Flat Earth: What flying an aircraft would be like

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

Repeating the same pathetic BS wont help you.
Why should something being denser than the air make it go down?
That is what you entirely fail to explain.

You have had your origin BS refuted countless times. It DOESN'T explain it, especially not when you are start appealing to density.
If origin explained it, you shouldn't need to appeal to density.

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

Do you mean on the basis of gravity?
Because the mass of the object increases as the mass of the object increases.

Just like if you have a magnet, and you increase the magnetic force and the mass proportionally, the acceleration remains the same; and just like with the wind if you increase the force and mass proportionally the acceleration remains the same.

Look at magnetic force, for example. Compare it to your made up force

You are the one with the made up force, not me.
But I already compared gravity to magnetism, they match.

which supposedly attracts ALL objects at the same rate of speed, regardless of their mass, which defies all actual forces that DO exist.

No, it doesn't.

For all forces, they are proportional to something. If you make this proportional to mass, then you get the same acceleration.
For example, for the electrostatic force, if you consider multiple objects with the same mass to charge ratio, they will accelerate the same, regardless of mass.
That is why a mass spectrometer can only tell you the mass to charge ratio, not the mass.

Why does the LIGHTER object move much faster towards the magnet, than the heavier object does?

Because the mass to force ratio is not the same. Magnetism is highly dependent upon the geometry. You can easily get two objects, made of the same material, weighing the same, yet have them accelerate differently in a magnetic field due to the different geometry.

But if you set up the experiment correctly, then they do accelerate at the same rate.

The easy way to understand is by taking your 2 archaic unit object, and cutting it in half. You now have two 1 archaic unit objects.
Should these two objects accelerate at the speed of the 1 archaic unit object, or the 2 archaic unit object?
They fundamentally are the 2 archaic unit object, so they should accelerate at the rate of the 2 archaic unit object. Cutting it in half doesn't change that. But they are also fundamentally a 1 archaic unit object, so they should behave as that.
This requires the 2 archaic unit object and the 1 archaic unit object to accelerate a the same rate, otherwise you have a contradiction.

You claim that 'gravity' pulls them down at the same rate of speed, so mass doesn't make any difference to 'gravity'

And more pathetic garbage.

Mass is crucial for gravity because it dictates what the force is.
Because the force is proportional to mass, that means the acceleration does not depend on mass.

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.

Again, pure BS.
The force required to accelerate an object at a certain rate is proportional to mass.
So if all objects accelerate at the same speed, that means the force is proportional to their mass, so objects of different mass would require a different level of force.

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

Quite the opposite.
The line of reasoning using gravity makes perfect sense, and you are unable to find a fault with it. So instead, you make up delusional nonsense which is trivial to refute to pretend there is a problem with gravity.

Notice how you can't even remain consistent?
First you want to pretend that gravity, because it is based upon mass, should make the heavier object fall faster, because it should have a greater force (even though it should require a greater force to accelerate at the same rate).
Then you directly contradict yourself by instead pretending the force should magically be the same (even though the mass is different) and the lighter object should accelerate faster.

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).

And more delusional BS.
If it wasn't caused by a force, they would not have changed their motion.
When an object accelerates, it is due to a force.

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.

And as above, gravity is NOT like that.
With gravity, if you double the mass you double the force.

This is trivial to understand.

There's only ONE reason why all objects fall through air at the same rate of acceleration and speed

Because a force that is proportional to mass acts upon them. i.e. GRAVITY!
If the acceleration is the same, you need a force proportional to mass. This is trivial to understand.

origin

Again, you are yet to justify any of your delusional BS regarding origin.
We have plenty of examples of objects which according to your delusional BS originated on the surface which move AWAY from the surface.
Again, if you wish to appeal to origin, then density doesn't matter.
And you have no justification for why origin should only care about 1 direction, and why moving something to the right of its origin doesn't magically cause it to fall back to the left.
And you have no justification or even a hypothetical explanation for why moving something away from its origin should magically cause it to go back.

Because your made up ball Earth speeding through endless 'space', had to invent one

Again, you are the one making up crap.
Because you can't explain why things fall without gravity, and gravity would destroy your fantasy, you make up all sorts of crap.

Pathetic indeed.

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?

Gravity, which is causing a downwards acceleration.
Quite simple and easy to understand.
If it was the air, the direction shouldn't matter.
If it was the force magically dying out, the direction shouldn't matter.
This means regardless of what direction the object is launched, it should travel in a straight line and slow down. And that includes throwing it downwards.

But instead, what is observed is its path following a parabola (approximately at least), where the vertical component of its velocity becomes more downwards, i.e. it decreases if it is going upwards, and increases if going downwards.

Again, this shows your claim is delusional garbage.

Forces don't stop acting on objects, the instant after they apply energy to them.

Yes, they do.
The force acts to accelerate the object. Once it has done that, the object continues until another force acts to change its momentum.

If it was 'instantly gone' force, they'd move the SAME distance outward, as there would be NO FORCE ACTING ON THEM ANYMORE, right?

In a way, yes, but only because if you no longer have any force acting on them, they would continue forever, so the distance would be infinite.
However, if instead you do have a force acting on them, like air resistance, or friction, then the one going faster, with more momentum, would require more force to stop.

If it was the force magically dying out, why should it take a different amount of time for the force to magically die?

Ok turbo, here is a kindergarten level explanation video.

Because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're dumber than you, Mikey T.

It means you haven't bothered to try to understand them.

No one is calling anyone dumb. Just ignorant. It's obvious that turbo has no idea what he is arguing against. Having at least a minimum understanding of the thing you don't agree with is the baseline. Otherwise you're just complaining and make your non-argument look even more ridiculous than it is, or even needs to be.

Because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're dumber than you, Mikey T.

It means you haven't bothered to try to understand them.

Your ignorance would get people navigating ships at sea in bad situations, and people and ships in unnecessary peril.

Everything from nuclear reactions and heat transfer do not need an “atmosphere”, navigating a very real spherical earth, to tide forecasts that are important when around the coast, barrier islands, coming in and out of harbors. 

Because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're dumber than you, Mikey T.

It means you haven't bothered to try to understand them.

I do not think that people who disagree with me as dumb. 
I know the FE ideas way better than you or your alt Turbo do, since I have taken the time to try to understand them and you are playing as dumb FEers to mock them.   The level of dishonesty and idiocy you put out can be nothing else.
But hey, keep acting like an idiot if you wish. 

Because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're dumber than you, Mikey T.

It means you haven't bothered to try to understand them.

Great job projecting again.

You either have no idea about the model you are trying to refute, or your repeatedly pretend to not understand it to pretend there is a problem.

And the above from Turbo is another example of that.
They are trying to pretend what is observed isn't consistent with gravity at all.
But if they bothered to understand the model they are objecting to, they would know that the force of gravity is proportional to the mass of the object, and the acceleration of the object is proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass. This means you would expect all objects to accelerate at the same rate in a uniform gravitational field.
But instead of accepting that, they contradict themselves and pretend that gravity should make heavier objects fall faster, or that it should make lighter objects fall faster.

And you do plenty of it as well.

Why should something being denser than the air make it go down?
That is what you entirely fail to explain.

You have had your origin BS refuted countless times. It DOESN'T explain it, especially not when you are start appealing to density.
If origin explained it, you shouldn't need to appeal to density.

It is clearly due to their relative density, and it doesn't have to make up any magical forces.

Objects must first be PUT UPWARD into the air, and they do NOT move at all, unless a force acts on them, to BECOME in motion, and to ignore that fact, and say 'when an object is in motion', is completely worthless, and is deliberately dishonest. A lie, in fact. Ignoring the facts intentionally.

All objects on Earth, which are motionless objects, have always been on Earth, and no evidence would suggest otherwise, in the least.

My claim is based on all the evidence, since day one, and ever since then.

And this points out that it IS due to relative density, that there is NO 'pulling down' force, or a SECOND made up force, in an attempt to support their first made up force.

 

When we throw a ball upward, inside a vacuum chamber, the ball slows down and stops, without any air resistance present.

Proving that it is the loss of it's INITIAL energy from the ONLY force which acted on it to make it move upward, which makes it slow down and stop moving, just as I've told you many times before, so get a clue already.

When we throw a ball upward, inside a vacuum chamber, the ball slows down and stops, without any air resistance present.

Proving that it is the loss of it's INITIAL energy from the ONLY force which acted on it to make it move upward, which makes it slow down and stop moving, just as I've told you many times before, so get a clue already.

Gravity... 
You just described a result of applying a force in opposite direction of a force accelerating things downwards towards the center of the planet you are standing on.  We call that gravity btw, it doesn't need some magical intelligent objects that know where they originated.  Thanks for playing.  You should try to find that clue you speak of.

So you will entirely ignore the complete destruction of your delusional BS against gravity? Not even going to show a shred of honesty and admit you were entirely wrong and gravity, a force proportional to mass, would produce the results observed?
You sure do love showing your dishonesty.

It is clearly due to their relative density, and it doesn't have to make up any magical forces.

No, it clearly isn't.
Relative density provides no reason for any object to move, nor in any particular direction, nor at any particular rate.

they do NOT move at all, unless a force acts on them

Meaning you need a force to make them go down.
Relative density, not being a force, CANNOT be the reason they go down.

All objects on Earth, which are motionless objects, have always been on Earth, and no evidence would suggest otherwise, in the least.

Except the evidence you ignore.
It is based upon nothing more than your wilful ignorance.

When we throw a ball upward, inside a vacuum chamber, the ball slows down and stops, without any air resistance present.

Proving that it is the loss of it's INITIAL energy from the ONLY force which acted on it to make it move upward, which makes it slow down and stop moving, just as I've told you many times before, so get a clue already.

No, it doesn't, not in any way.
Do you know why? Because you need to appeal specifically to "UPWARDS".
Again, if you throw it in various directions what you observe is that it the vertical component of its velocity increases in the downwards direction.
This means it will accelerate if thrown downwards, and travel in a parabolic arc if thrown diagonally.
This shows there is a downwards force acting on it.

If it was your delusional BS, it would travel in a straight line, slowing down as it does, and stop. And this would regardless of what direction it was thrown in.
This was already fully explained to you, only for you to entirely ignore so you can repeat the same pathetic lie.

Objects do NOT magically slow down and stop because some magically acting initially magically dies out.

When we throw a ball upward, inside a vacuum chamber, the ball slows down and stops, without any air resistance present.

Proving that it is the loss of it's INITIAL energy from the ONLY force which acted on it to make it move upward, which makes it slow down and stop moving, just as I've told you many times before, so get a clue already.

What if the ball in a vaccuum was thrown down?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 06, 2023, 06:16:35 AM

Because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're dumber than you, Mikey T.

It means you haven't bothered to try to understand them.

Your ignorance would get people navigating ships at sea in bad situations, and people and ships in unnecessary peril.

Everything from nuclear reactions and heat transfer do not need an “atmosphere”, navigating a very real spherical earth, to tide forecasts that are important when around the coast, barrier islands, coming in and out of harbors.

That's funny. Because most navigators prior to GPS used the following tools:
A sextant. A compass (of two sorts, one where you hold and magnetic stuff does its thing, the other of the same sort that Masons use, where you can draw lines between two points). A sea chart and map. 

You know what they didn't use? A globe. Can you guess why? It's because globes introduce rounded space that throws off the drawing of accurate lines or distance measurement between points. You do not want to crash into an iceburg because some twat insisted that the southern hemisphere is equal in length to the northern hemisphere.

What if the ball in a vaccuum was thrown down?

By stops, he means momentum becomes zero. Its mass is greater than the (lack of) air so it doesn't hang. In a vacuum, gravity is not zero. Buoyancy is zero. A feather will fall as if it were a stone.

As for planes, and how they fly (in either RE or FE), I think the Zelda series (like I say, I'm hyped) paints an accurate picture. Strictly speaking the wings that Link uses don't actually fly, not without a great deal of help (and they game devs designed them to eventually break apart midflight  ), but rather glide. However, having built one, and can tell the general principles.

1. Speed/Lift
2. Aerodynamics
3. "Center of gravity" (weight distribution)

1. In order that the object move at all, it has to be placed on a runway. Oh yes, I've tried on flat ground with fans, but even with three of them, it didn't budge. I could technically get it to work up speed by adding a minecart with a fan underneath in addition to two fans on the wing part. But the minecart will take from lift, causing it to fall slowly.
2. This also works into aerodynamics. A wide and flat object glides better without a massive wheel structure attached.
3. Depending upon where the fans are placed, the glider wing will either crash and burn (not literally, unless traveling near Death Mountain) or glide properly. Too far forward, and the wing would go quite quickly due to momentum but unfortunately kinda sorta pitch toward the ground. On the other hand, if I placed too much weight in the back (loaded up fans for example), it would slow and descend. This is also true of Link's weight. If he moves to the right, the wing leans right and turns, ditto for the left. Forward accelerates and descends, backward slows and (briefly) ascends, though this is also how you land, at least until you have decent tools (like a battery to keep the fans going).

Yes, it's a game, but for most part, they made things true to life for physics (and occasionally chemistry). But what you would probably say is not true to life is that there is an upper limit to the sky, and the N/S/E/W distance. So yeah, the BotW/TotK map is very much a limited flat land (you cannot curve around Hebra and make your back to Akkala), yet airplanes work the same way.

A sextant.

?

7 Ways Flat Earth Conspiracy Will Make You Look Silly

https://newcreeations.org/flat-earth-theory/amp/

Celestial Navigation
For me, the celestial navigation I did as a merchant mariner is really the definitive proof I need to know that the earth is spherical instead of a flat disk. Proponents of the flat earth conspiracy absolutely cannot refute the reality of celestial navigation.

The British were the first to master shipboard clock technology. It gave them a significant advantage in both war and trade, and therefore contributed to the rapid growth of their empire. I’ve been to the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London, and have seen some of these early shipboard clocks first hand.

The only way the math required for accurate celestial navigation positions works out the way we calculate it is because the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat like some believe, celestial navigation would be based on plane trigonometry instead of spherical trigonometry. And if that were the case, I would be explaining to you that the earth must be flat. But it’s not. It’s a sphere.

Math does not lie.

Therefore, the fact that the spherical trigonometry based math required for celestial navigation produces accurate determinations of one’s position on the earth is definitive proof that the earth is spherical.

Celestial navigation truly makes proponents of the flat earth model look silly.

https://newcreeations.org/flat-earth-theory/amp/

What navy of the world has a tactical advantage because they treat the world as flat?


You being flippant about being at sea and treating the earth as flat would put the ship and its crew in unnecessary danger is just a testament of how big of a troll or fool you really are. 

3. "Center of gravity" (weight distribution)

For a rocket to have stable flight.  The center of gravity must be ahead of the center of pressure in the line of travel.

Why is the center of gravity different than the center of pressure?

Significance of Center of Gravity & Center of Pressure | Effect of CG and CP on Stability

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 06, 2023, 09:34:59 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 06, 2023, 06:16:35 AM

Because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're dumber than you, Mikey T.

It means you haven't bothered to try to understand them.

Your ignorance would get people navigating ships at sea in bad situations, and people and ships in unnecessary peril.

Everything from nuclear reactions and heat transfer do not need an “atmosphere”, navigating a very real spherical earth, to tide forecasts that are important when around the coast, barrier islands, coming in and out of harbors.

That's funny. Because most navigators prior to GPS used the following tools:
A sextant. A compass (of two sorts, one where you hold and magnetic stuff does its thing, the other of the same sort that Masons use, where you can draw lines between two points). A sea chart and map. 

First off, we've been through this. Here's a nautical chart:



Notice how it says right on the chart that it uses a Mercator projection from a globe and the NAD 83 datum which is based upon the ellipsoid earth - A spherical earth. So you lose here.

And what's even funnier is that part of determining longitude calculations and great circle plotting using a sextant requires spherical trig and tables applied to the dip corrections, geometric horizon, etc. All nautical almanacs used for celestial navigation are predicated on, you guessed it, a spherical earth, a globe.

The only way to refute this is to show how to plot a navigable path using a sextant on a flat earth. You can't. Case closed.

That's funny. Because most navigators prior to GPS used the following tools:
A sextant. A compass (of two sorts, one where you hold and magnetic stuff does its thing, the other of the same sort that Masons use, where you can draw lines between two points). A sea chart and map.

Yes, a sextant, which relies upon Earth being a sphere and there being 2 celestial poles.

You know what they didn't use? A globe. Can you guess why?

Because a globe would need to be quite large to use, much larger than charts.
So instead they used charts based upon a globe.

The Mercator projection was useful for one key reason, if you wanted to be lazy, and didn't care about taking a much larger distance, you could follow a straight line on the projection and reach your destination. But it would likely be a longer path than what appears as a curve on the map.

By stops, he means momentum becomes zero. Its mass is greater than the (lack of) air so it doesn't hang. In a vacuum, gravity is not zero. Buoyancy is zero. A feather will fall as if it were a stone.

That's right, in a vacuum gravity still acts, so things still fall.

But what you seem to entirely ignore is that this demonstrates it is NOT merely the object magically losing the energy, causing it to slow down and stop.
Instead it is another force (gravity) acting on it to change its momentum.

In effect, you are admitting that turbo is wrong.

But if they bothered to understand the model they are objecting to, they would know that the force of gravity is proportional to the mass of the object, and the acceleration of the object is proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass. This means you would expect all objects to accelerate at the same rate in a uniform gravitational field.
But instead of accepting that, they contradict themselves and pretend that gravity should make heavier objects fall faster, or that it should make lighter objects fall faster.

If it 'pulls down' all objects equally, we could PUT THEM UP INTO AIR equally too.

Claiming that 'gravity' uses 'PROPORTIONAL FORCE' is nonsense. Why would a 2 ton object within air hit the surface with more force than a 2lb. object, if both are being 'pulled down' at the same rate, 'pulled down' with the same 'proportional force'?  It's impossible to move a 2 ton object with your hands, but we can move a 2 lb object easily. If their mass makes no difference when 'pulled down from air' by your made up force, we'd LIFT them up, THROW them into air, with the same force, too!   Because you claim only 'GRAVITY' is holding them down to Earth, pulling all objects down from air with the same 'proportional force'.

'Proportional force' means all objects, regardless of their mass, would be 'pulled down', AND 'thrown upward', with the SAME force. A 2 ton object is 'pulled down', AND 'thrown upward', with equal force, not just downward, in air!

What if a huge, powerful magnet applied 'proportional force' to all objects? Like if a 2 ton block of steel and a 2 ounce steel nail were both pulled towards that huge magnet, at the exact same speed? Why is the nail pulled to the magnet faster than the 2 ton block is pulled toward it? We could put the 2 ton block on wheels, and grease the surface, while the nail is on gravel, half buried below it, but the nail speeds towards the magnet much faster than the 2 ton block on wheels and grease will, right?   

Magnetic force applies the SAME force outward, as do ALL actual forces. A strong wind hits all objects with the SAME force, air resistance hits objects within air with the same force, at any one point, etc.

Why would a force 'adjust' it's output of energy to how much each specific object weighs, to then apply 'proportional force' to them all? 

Do you really believe that a magnet pulls a 2 ton block towards it, if it pulls a nail towards it? No, that's stupid. 

No actual forces will apply 'proportional force' on objects, based on their mass, and then apply 'equal force' to them all! 

It's impossible to throw a 2 ton rock into air, with our hands, but we can easily throw up a pebble into air with our hands. So why do they FALL at the same speed, is that both have more DENSITY than the medium they're within, which is AIR. Being all objects in air, have MORE DENSITY than air, they all move downward through air at the same speed, same rate of acceleration, regardless of their mass!   

If they were being 'pulled down to the surface', by some force, the one and ONLY force in existence, which uses 'proportional force', equally applied to all objects, based on their MASS....

It would mean we could lift up a 20 ton boulder, throw it up 20 feet into air, like it was a little pebble, since' gravity' would apply 'proportional force' to both objects. Pulling both down with 'proportional force', and throwing them up into air with 'proportional force'!


What a joke.

If it 'pulls down' all objects equally, we could PUT THEM UP INTO AIR equally too.

Claiming that 'gravity' uses 'PROPORTIONAL FORCE' is nonsense. Why would a 2 ton object within air hit the surface with more force than a 2lb.

Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration.

You

What if a huge, powerful magnet applied 'proportional force' to all objects?

Show me a magnet with the same mass of the earth. Wonder what would happen.  I think the 2 lbs weight and the 2 ton weight would be on the same scale of insignificance if either was dropped at 100 feet away from the magnet as big as the earth, they would accelerate at the magnetic at the same speed. 

Anyway.  The magnet only can be so attracted to iron.  It has the same amount of attraction for the iron in a 2 lbs weight or the iron in a two ton weight. 


By the way the mass of the earth is about 5.972 × 10^21 t

What’s 2 lbs or even two tons to a mass with 5.972 × 10^21 t? 

And why would they drop at measurable different rates? 

If it 'pulls down' all objects equally

That is your delusional BS, not reality.
In reality, it does NOT pull them down equally. It pulls them down with a force proportional to their mass.
The force is NOT equal.
The acceleration is.

Claiming that 'gravity' uses 'PROPORTIONAL FORCE' is nonsense. Why would a 2 ton object within air hit the surface with more force than a 2lb. object, if both are being 'pulled down' at the same rate, 'pulled down' with the same 'proportional force'?

No, your argument against it is nonsense.
If they are pulled down with a proportional to mass, then the force acting on the object is proportional to mass, making the acceleration equal.
They are not pulled down with an equal force. The 2 ton object has a much larger force due to its much larger mass.

If their mass makes no difference

Their mass does make a difference.
The more massive object has a larger force.

'Proportional force' means all objects, regardless of their mass, would be 'pulled down', AND 'thrown upward', with the SAME force. A 2 ton object is 'pulled down', AND 'thrown upward', with equal force, not just downward, in air!

Pure BS.
A proportional force means the force is proportional.
As it is proportional to mass, that means doubling the mass doubles the force.
That means a 2 ton object is pulled down with a much larger force than a 2 lb object.

What if a huge, powerful magnet applied 'proportional force' to all objects?

You mean like in a simple mass spectrometer, where a force proportional to charge is applied, so you can tell the mass to charge ratio, but the not the absolute mass as if you double the mass and double the charge you get the same result.

Magnetic force applies the SAME force outward, as do ALL actual forces.

No, it doesn't.
Your delusional BS doesn't make any sense at all.

Again, here is a nice simple scenario for you:
Consider a simple object being exposed to this magical force of yours.
It will have some force acting on it.
Now cut that object in half into 2 objects. Overall, it is the same as before, so it should have the same force acting on it.
But according to your delusional BS, each of these 2 objects should have the same force acting on them, meaning you have magically doubled the force.

It makes no sense at all.

A strong wind hits all objects with the SAME force, air resistance hits objects within air with the same force, at any one point, etc.

So you now appeal to any point. So this is no longer the object, instead it is a point of that object.
So for example, the wind would hit each 1 cm^2 with the same force.
So if you have an object which is 1 cm^2, and another object that is 2 cm^2, then the object that is 2 cm^2 will have a larger force acting on it.

According to your delusional BS, there is no reason at all to put a large sail on a boat, as the wind will magically apply the same force, regardless of if it is a tiny ship, or one with a massive sail.

ALL forces are proportional to something. The question is what?

Why would a force 'adjust' it's output of energy to how much each specific object weighs, to then apply 'proportional force' to them all?

Why would a force like the wind adjust its output to how much each specific objects area, to then apply 'proportional force' to them all?

Again, all forces are proportional to something. The question is what.

No actual forces will apply 'proportional force' on objects, based on their mass, and then apply 'equal force' to them all!

No, as that is a direct contradiction. If it applies a proportional force, it will not be an equal force unless whatever it is proportional to is equal.
Gravity is proportional to mass. This means it will NOT be equal.

So why do they FALL at the same speed

Because a force that is proportional to mass is acting on them.
This is trivial to understand.
Again, F=ma. If a is the same, that means F is proportional to m.

is that both have more DENSITY than the medium they're within, which is AIR. Being all objects in air, have MORE DENSITY than air, they all move downward through air at the same speed, same rate of acceleration, regardless of their mass!

WHY?
Again, why should being more dense than air make them move at all?
Why in a particular direction?
Why at a particular rate? A rate which varies over Earth.
And why don't denser objects fall faster?
e.g. steel is roughly 3 times as dense as aluminium, so why doesn't it accelerate 3 times as fast?

If they were being 'pulled down to the surface', by some force, the one and ONLY force in existence

And another strawman. Gravity is NOT the only force.

It would mean we could lift up a 20 ton boulder, throw it up 20 feet into air, like it was a little pebble, since' gravity' would apply 'proportional force' to both objects. Pulling both down with 'proportional force', and throwing them up into air with 'proportional force'!

Once more, PURE BS!
As gravity is applying a force proportional to mass, the 20 ton boulder has a much larger force acting on it than a tiny pebble. Gravity is NOT applying a force throwing them up into the air. YOU ARE! That means in order to throw the 20 ton building into the air you need to apply a much larger force to it.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 12, 2023, 10:32:14 PM

If it 'pulls down' all objects equally, we could PUT THEM UP INTO AIR equally too.

Claiming that 'gravity' uses 'PROPORTIONAL FORCE' is nonsense. Why would a 2 ton object within air hit the surface with more force than a 2lb.

Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration.

You

Quote

What if a huge, powerful magnet applied 'proportional force' to all objects?

Shown me a magnet with the same mass of the earth. Wonder what would happen.  I think the 2 lbs weight and the 2 ton weight would be on the same scale of insignificance if either was dropped at 100 feet away from the magnet as big as the earth, they would accelerate at the magnetic at the same peed. 

Anyway.  The magnet only can be so attracted to iron.  It has the same amount of attraction for the iron in a 2 lbs weight or the iron in a two ton weight. 


By the way the mass of the earn is about 5.972 × 10^21 t

What’s 2 lbs or even two tons to a mass of 5.972 × 10^21 t? 

And why would they drop at measurable different rates?

By your argument, we should be able to throw up a 2 ton object into air, just the same as we can throw up a 2 lb object into air!  It would be the same force, and work the same way in both directions.

If it 'pulls down' a 2 ton object at the same rate as a 2 lb. object, we could throw a 2 ton object into air, same as a 2 lb object into air, right?

Your argument is nonsense. As usual.

By your argument, we should be able to throw up a 2 ton object into air, just the same as we can throw up a 2 lb object into air!  It would be the same force, and work the same way in both directions.

If it 'pulls down' a 2 ton object at the same rate as a 2 lb. object, we could throw a 2 ton object into air, same as a 2 lb object into air, right?

Your argument is nonsense. As usual.

How.  If force = m x a?

By your argument, we should be able to throw up a 2 ton object into air, just the same as we can throw up a 2 lb object into air!  It would be the same force, and work the same way in both directions.

No, that is by your strawman.

By reality (and thus our arguments), you can apply the same upwards force to a 2 ton object and a 2 lb object, but that would not cause them to accelerate the same.
Again, F=ma.
That means a=F/m.
Same force, but different masses means different acceleration. A force proportional to mass means equal acceleration.

If it 'pulls down' a 2 ton object at the same rate as a 2 lb. object, we could throw a 2 ton object into air, same as a 2 lb object into air, right?

It pulls them down at the same rate because it applies a force proportional to mass.
If you want to throw them up in the air at the same rate you need to apply a force proportional to mass, so a much larger force for the 2 ton object.

It pulls them down at the same rate because it applies a force proportional to mass.
If you want to throw them up in the air at the same rate you need to apply a force proportional to mass, so a much larger force for the 2 ton object.

No, your made up force would offer proportional resistance to both objects, when a force lifts them up against that force. If your made up force applied enough strength to pull both objects down at the same speed, we could not lift up EITHER object from that force. Same as a large enough magnet that pulls in a heavy object and a light object to it at the same speed, both could not be pulled away. The magnet has too much strength to pull either one away, it doesn't matter if one is light in mass, the force is too strong to pull ANY object from it.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 13, 2023, 05:32:44 AM

It pulls them down at the same rate because it applies a force proportional to mass.
If you want to throw them up in the air at the same rate you need to apply a force proportional to mass, so a much larger force for the 2 ton object.

No, your made up force would offer proportional resistance to both objects, when a force lifts them up against that force. If your made up force applied enough strength to pull both objects down at the same speed, we could not lift up EITHER object from that force. Same as a large enough magnet that pulls in a heavy object and a light object to it at the same speed, both could not be pulled away. The magnet has too much strength to pull either one away, it doesn't matter if one is light in mass, the force is too strong to pull ANY object from it.

Again…

No, when the magnet is large enough, it would pull both objects towards it at either the same speed,

You mean like on an earth so massive it does this for the same for a 2 pound or 2 ton weight?

because the magnet resists our pull

And electromagnetic forces are different than strong nuclear forces, which are different than weak nuclear forces, which are all different than mass attracted to mass through gravity. 

One.  Gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces.  So you can’t compare the fundamental forces based off of electromagnetism vs the strength of gravity.

Two.  It makes sense the mutual attraction between the earth and a B-52 is greater than the mutual attraction of the earth and a hummingbird.

No, your made up force

And again.  Make a video of you holding a 50 lbs weight straight out at arm’s length, shoulder high while explaining how gravity is “made” up.  Or a video of you riding a bicycle up a mountain.

For the 50 weight.  You mean gravity that actually allows one to accurately model the stain and stress holding the weight out puts on the body. 

Quote from: JackBlack on May 13, 2023, 05:32:44 AM

It pulls them down at the same rate because it applies a force proportional to mass.
If you want to throw them up in the air at the same rate you need to apply a force proportional to mass, so a much larger force for the 2 ton object.

No, your made up force would offer proportional resistance to both objects, when a force lifts them up against that force. If your made up force applied enough strength to pull both objects down at the same speed, we could not lift up EITHER object from that force. Same as a large enough magnet that pulls in a heavy object and a light object to it at the same speed, both could not be pulled away. The magnet has too much strength to pull either one away, it doesn't matter if one is light in mass, the force is too strong to pull ANY object from it.

Not speed.
Accelleration.
Things fall at the same rate of increasing speed when air resistence is removed.

The convention has chosenthe word 'gravity'.
What word do you want to use?

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 14, 2023, 03:42:20 AM

No, your made up force

And again.  Make a video of you holding a 50 lbs weight straight out at arm’s length, shoulder high while explaining how gravity is “made” up.  Or a video of you riding a bicycle up a mountain.

For the 50 weight.  You mean gravity that actually allows one to accurately model the stain and stress holding the weight out puts on the body.

The object is on the ground, then YOU have to pick it up frpm the ground, and hold it in air, with your hand. It's mass and density while you hold it up within the air, which has little mass and density, make it hard for you to keep holding up in the air.

There is NO made up force within Earth below you, 'pulling down on it', when it is in air.

If any actual force DOES pull on that same object, you're holding up in air, like a rope attached to the object from below, and someone TUGGED on the rope, you WILL feel a force pulling it down, which DOES exist, and IS felt by you, AS a pulling down from an ACTUAL force below you.

Saying a force is 'pulling the object down', will OBVIOUSLY be FELT by you, AS a pull, if there IS an actual pull occurring. Why do we feel a rope pulling it down, but feel no pull from a made up force within Earth, is BECAUSE it is just made up by a pack of liars, who sold it as a real 'force', which is nothing but a 'farce', of massive implications that will eventually lead us into an absolute hell on Earth, sadly.

The object is on the ground, then YOU have to pick it up frpm the ground, and hold it in air, with your hand. It's mass and density while you hold it up within the air, which has little mass and density, make it hard for you to keep holding up in the air.

Why?
If there is no force due to gravity, or no other force trying to move it down, why can't I just pick it up, put it in the air and let go?
I can easily slide it to the right and let it go and it doesn't fall back to the left.

If any actual force DOES pull on that same object, you're holding up in air, like a rope attached to the object from below, and someone TUGGED on the rope, you WILL feel a force pulling it down, which DOES exist, and IS felt by you, AS a pulling down from an ACTUAL force below you.

You seem to think gravity should be like a tug. Why? That tugging on the rope is a sudden increase in force.
Why should it be?
What you have is a steady force, with someone just continually pulling the rope down, rather than tugging on it.
Just like you feel for other forces.

Why do we feel a rope pulling it down, but feel no pull from a made up force within Earth

Because in reality, your delusional BS isn't true, and we have the real force of gravity, which we do feel pulling objects down.

Os turbo of the belief he isnt pulled down toward the groubd?