Just remember that anything that stays on the ground does so because the dense makeup of any object still takes up that amount of atmosphere and creates a compression back against that atmosphere which is trying to compress it.

The atmosphere provides an upwards force, not a downwards one.
The atmosphere will only hold it to an object with a force if you create an air tight seal, like with a suction cap, which works in ANY orientation.

So no, that is NOT why things stay on the ground.
You need a downwards force, which you are yet to explain.

Gravity provides that explanation.
So until someone can come up with a viable alternative, gravity is needed.
You hating it because it destroys your fantasy doesn't change that.