Flat Earth: What flying an aircraft would be like

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 28, 2023, 02:39:42 AM

While round Earthers have a bunch of useless gravitational theories, the essence of flight is simply propulsion and lighter than air weight distribution. You are basically skimming along a layer of air that is denser than the plane, despite its rather significant weight. The proper name of a plane is an airship.

Pure nonsense.
What REers have is a quite useful gravitational theory which can explain so much it isn't funny.

What you have is a bunch of useless vague claims which explain nothing.

Planes are much denser than the air.
Do you know what makes planes distinct from airships?
Airships are lighter than air. Because they have a large envelope which is filled with helium, their overall density is less than the air so the buoyant force from air will push them up. They control the density to control their altitude.
Another form uses hot air to make them lighter than air to float.
Planes on the other hand have a wing, a wing which generates an upwards force called lift. This lift opposes gravity to keep them up.

You were fine until you brought up your made up magical 'force', that does nothing like actual forces do. Oh well, what do you expect from something made up out of pure necessity, anyway?

You asked me why they always go DOWNWARD, not in any other direction, and you just mentioned how they can also go UPWARD in air, too! 

So we have them going upward in air, and downward in air, right?  Not just one direction, but rather, in TWO directions, while in air. 

What causes one object to go up, but another object to go down, while both are in air? 

Your made up force should pull them BOTH down to the Earth, whatever their density is, compared to that of the air, if that force actually existed at all. 

Our well known, well understood, experienced in acting on us, sometimes, and felt by us, as an actual force does, if acting on us. All actual forces have been proven to exist, and can be proven  anytime at all, if someone doubts it, as real, if asked to prove it is real.

When they said that the Earth was a ball, and the Sun was millions of miles away, stars were trillions of miles away, and so on, they also needed to make up a force, to support it all, and they did so.

Except it doesn't follow the laws, and behaviors, of our actual forces, since it doesn't even EXIST at all.

So that's why your made up force cannot be proven to exist, cannot be demonstrated as existing as a force, but is claimed to exist, solve endless problems, and yet, does not even exist at all! Quite the trick, indeed!

Their made up force, said it worked in 'space', within all things, and even glued all the stars in position above Earth, despite being trillions of miles away from Earth and other stars glued as one massive chunk in 'space', flying at random in endless space, as one blob in motion...

You asked me why they always go DOWNWARD,

There is a downward force called gravity.  Why holding a book at arms length is tiring and puts a measurable strain on your shoulder.

Why it’s harder to peddle a bike up hill.

Why a car has to use more fuel, increase engine power, gear down to go up hill compared to traveling on a flat plane. 

You were fine until you brought up your made up magical 'force', that does nothing like actual forces do.

You mean the real gravity, which behaves quite like other forces. For example, its strength varies, based upon a fairly simple law (at least as an approximation): F=GMm/r^2. Quite comparable to the electrostatic force: F=kQq/r^2. It resists motion against it, which is why things feel heavy. And it can be overcome.

No magic there.

You asked me why they always go DOWNWARD, not in any other direction, and you just mentioned how they can also go UPWARD in air, too!

No, different objects go up.

If we have a brick, and move it in air, it falls down. It doesn't matter what direction you move it, it only falls down.
The question is why?

What causes one object to go up, but another object to go down, while both are in air?

Already explained. Gravity acts on all objects to pull them towards Earth.
This applies to the air as well (just like any other fluid). This creates a pressure gradient, which pushes objects in that fluid upwards. This is called buoyancy.

If the force of gravity on the object is larger, it goes down. If the force from buoyancy is larger, it goes up.

Your made up force should pull them BOTH down to the Earth, whatever their density is, compared to that of the air, if that force actually existed at all.

You are the one making stuff up.
The real force of gravity does pull both down to Earth, and the air.

Your BS here is like saying that if you get a balance beam, and put 1 kg on one side, and then put 100 kg on the other, it somehow refutes gravity.

You ignoring forces to pretend there is a problem just shows your own dishonesty.

All actual forces have been proven to exist, and can be proven  anytime at all, if someone doubts it, as real, if asked to prove it is real.

Just like gravity.

When they said that the Earth was a ball, and the Sun was millions of miles away, stars were trillions of miles away, and so on, they also needed to make up a force, to support it all, and they did so.

No, they didn't.
They knew Earth was round, and the sun was incredibly far away long before they had an idea of gravity.

Except it doesn't follow the laws, and behaviors, of our actual forces, since it doesn't even EXIST at all.
So that's why your made up force cannot be proven to exist

Only to dishonest trolls like you.
To any honest person, gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.

Their made up force, said it worked in 'space', within all things, and even glued all the stars in position above Earth

No, that is just your dishonest BS.
The stars are not magically clued in position above Earth

Are you capable of having a single post without a lie in it?

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.

Yes, there IS a force which causes the ball to be in motion. It does not go into motion without a force ACTING on it.  Newton ignores what PUT it into motion, which is complete BS. 

Get the problem now?

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.

Of course, that's the way he tricked people with his BS 'Law'...

The first part says when objects are 'at rest'....  Objects are ALWAYS 'at rest', until they are acted on by a force, of some kind, like the wind, or from an earthquake, or your arm throwing it up in air.  They have no motion, otherwise, so obviously they STAY motionless.

Why didn't Newton say, Objects 'at rest; remain 'at rest', UNLESS ACTED ON BY A FORCE? 

Because if he did, the trick wouldn't work. 

So he skipped from that part, to the part where he says 'objects in motion', as if objects always are in motion by themselves. Of course they aren't just found to be in motion, they are PUT into motion by a force, which CAUSES it to be in motion.

Newton was a scumbag, but was very clever, as many scumbags are. He manipulated sentences to fool people, and it worked like a charm


Ok, so objects don't move, they must be acted on by a force, in order to move.

All this trickery is for the last part of his 'Law' - objects STAY in motion, unless acted on by another force.  Great, he finally mentions A FORCE. And his force is the one that must STOP an object that is in motion, ignoring the ONLY FORCE that CAUSED it to be in motion.

I've tried to explain this is BS, so if you STILL don't get it, for some reason, tell me what you don't understand about it, I'm happy to explain it to you.

Yes, there IS a force which causes the ball to be in motion. It does not go into motion without a force ACTING on it.  Newton ignores what PUT it into motion, which is complete BS.

We have been over this BS of yours already.
You have no basis to claim everything magically began to exist in a state of rest, rather than a state of motion.
But no, Newton ignored nothing. He clearly discussed objects at rest as well.

The big thing is that unless a force acts, the motion (which include no motion) will not change.

What you are doing is pure BS, claiming the force which moves something up also magically moves it down. It is pure nonsense.

Why didn't Newton say, Objects 'at rest; remain 'at rest', UNLESS ACTED ON BY A FORCE?

He did.

Again, the law in the quote you responded to:

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.

The last part applies to both.
An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by a force.
An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by a force.

The second law also covers it quite nicely, F=ma.

Again, the important part, which plenty of experiments back up, is that a force is required to change the motion.
If an object is at rest, applying a force will accelerate it. If you then stop applying a force, the object continues with that motion, and another force is required to stop it.

So no, YOU are the scumbag. You are the one spouting pure garbage to escape reality, and blatantly lying about others in the process.

I've tried to explain this is BS, so if you STILL don't get it, for some reason, tell me what you don't understand about it, I'm happy to explain it to you.

It really is quite simple, we observe that a force is needed to change the motion of an object. This includes STOPPING the object.
Without a force the object doesn't stop.

This has been explained to you repeatedly, with you just ignoring it so you can pretend your delusional garbage is true.

[
..  Objects are ALWAYS 'at rest',

No gravity? Ever try to hold a 50 pound weigh straight out at arms length and hold it steady.  What’s this measure strain your body is exposed to fighting gravity to hold the weight at rest.

Already explained. Gravity acts on all objects to pull them towards Earth.
This applies to the air as well (just like any other fluid). This creates a pressure gradient, which pushes objects in that fluid upwards. This is called buoyancy.

If the force of gravity on the object is larger, it goes down. If the force from buoyancy is larger, it goes up.

Of course, they had to make up ANOTHER magical force, one lie only goes so far, it needs another made up force to 'explain' the rest of it.

Both of these made up forces, were used to support one another. The 'holding down' force which cannot hold down SOME objects, or 'pull them down' from air.

So they just made up ANOTHER 'force', and called it 'buoyancy', which doesn't exist either, nor any proof it exists.

When a balloon has no helium, it stays on the surface, motionless, as all other objects do, in natural state. So you would claim it is 'gravity' holding down the empty balloon to the surface, right?  And then, after the balloon is filled with helium, and rises into the air, and has the SAME mass as when it was 'held down to Earth', by your magical force.....it cannot even hold down that very SAME balloon, because it is now LESS dense than the air. But you cannot say this is DUE to being less dense than air, like you cannot say the balloon would FALL DOWN through air, when it is MORE dense than the air.....

That is EXACTLY why some objects rise up in air, other objects, most of them, will FALL DOWNWARD through air.  What makes them rise up into air, is having less density than air. The same as objects fall downward through air, being MORE dense than the air.

The only forces in play, mainly, are the original force acting on it, to put it up into air, and air resistance, which is a lesser factor in play. When they rise up, or fall down, this is kinetic energy, when objects are in motion, within a less or more dense medium.

Same as a sub can sink down in the ocean, and rise up from the ocean, based on their relative density to the medium they are within, which is water. 

DENSITY of objects, or RELATIVE density of objects, within some medium, act on them, and cause their motion, upward or downward, mainly, within both air and water, or any other medium they're within.

The amusing part of this, is that you claim objects are all pulled down by your magical force, except when objects rise up in air, by your second made up force, 'buoyancy', which 'beats' your first made up force, and both of them are simply made up, to support the ball Earth lie.

Have you noticed that the only thing which is consistent, and explains all of this....is DENSITY?

Density DOES exist in all objects, within air and water, and it is quite true, that density is NOT a force, nor is mass a force.

When objects are in air, or in water, they are within different mediums than the medium they normally exist within, which is being on Earth's surface, within the air above the surface, NOT air alone, when they rise up, or fall down. Based on their relative density compared to water, or air, which makes them rise or fall, or sink, or float up, and this is the ONLY reason for all these motions of objects, their relative density in any medium they're within.


If there were objects on the Earth, which did not first come to exist on Earth, you'd certainly have all SORTS of proof for it by now. Objects would be hitting the Earth all the time, just like snow and rain fall to Earth from above, or very often, considering how many centuries have passed, without a single object from elsewhere, just CLAIMED to come from elsewhere.

The reality doesn't have to, nor need to, make up something that doesn't exist, which has no proof of existing, it cannot work, as it doesn't exist.

Whether or not you will ever accept they made up both of those 'forces', to support the ball Earth lie, which must create TWO magical forces, when the main one failed to explain this.


When 'buoyancy' is referred to in this context, to clarify this. Not when it is used for something else, or so on. 

And all of this was to hide, or twist around, the actual explanation for all of it, which is relative density. A ball Earth needs to make up two different forces, to account for objects moving in two opposing directions when in the air, or water.

If we want to compare which side has more proof, or all the proof, it is only my side which has it. In fact, this proof is so well known, it has always existed on Earth.

All objects exist on the Earth, other than those in the heavens, which have always existed there. When you claim that there is no proof for my claim, you have no proof it is NOT true, either.  What is more likely the truth, is the best we can do here.

In that, you have nothing at all, while I have all of it on Earth, since day one, and ever since, to support my argument. That all things on Earth, have always been on Earth, while those in the heavens, have always been within the heavens.  Nothing has ever suggested otherwise, except fake accounts, mistaken accounts, or so forth. 

If they had any actual proof, that any object on Earth, did not always exist on Earth, they would not ever need to make so many claims of some object on Earth, coming from elsewhere than Earth, all without a shred of valid proof. 

You claim that Earth has a powerful 'force' within it, to explain how your ball Earth could keep all things on the surface, while it speeds through endless space, spinning itself, and circling around the Sun, all at the same time?

That's why you must make up a magical 'force', that holds down all things, except for some things, although you cannot have some things which aren't held down by your force, because you have claimed it DOES hold down all things, but this is not true, when that is your original premise, the reason you claimed for it.

If all things on Earth, and the Earth itself, and the Sun, stars, moon, were created by God, if you assume all of this is true, as I have assumed yours is true, for argument's sake. 

Nothing has ever been proven to be from elsewhere than Earth, and how could you ever prove it came from 'space', which has no proof of existing, first of all.

If all things on Earth, have always been on Earth, and nothing has ever indicated it is NOT the case, without any valid evidence for not being the case....no force is needed at all, nor would it exist at all.

No life, no objects, nothing that is on Earth, could ever have originated in the air above Earth, since nothing on Earth, which is put upward INTO air, will remain in air, because the air cannot hold things up, and never COULD have, either. 

 

Of course, they had to make up ANOTHER magical force,

Used this in a different post.

Look at this cited source..

How to Calculate a Bullet's Trajectory

https://sciencing.com/projectile-motion-physics-definition-equations-problems-w-examples-13720233.html

Funny. Air resistance and air density are used.  The value of gravity and the bullet mass is used.  But the bullet’s density for example is not used as a factor to determine when the bullet will hit the ground. Strange.  Because a bullet can be many different things.  Leads. Lead jacketed with copper.  And so on.  Just mass, gravity, changes in height, and drag.  No density required for the calculations.  It’s like weight, gravity acting on mass, is the important thing. 


Also.  For a rocket to fly a stable flight, the center of gravity must be ahead of the center of pressure.    Funny there are two different forces acting on a rocket that are different than each other.

Did Von Braun show otherwise…..

Of course, they had to make up ANOTHER magical force

Of course you have to dismiss air pressure as magic, as it destroys your dishonest, delusional garbage.
Truly pathetic.

Just like gravity, the effects of air pressure can easily be tested. In fact it is even easier to test air pressure than it is to test gravity.
Likewise, it is trivial to measure the pressure in fluids and observe this pressure gradient.

But because that doesn't match your delusional fantasy you attack it.
And you respond with the same pathetic lies like claiming there is no proof it exists.

Considering you want to appeal to balloons, go get a balloon and inflate it, and measure how big it is.
Then go take it underwater and see how big it is, then go down 10 m and see how big it is.
If your delusional garbage was true, it should be the same size in all three cases. But back in reality, as you go deeper in water, the pressure increases so the balloon shrinks.
So this clearly demonstrates that there is a pressure gradient in water, so if you immerse an object in water, there will be a pressure gradient across it, with a greater pressure at the bottom, so this should push it up.

Or are you trying to claim that if you have an object with one pressure on one side, and another pressure on the opposite side, that wont exert a force on the object?
That is trivial to see with so many examples it isn't funny. One simple one is a fan.

When a balloon has no helium, it stays on the surface

But how did it get to the surface?
If I have an empty balloon and hold it in the air, motionless, in its natural state, and then release it, why does it move?

And then, after the balloon is filled with helium, and rises into the air, and has the SAME mass as when it was 'held down to Earth'

No, it has more mass.
But the far more important point is that it is displacing more air, which means the upwards due to the pressure gradient (i.e. buoyancy) is greater.

I have already addressed this BS of yours:
Your BS here is like saying that if you get a balance beam, and put 1 kg on one side, and then put 100 kg on the other, it somehow refutes gravity.

Stop ignoring the mass which is coming down while the balloon goes up.

Gravity is not magic, it doesn't mean no other force can act on the object, nor does it mean no force greater than it can.

That is EXACTLY why some objects rise up in air, other objects, most of them, will FALL DOWNWARD through air.

You mean gravity and buoyancy which is caused by gravity?
If not, you have just stated the observation, with no explanation, and no reason why.

What makes them rise up into air, is having less density than air. The same as objects fall downward through air, being MORE dense than the air.

This explains nothing.
Why should objects more dense than air go down?
Why should objects less dense than air go up?
And why should this magically stop in the vomit comet during a 0g parabola?

The only forces in play, mainly, are the original force acting on it, to put it up into air, and air resistance, which is a lesser factor in play.

You have already had this refuted.
If that was the case then when you throw an object upwards at an angle it should travel in a straight line, slowing down due to air resistance and then stop.
In reality, it follows a parabolic trajectory, showing there is an additional downwards force you have not accounted for.

DENSITY of objects, or RELATIVE density of objects, within some medium, act on them, and cause their motion

Density alone cannot cause motion.

Have you noticed that the only thing which is consistent, and explains all of this....is DENSITY?

No, I haven't, as that is pure BS.
Density provides no reason at all for why an object should move, nor why should it move in any particular direction, nor why the pressure increases with depth, why all fluids have a pressure gradient, and this pressure gradient is dependent upon density of the fluid.
It doesn't explain why objects have weight which can be measured on a scale, why that weight is dependent upon mass, why the reading of that weight varies with the density of the fluid the object is in, and why this varies across Earth
Likewise, it doesn't explain why this also occurs (but to a much greater extent) in a centrifuge, and why this density based separation doesn't occur in a 0 g parabola.

So in short, density alone explains NOTHING!

Conversely, if you use gravity and the known properties of fluids, you have an explanation for all of that.
The first key part of the explanation is force and directionality, things go down, because gravity is an attractive force so the objects are attracted to the very large mass of Earth.
However, everything is, including the air and other fluids.
That means in any fluid, if you were to consider a hypothetical layer, it has the fluid above pushing down, and its own weight due to gravity, which in turn pushes down more on the next layer down. This means the next layer down will be at a higher pressure. So that is the explanation of the pressure gradient, and why this pressure gradient depends upon density, as it depends upon the weight of the fluid.
And once you have that pressure gradient, it means that any object in that fluid will have a force acting on it from that pressure gradient, which will be equal to the weight of the fluid displaced.
This means the apparent weight of the object will be reduced by the weight of the fluid displaced. This explains why the apparent weight varies with density of the fluid it is in.
This also means if the density of the object is equal to the fluid, the force directly due to gravity and the force due to buoyancy will cancel, and the object will neither rise nor sink, but if the object is denser, then the force directly from gravity wins and the object goes down. Conversely, if the object is less dense, it goes up.
The reading vary across Earth for a variety of reasons. One for minor variations is because Earth is not homogenous. But a much bigger variation with latitude is because Earth spins, so some of the acceleration due to gravity is maintaining that circular path. This also causes Earth's surface to bulge, being wider at the equator. This means the distance to the mass of Earth is increased, which results in a lower force due to gravity.
The other important aspect is that the pressure gradient relies upon the fluid below supporting the weight of the fluid above. In a 0 g environment such as a 0 g parabola on the vomit comet, it is in free fall, the fluid is falling and doesn't need to be supported by the fluid below, in the fluid below, as it is accelerating basically at the same rate can't support the fluid above. This means there is no pressure gradient so separation based upon density does not occur.
Likewise, in a centrifuge, the spinning of the centrifuge simulates gravity as locally gravity is equivalent to an accelerating reference frame. As the fluid is forced inwards it also creates a pressure gradient, where the fluid at the outside has to support the fluid on the inside and accelerate it. This creates a pressure gradient based upon how quickly the centrifuge is spinning and its size instead of gravity. But it has the same effect of separation based upon density.

So mainstream science explains it trivially. All you can do is repeat the observations with no explanation at all.

If you wish to discuss your BS about objects magically starting on Earth, go revive that thread.

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 29, 2023, 12:46:04 AM

You asked me why they always go DOWNWARD,

There is a downward force called gravity.  Why holding a book at arms length is tiring and puts a measurable strain on your shoulder.

Why it’s harder to peddle a bike up hill.

Why a car has to use more fuel, increase engine power, gear down to go up hill compared to traveling on a flat plane.

Your catch-all gravity is not an explanation at all but a deflection of explanation. In other words, there are several separate explanations for what "gravity" does, but it's the equivalent of waving a magic wand and not having to explain separation phenomena.

Personally, I find it just as difficult to bike on a downhill as I tend to brake so the thing won't zoom and then tip over and split my head open (as for driving a car, I tend to think people who brake their cars on downhill are tossers as cars have four wheels and can handle just glide down). But there's an easy explanation for bike being harder uphill. Slope, also called angular momentum. There's no force holding you down, you're simply on something with wheels trying push on a hill without energy to do so. If you turn around, uphill is downhill and vice versa. Here's a neat trick. Before I was afraid of bikes, I'd see people do this, so let's use a car as an example. Your car has difficulty getting up hills? Simply let the car accelerate downhill, and it pushes through most of the way through the next hill. Momentum overrides slope. Gravity does not exist.

 Your car has difficulty getting up hills? Simply let the car accelerate downhill, and it pushes through most of the way through the next hill. Momentum overrides slope. Gravity does not exist.

Which has nothing to do with a car going 55 mph on a flat plane then has to expend more energy/fuel, increase RPM’s, and / or gear down to get up the hill. 

Your catch-all gravity is not an explanation at all but a deflection of explanation. In other words, there are several separate explanations for what "gravity" does, but it's the equivalent of waving a magic wand and not having to explain separation phenomena.

Gravity is not a catch all.
It is a simple force, most simply understood as an attractive force between masses.

But there's an easy explanation for bike being harder uphill.

Yes, gravity.

Slope, also called angular momentum.

No, those 2 are vastly different.
Angular momentum is why spinning things stay spinning.
A slope is something not vertical nor perpendicular to vertical.

But neither explain why it is harder to go uphill.

Gravity does not exist.

If gravity doesn't exist, what propels you down a slope and makes it hard to go up a slope?

Yeah, it does.

On a flat plane right as you go up the hill, take your foot off the gas. You can see that momentum will actually coast the car up the hill most of the way, then lightly add a bit more fuel. The only reason it doesn't do the whole hill is because Newton was wrong. Objects in motion do not stay in motion. Momentum has a tendency to decrease except on slick surfaces. It decreases even on a flat surface, but at a greater rate on a surface sloped against you. b

In fact, trying to gun a car up a hill is a fairly good way to burn out transmission.

I know this having been across Rocky Mountains and Blue Ridge Mountains. Letting a car coast uphill is exactly as good for it as letting it coast downhill. I also live in a town that has hills and coastline. Kinda understand what I'm talking about.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 30, 2023, 03:59:58 AM

Your catch-all gravity is not an explanation at all but a deflection of explanation. In other words, there are several separate explanations for what "gravity" does, but it's the equivalent of waving a magic wand and not having to explain separation phenomena.

Gravity is not a catch all.
It is a simple force, most simply understood as an attractive force between masses.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 30, 2023, 03:59:58 AM

But there's an easy explanation for bike being harder uphill.

Yes, gravity.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 30, 2023, 03:59:58 AM

Slope, also called angular momentum.

No, those 2 are vastly different.
Angular momentum is why spinning things stay spinning.
A slope is something not vertical nor perpendicular to vertical.

But neither explain why it is harder to go uphill.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 30, 2023, 03:59:58 AM

Gravity does not exist.

If gravity doesn't exist, what propels you down a slope and makes it hard to go up a slope?

It's a catch-all.

How do slopes work? Gravity.
How does water stay in place on an orbiting rotating spinning object? Gravity (nevermind that I can take a simple wooden sphere and quickly disprove that the same effect works in any real model).
How do orbits work? Gravity.

Nevermind that if orbits were really about gravity, everything would fall towards the sun.

How do objects sink? Why, it's not a subset of buoyancy, as people thought long before Newton. It's gravity again.

You thought it was buoyancy, but it was me, Dio!

Yeah, it does.

Sigh.

You have no idea, or blatant disregard for, of a controlled experiment. 


And no understanding of the Midwest.  There might be miles of flat between hills. 

Or going down one hill might have a very severe turn at the bottom that requires slowing down to 30 MPH that straightens to a straight road going up hill where the speed limit is 55 mph.

Or.  It might be a series of small hills where the next hill is higher than the last.  So overall between hills you’re still increasing altitude. 

And you’re supposed to obey speed limits. And you only can drive as fast as turns allow.


But the control, where there are many places this occurs, is miles of flat road where you drive 55 mph, then what happens as the car starts to climb the first hill to engine RPM, fuel mileage, and transmission gearing.

You will find the car has to use more power to drive up a hill at 55 mph vs driving on a flat plane at 55 mph.

Surely bulmabriefs144 you’re not this stupid, and just trolling. 

On a flat plane right as you go up the hill, take your foot off the gas. You can see that momentum will actually coast the car up the hill most of the way, then lightly add a bit more fuel. The only reason it doesn't do the whole hill is because Newton was wrong. Objects in motion do not stay in motion.

No, YOU are wrong.
If Newton was wrong and objects don't stay in motion, this means even if you have an incredibly low friction contact and are going along a level surface, you will stop in a short amount of time. And even if you were going downhill, you should slow down and stop.

But that isn't the case. If you are going along a level surface you can keep going for quite a long time. But once you start going up hill, you slow down much faster, and if you go down hill, you speed up.

The fact that it changes if you are going up down or level demonstrates it isn't simply momentum magically dying.

Momentum has a tendency to decrease except on slick surfaces.

The fact you need to appeal to the surface, and if it is slick or not demonstrates that it isn't merely momentum magically dying, instead it is friction providing a force to slow the object.

It's a catch-all.

No, it isn't a catch all.
It explaining several things, in a very basic way, doesn't make it a catch all.
You ignoring other forces doesn't make it a catch all.

It also isn't just asserted like you pretend. There is an explanation that you ignore.

Again, gravity at its most basic level is that masses attract other masses.

How do slopes work? Gravity.

This is a downwards force towards Earth due to gravity.
It is effectively the same question as asking why things fall, or why things have weight. It is due to gravitational attraction to Earth.

How does water stay in place on an orbiting rotating spinning object? Gravity (nevermind that I can take a simple wooden sphere and quickly disprove that the same effect works in any real model).

This is the same question as above. Why do things have weight.
You also can't simply disprove that effect, and have had it explained to you why your attempts to do so are incredibly dishonest.

Again, if you want to try, you need to have the gravitational attraction to your object be the most significant force. Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball like you have in your experiment. This means you need to take it outside the Roche limit of any other significant object.
Likewise, if you want to demonstrate the rotation is the issue, then you need to have the apparent centrifugal force and gravity scaled together. Using a tiny ball so the effect of gravity is negligible, while spinning the ball very quickly so the effect of rotation is larger is dishonest garbage.

What you have is no better than me holding a plate sideways, pouring water onto it and saying it falls off so your FE model is garabge.

How do orbits work? Gravity.
Nevermind that if orbits were really about gravity, everything would fall towards the sun.

Now actually a different, but quite similar question.
But again, related to the same point, mass attracts mass.

And what do you mean everything would fall towards the sun?
Orbits mean Earth and everything on it is accelerating towards the sun.
Just what more do you want?

But if you magically held Earth and the sun in fixed positions, then at the surface of Earth the gravitational attraction to Earth is larger, so objects would still fall to Earth. But we would lose the moon.

This also shows more dishonesty from you. You claim that everything should fall towards the sun, yet you then happily take a tiny sphere, hold it quite close to Earth's surface, and pretend that gravity means water poured onto it should magically stick to it while entirely ignoring the greater gravitational attraction to Earth.
Why appeal to the gravitational attraction to the sun, which is weaker than that of Earth to claim things should fall to it, while you entirely ignore the gravitational attraction to Earth in your pathetic experiment?

How do objects sink? Why, it's not a subset of buoyancy, as people thought long before Newton.

Because buoyancy is a subset of gravity.
Because gravity, i.e. weight, explains the pressure gradient and the resulting upwards force.

Because gravity provides an explanation for so many points; while your delusional garbage doesn't.

"Buoyancy" alone, i.e. without gravity, has no explanation for the pressure gradient, no explanation for what magic allows objects to defy that pressure gradient, no explanation for the directional, no explanation for the magnitude, no explanation for why the magnitude varies.
In short, buoyancy, without the backing from gravity, is a collection of statements about observations, with basically no explanatory power, and which is incapable of answering those basic questions.

But again, this isn't a catch all.
Why do magnets stick to fridge? Not gravity.
How do computers work? Not gravity.
How do lights work? Not gravity.
Why do things fly off spinning objects? Not gravity.
Why do things separate in a centrifuge? Not gravity, but a different manifestation of the buoyant force due to inertia and rotating things quickly.
Why do cyclones rotate in particular directions? Not gravity.
How do ropes hold objects together, including allowing you to pull things? Not gravity.
How do disinfectants work? Not gravity.
And so on.

Again, at its most basic level, gravity is a force of attraction between masses.
It only explains that which is explained by attraction between masses.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 30, 2023, 05:36:07 AM

Yeah, it does.

Sigh.

You have no idea, or blatant disregard for, of a controlled experiment. 


And no understanding of the Midwest.  There might be miles of flat between hills. 

Or going down one hill might have a very severe turn at the bottom that requires slowing down to 30 MPH that straightens to a straight road going up hill where the speed limit is 55 mph.

Or.  It might be a series of small hills where the next hill is higher than the last.  So overall between hills you’re still increasing altitude. 

And you’re supposed to obey speed limits. And you only can drive as fast as turns allow.


But the control, where there are many places this occurs, is miles of flat road where you drive 55 mph, then what happens as the car starts to climb the first hill to engine RPM, fuel mileage, and transmission gearing.

You will find the car has to use more power to drive up a hill at 55 mph vs driving on a flat plane at 55 mph.

Surely bulmabriefs144 you’re not this stupid, and just trolling.

Oh wonderful.

So basically living in the midwest, you have no experience with hills at all short of driving miles and miles, then you dunno what to do with them.

Meanwhile, I can walk out my door, turn left at the bank, and I get into a forest that has hills going up and down. Small town is small, big hills are big. I also can move the opposite direction and find myself at a dock. And still another direction, and the "sidewalk" and the street are a different level. Still another direction and the walk is as flat as a pancake for about twenty miles until it gets to the coast.

Don't you think maybe I know what I'm talking about having encountered plenty of hills? Despite seeing flatness all around you, you think the Earth is round. You're crazy. Meanwhile, I know the Earth is flat despite hills (flat lands have hills, because the overall land is not required to follow a curve), and I know there's no such thing as gravity because I know how cope with hills (I do the equivalent of mountain treadmill).
Yesterday cuz COVID made me out of shape, I decided to do some intermittent exercise (I call it that, because I don't typically exercise regularly, and yeah that's on me). About 150 or so situps to try to help my abs, and stair climbing while walking around the house. About an hour or so of this. You know, when you're actually walking fast, it doesn't seem that much harder going up than down. It's a skill. And after an hour or so, yes it hurt just as much going down the steps.

I want you to imagine a block of wood ahead of you. Maybe a door or something. Like this | here in the way. Now one of them is not a big deal, but |||||||||| is a bigish deal if you're weak. Now suppose we stagger them like:

____|
___|
__|
_|
|

What you have here, is a slope. Technically, a set of stairs. A bunch of small walls, that your body is pushing against. It's not gravity. You're moving your body against a staircase so fine that it looks like a ramp.

Oh wonderful.

So basically living in the midwest, you have no experience with hills

Why are you a troll?

I posted several real situations involving roads.

When there is a hill where I live, the roads are usually like this.





Now.  For this situation.



https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/patagonian-deserts-route-gm1139541460-304613673

But the control, where there are many places this occurs, is miles of flat road where you drive 55 mph, then what happens as the car starts to climb the first hill to engine RPM, fuel mileage, and transmission gearing.

You will find the car has to use more power to drive up a hill at 55 mph vs driving on a flat plane at 55 mph.

Surely bulmabriefs144 you’re not this stupid, and just trolling.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 30, 2023, 05:36:07 AM

On a flat plane right as you go up the hill, take your foot off the gas. You can see that momentum will actually coast the car up the hill most of the way, then lightly add a bit more fuel. The only reason it doesn't do the whole hill is because Newton was wrong. Objects in motion do not stay in motion.

No, YOU are wrong.
If Newton was wrong and objects don't stay in motion, this means even if you have an incredibly low friction contact and are going along a level surface, you will stop in a short amount of time. And even if you were going downhill, you should slow down and stop.

But that isn't the case.

You ever read The Hole Book by Peter Newell? It rather neatly pokes fun at the idea of infinite momentum and a round Earth, without intending to preach. Some bratty kid fires a gun off, and it drills through a grandfather clock and several other objects (one of which is a dog's chains, allowing it to attack a kid teasing it). They end it with it getting stopped by someone's layer cake. The author says that this was a lucky thing, as it might have gone clean round the world and killed him on the spot. A good handgun can fire about 1.2 miles (with rifles firing even farther) but it nonetheless does not stay in motion.

Alright, I'll so fire a bow off straight ahead. Because it stays in motion, it should drill straight through my target and keep gliding through the air. But it doesn't. You blame gravity on this. But basically every archer in the world can tell you that yes, arrows do lose momentum. They do not stay in motion, and not just from hitting objects. And if you fire a weak shot off a hill, you can actually watch the moment where momentum drops off, and mass takes over. In fact my niece Pearl has fired a small practice bow (which has pretty heavy arrows actually) so weakly that momentum loss starts at ten feet.



If an object in motion really ever stayed in motion, then you could stand in a really large room. Let's say, a holodeck room like Star Trek, roughly the size of two football fields. And you could fire across the room and hit the opposite wall every time provided the arrow was really light (no pesky gravity in the way). But momentum is actually not equal at every point in the room. If we get the holodeck to generate targets, at 2 ft, 10ft, 40 ft, 80 ft and 240 ft. Now the football field holodeck is 300 ft (100 yards). But at 240 ft, penetration is alot less than at 40 ft (at 2 ft, it's actually too close, and at 10 ft it hasn't built up speed). More importantly, despite how light the arrow is, it loses momentum going through objects (we generate sheets of paper spaced out to fire through), it loses momentum going through random drafts of air, it loses momentum just travelling through the air. Bows can have a maximum range of about 220 yards, but an amateur like you or me will not make 100 yards.

Objects don't lose mass (unless part of the arrow splits off in the air), so the P = mv equation, the loss is typically velocity. Objects in motion don't stay in motion, because they lose velocity. Momentum is dependent on velocity which takes a gradual drop  (we call this air resistance).

Watch this video.

Now everything said in it is bullshit, starting with climate change.

• We don't get to fire several times farther because the moon is lighter gravity. When you fire a gun, having a tiny amount of oxygen doesn't solve the problem. It might spark the thing, but since it has no medium to travel through, the bullet simply drops. In fact, we have a test of gunpowder with a vacuum. Prepare to be (un)impressed!

• Space travel isn't real (see the smoke yet no ignition of even the high oxidized rocket candy; "that's interesting," he says). You've shown me "vacuum chambers" but they probably still had some air in them.
• The ranges of guns on Earth seems wrong.
• Why would people fight on the moon? People fight over land and power. The moon is a barren wasteland.
• If *ahem* climate change ruined Earth, we don't have the luxury of going to outer space and fighting wars there. We'd all quickly starve to death, or be too desperate trying to set up a space colony to fight. Ask starving kids in Somalia how likely they are to fight wars.

What you'd actually need is not a lack of air but very ummm slippery air (the effective equivalent of ice). And even then, momentum does not continue forever.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 01, 2023, 02:35:59 AM

Oh wonderful.

So basically living in the midwest, you have no experience with hills

Why are you a troll?

I posted several real situations involving roads.

When there is a hill where I live, the roads are usually like this.





Now.  For this situation.



https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/patagonian-deserts-route-gm1139541460-304613673

But the control, where there are many places this occurs, is miles of flat road where you drive 55 mph, then what happens as the car starts to climb the first hill to engine RPM, fuel mileage, and transmission gearing.

You will find the car has to use more power to drive up a hill at 55 mph vs driving on a flat plane at 55 mph.

Surely bulmabriefs144 you’re not this stupid, and just trolling.

Yes, I do troll you. But it's because you're not thinking properly about this. When you say dumb stuff, you deserve to be mocked.

Weak hills.



What hills should look like. In fact, we have a hill just like that about 3 miles up the road.

If an object in motion really ever stayed in motion,

Evidently you do if you think going up one hill is matter of just going down another.  With no consideration for the first hill you come to, the distance between the hills and how much flat road, road turns, and if the next hill has a higher peak than the last. 

What hills should look like. In fact, we have a hill just like that about 3 miles up the road.

And how will the little dip get you up the next hill that has a much higher peak.

And still has nothing to do with.

Now.  For this situation.



https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/patagonian-deserts-route-gm1139541460-304613673

But the control, where there are many places this occurs, is miles of flat road where you drive 55 mph, then what happens as the car starts to climb the first hill to engine RPM, fuel mileage, and transmission gearing.

You will find the car has to use more power to drive up a hill at 55 mph vs driving on a flat plane at 55 mph.


Evidently you’re a troll and just stupid. 

Don't you think maybe I know what I'm talking about having encountered plenty of hills?

Considering what you are saying, and how you avoid simple questions, either you have no idea what you are talking about or you are lying to everyone.

Again, if it truly was just magical momentum loss, then the same would be experienced regardless of direction, including going down a hill.
But it isn't.
Instead, you lose momentum much faster going up a hill, and you gain it going down.

I know the Earth is flat

No. You BELIEVE Earth is flat, because you can't handle reality, even though you cannot justify your claim that Earth is flat or show problems with a RE.

I know there's no such thing as gravity

Again, no. You BELIEVE there is no such thing as gravity, because gravity destroys your fantasy.

What you have here, is a slope. Technically, a set of stairs. A bunch of small walls, that your body is pushing against. It's not gravity. You're moving your body against a staircase so fine that it looks like a ramp.

Or, we can take level ground, and tilt it.
Why should a hill behave like a staircase which you need to push against, rather than like level ground?

You ever read The Hole Book by Peter Newell? It rather neatly pokes fun at the idea of infinite momentum and a round Earth, without intending to preach. Some bratty kid fires a gun off, and it drills through a grandfather clock and several other objects (one of which is a dog's chains, allowing it to attack a kid teasing it). They end it with it getting stopped by someone's layer cake. The author says that this was a lucky thing, as it might have gone clean round the world and killed him on the spot. A good handgun can fire about 1.2 miles (with rifles firing even farther) but it nonetheless does not stay in motion.

Alright, I'll so fire a bow off straight ahead. Because it stays in motion, it should drill straight through my target and keep gliding through the air.

You sure do like dishonest garbage don't you?
Why would it magically stay in motion when a force acts which stops it?

Momentum isn't magic. It doesn't mean it stays in motion forever and you can never stop it.
When the arrow hits the target, it applies a force which slows down the arrow.

If your delusional garbage was true, it shouldn't matter if the target was there or not, either way it should stop. But if it doesn't hit the target it keeps going until it hits something.

But basically every archer in the world can tell you that yes, arrows do lose momentum.

They will tell you that they lose momentum as they reach their peak and then gain it as they start to fall, until the hit something and stop.

And you could fire across the room and hit the opposite wall every time provided the arrow was really light (no pesky gravity in the way).

And more delusional BS.
The only way to avoid gravity is if it is the same density as the air.
If it is the same density as the air, then air resistance is going to be quite significant unless it is absolutely massive.

More importantly, despite how light the arrow is, it loses momentum going through objects (we generate sheets of paper spaced out to fire through), it loses momentum going through random drafts of air, it loses momentum just travelling through the air.

Which is entirely consistent with what we are saying.
Notice what doesn't happen? It doesn't just magically lose momentum from nothing. It looses momentum from relative motion between it and something else, including the air.
You have a force acting to slow the object down.

And we see a fairly light fluid like air allows the object to pass through with only minor resistance. Conversely a solid target stops it quite quickly. And even a more viscous fluid like water would stop it quite quickly.

Watch this video.
Now everything said in it is bullshit, starting with climate change.

Why bother telling us to watch it, only to dismiss it as BS and spout a bunch of unsubstantiated claims yourself?

It might spark the thing, but since it has no medium to travel through, the bullet simply drops.
[/uote]
Pure BS.
Instead, as it has no medium, the effect of air resistance is 0. So it wont slow down due to air resistance.

This BS of yours goes directly against the above observations.
It would be like claiming that once the arrow hits the target it has a much more solid medium than air so it keeps on flying without loosing any significant amount of momentum.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 01, 2023, 02:35:59 AM

In fact, we have a test of gunpowder with a vacuum. Prepare to be (un)impressed![/li][/list]

You have a test of loose gunpowder, not one compressed into the casing of a bullet.

Try a bullet in a gun in a vacuum chamber.
Or, look and see someone has already beaten you to it:
https://www.military.com/video/guns/gunfire/will-a-gun-fire-in-space/971339055001


To put it simply, YOU ARE WRONG!
Guns can fire in a vacuum, and the lack of air resistance means they keep going, it doesn't magically mean they fall.

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..

Correct, but dont try to convince the indoctrinated as their programming is too entrenched for natural logic.
It is even well documented from confessions of pilots and training manuals on documentaries such as LEVEL.

These victims stubbornly deny their eyes when real footage of rockets hitting the dome are everywhere on gootube
and even the children of community backed rocket enthusiasts groups know better rather believe the programming.

Correct

No, incorrect, as already explained.

but dont try to convince the indoctrinated as their programming is too entrenched for natural logic.

You mean the FE drones like you, that cannot justify your delusional BS in any way and instead need to resort to insulting people?

These victims stubbornly deny their eyes when real footage of rockets hitting the dome are everywhere on gootube

Care to provide an example?

It is even well documented from confessions of pilots and training manuals on documentaries such as LEVEL.

Apparently not very well documented at all...

But how did it get to the surface?
If I have an empty balloon and hold it in the air, motionless, in its natural state, and then release it, why does it move?

No, it has more mass.
But the far more important point is that it is displacing more air, which means the upwards due to the pressure gradient (i.e. buoyancy) is greater.

I have already addressed this BS of yours:
Your BS here is like saying that if you get a balance beam, and put 1 kg on one side, and then put 100 kg on the other, it somehow refutes gravity.

Stop ignoring the mass which is coming down while the balloon goes up.

Gravity is not magic, it doesn't mean no other force can act on the object, nor does it mean no force greater than it can.

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 30, 2023, 01:25:10 AM

That is EXACTLY why some objects rise up in air, other objects, most of them, will FALL DOWNWARD through air.

You mean gravity and buoyancy which is caused by gravity?
If not, you have just stated the observation, with no explanation, and no reason why.

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 30, 2023, 01:25:10 AM

What makes them rise up into air, is having less density than air. The same as objects fall downward through air, being MORE dense than the air.

This explains nothing.
Why should objects more dense than air go down?
Why should objects less dense than air go up?
And why should this magically stop in the vomit comet during a 0g parabola?

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 30, 2023, 01:25:10 AM

The only forces in play, mainly, are the original force acting on it, to put it up into air, and air resistance, which is a lesser factor in play.

You have already had this refuted.
If that was the case then when you throw an object upwards at an angle it should travel in a straight line, slowing down due to air resistance and then stop.
In reality, it follows a parabolic trajectory, showing there is an additional downwards force you have not accounted for.

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 30, 2023, 01:25:10 AM

DENSITY of objects, or RELATIVE density of objects, within some medium, act on them, and cause their motion

Density alone cannot cause motion.

Quote from: turbonium2 on April 30, 2023, 01:25:10 AM

Have you noticed that the only thing which is consistent, and explains all of this....is DENSITY?

No, I haven't, as that is pure BS.
Density provides no reason at all for why an object should move, nor why should it move in any particular direction, nor why the pressure increases with depth, why all fluids have a pressure gradient, and this pressure gradient is dependent upon density of the fluid.
It doesn't explain why objects have weight which can be measured on a scale, why that weight is dependent upon mass, why the reading of that weight varies with the density of the fluid the object is in, and why this varies across Earth
Likewise, it doesn't explain why this also occurs (but to a much greater extent) in a centrifuge, and why this density based separation doesn't occur in a 0 g parabola.

So in short, density alone explains NOTHING!

No, it is their RELATIVE density to whatever MEDIUM they're within, which explains EVERY situation and scenario.

Objects are always on the surface, or within water, in their original state. When a rock falls off the edge of a mountain, from natural causes, like an earthquake, or powerful winds hitting it, this changes their natural state, momentarily, and they fall off the mountain edge, to the ground below, or water, and sink down TO the surface, or 'float down' to the surface, same as all do when ON ground.

Why wouldn't heavier objects fall through air, to the surface, FASTER than lighter objects do?

Magnetic force acts that way, wind force acts that way, so do ALL actual forces act that way, only one, made up magical 'force' does not, because it doesn't even EXIST.

Look at magnetic force, for example. Compare it to your made up force, which supposedly attracts ALL objects at the same rate of speed, regardless of their mass, which defies all actual forces that DO exist.

A stong magnet placed near two objects, one which is 2 ounces, the other which is 2 lbs, BOTH of them at the same distance away from the magnet.....

Why does the LIGHTER object move much faster towards the magnet, than the heavier object does? When both objects are the same material, and are the same distance away, from the very same magnet, why would it not pull both objects towards it at the same rate of speed? Because the objects have different mass, from one another, of course.

Why is it so much harder to lift a 40 lb rock, than a 2 lb. rock, of same material?

You claim that 'gravity' pulls them down at the same rate of speed, so mass doesn't make any difference to 'gravity', pulling down ALL objects at the same rate of speed, so this would mean we could lift all objects using the SAME LEVEL OF FORCE.

You're claiming 'gravity' pulls down objects from ABOVE the surface at the same rate of speed, regardless of their mass. If that was true, we'd be able to lift ALL objects with the same force used. If you claim 'gravity' acts on all objects the same, when 'pulling them down from air', then the OPPOSITE must be so, when LIFTING them up in air, AGAINST 'gravity'!

You have to make up some nonsense excuse for that, BS 'equations', of complete nonsense.

A bizarro force, acting two different ways, it's nothing more than a fairy tale.

Of course, when a heavy object falls through air at the same speed as a lighter object does, that means it is NOT caused by any actual force(s).

When an actual force acts on objects with the same level of force, or similar level of force, because they always VARY in strength, but assuming it WAS the same level of force, it will NOT act the same way on all objects, regardless of their mass.

When all objects fall through air at the same rate of acceleration and speed, we know it CANNOT be due to an actual force. The objects MASS makes a force act differently on them.

A strong wind will blow away lighter objects but not move heavier objects, using the SAME level of force on them. Forces vary, they act differently on objects, due to their different MASSES.

There's only ONE reason why all objects fall through air at the same rate of acceleration and speed - because all objects within air, have MORE MASS AND DENSITY than the air, other than a balloon, for example, which RISES UPWARD in air, being of LESS DENSITY than the air.

Why would you believe objects which are REMOVED from their place of origin, on the surface, and then PUT UPWARD into air, where they do NOT originate from, would somehow STAY UP in air, unless they are 'pulled down from a force within the ground? Because your made up ball Earth speeding through endless 'space', had to invent one, and spew about it as being a REAL 'force', without any proof of it existing, and opposing how ALL ACTUAL forces behave, in the REAL world. 

Pathetic indeed.

Again, the important part, which plenty of experiments back up, is that a force is required to change the motion.
If an object is at rest, applying a force will accelerate it. If you then stop applying a force, the object continues with that motion, and another force is required to stop it.

When you throw an object upward in a vaccum chamber, which has no air within it, why does the object slow down and stop moving upward, then? What 'force' is stopping it's motion upward? It is NOT due to another 'force', it is due to the ONLY FORCE that MADE it move, which dies out afterwards, which makes it stop moving.

A force acts on an object, by transferring energy to the object, as kinetic force, which makes the object go into motion. The energy from this force, continues to act on the object, throughout it's movements along the way.

If you tap on a ball with your toe, it might move the ball a few inches over the ground. But if you kick it hard with your foot, it might move 30 yards over the same ground.

Forces don't stop acting on objects, the instant after they apply energy to them. It is this energy which makes them CONTINUE to move afterwards. Forces apply energy to objects, which continues afterwards, making each one move longer or shorter distances, depending on how much FORCE acted on them! If it was 'instantly gone' force, they'd move the SAME distance outward, as there would be NO FORCE ACTING ON THEM ANYMORE, right? 

Quote from: JackBlack on April 29, 2023, 10:03:20 PM

Again, the important part, which plenty of experiments back up, is that a force is required to change the motion.
If an object is at rest, applying a force will accelerate it. If you then stop applying a force, the object continues with that motion, and another force is required to stop it.

When you throw an object upward in a vaccum chamber, which has no air within it, why does the object slow down and stop moving upward, then? What 'force' is stopping it's motion upward? It is NOT due to another 'force', it is due to the ONLY FORCE that MADE it move, which dies out afterwards, which makes it stop moving.

A force acts on an object, by transferring energy to the object, as kinetic force, which makes the object go into motion. The energy from this force, continues to act on the object, throughout it's movements along the way.

If you tap on a ball with your toe, it might move the ball a few inches over the ground. But if you kick it hard with your foot, it might move 30 yards over the same ground.

Forces don't stop acting on objects, the instant after they apply energy to them. It is this energy which makes them CONTINUE to move afterwards. Forces apply energy to objects, which continues afterwards, making each one move longer or shorter distances, depending on how much FORCE acted on them! If it was 'instantly gone' force, they'd move the SAME distance outward, as there would be NO FORCE ACTING ON THEM ANYMORE, right?

You might want to actually understand what you are arguing against before attempting to argue against it...Start here...

When you throw an object upward in a vaccum chamber, which has no air within it, why does the object slow down and stop moving upward, then? What 'force' is stopping it's motion upward?

You mean gravity.  The force responsible for tides, why it’s hard to hold a 50 pound weight straight out at arms length placing strain on the body that can be accurately modeled, why it’s harder to peddle a bike up hill, why a car uses more fuel and gears down when going up hill, the force responsible for the arched paths of bullet trajectories, gravity the reason airplanes have to generate the force of lift to gain altitude, gravity the force  demonstrated by the Cavendish experiment.

For stable rocket flight center of gravity must be ahead of center of pressure.

Gravity, why an elevator has to work harder to lift objects than what is accounted for by friction.

Gravity, the reason comets pivot about the sun.

Gravity, why the sun undergoes fusion. 

Gravity, the reason regenerative braking works to charge batteries.