Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

What about 1+1=2?
I was taught that when I was a child. Unless we are going into some non standard space like using binary or p-adic numbers or something like that, should I decide to stop following that "crap"?

There is a difference between what you learn that squares with reality, and what does not.

The bulk of math used today is used for practical purposes. We humans tend to forget the math that is only theoretical.

Right away, when teaching a kid addition and multiplication, you can start with real world objects. Here's an apple. And I just picked another. That's two. I have eight rows and eight columns, that's sixty-four apples. I give half of them away. That's thirty-two apples.
The reason I use order of operations as an example of why learned knowledge can't always be trusted is this. When you write out a number equation, and it doesn't square to what you see, then it's not right. So what are we taught here? That multiplication and division have priority over addition and subtraction. 2+4/6 is a sloppy problem that ought to have parentheses. But when we enter it into our handy calculator...
2 + (4 / 6)=2.66666666667
No, wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Why is it wrong? Because the actual thing being calculated is assumed to be a fraction. But that's not what we asked. Let's make this a word problem.

Maddie raises apples for a living. Currently, she has two shipments of apples, as a result of her hard work. But this is not enough, so she went to OrderApples.org and bought four more shipments. She has to deliver to six places. How many shipments go to each?

Using real world shipments of apples, we can quickly tell that this simple and automatic calculation is wrong, that it's actually (2+4)/6. But the point of why I didn't include parentheses is that this calculator doesn't even think they are worthy of inclusion in the Basic tab of the calculator. It is all too willing to get the answer wrong for you, but not have a means of grouping things as part of default function, lumping this with tan, sin, cos, roots, and squares.

If you think I reject everything I'm taught, you haven't been understanding a single word I've said. I reject theoretical knowledge where the conclusions of the formula don't square with testing. It I make a calculation of height of a tree based on angle, I had better climb that tree, or what I calculated is worthless.

So when someone tells me the Earth is round, but they have no "apple" to show me, I tell them to bugger off. Show me a sphere that pulls water so that it clings to its side while stationary. Then show me it doing that while moving and orbiting another object.
But instead, you point at the horizon and say objects are going past a hill. And instead, you say that gravity is pulling water down, so it doesn't have to have even the tiniest drop of water stick to it. How convenient! A proof that you don't have to demonstrate! What "gravity" actually is would be something else entirely, nor is there any constant in how quickly things fall. That's absurd! A feather and a bowling ball reach terminal velocity at different speeds and do in fact fall at different rates.

If someone says to me that magnets attract metal, and then I go miles away from them and anything they might do to rig the results, and I find that in fact this silverware is stuck to a magnet, then yeah it works. But your "We can't test water clinging to a sphere because gravity is too great. We need to move to outer space and then we can test this" is slightly less convincing than a Barnum act.

Show me a sphere that pulls water so that it clings to its side while stationary. Then show me it doing that while moving and orbiting another object.

Why should we when RE doesn’t make that claim?  It’s just another FE straw man fallacy that needs to be retired once and for all.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 13, 2025, 05:55:39 AM

Show me a sphere that pulls water so that it clings to its side while stationary. Then show me it doing that while moving and orbiting another object.

Why should we when RE doesn’t make that claim?  It’s just another FE straw man fallacy that needs to be retired once and for all.

Nit a strawman


Hes literally asking for space sized examples to prove space sized example.

Since hes thrown out alk space examples as cgi it is impossible.


Only thing yo do is laugh in his fCe

There is a difference between what you learn that squares with reality, and what does not.

Yes, which is why I discarded things like Santa Clause and Christianity, because they don't square with reality; while accepting things like the RE, which does square with reality and explains it quite well.

The reason I use order of operations as an example of why learned knowledge can't always be trusted is this.

Which is simply a matter of not understanding and not communicating.
You want to go to that, fine, I have a large collection of apples laid out in grids.
One grid is 2 by 4, one is 8 by 8, one is 4 by 13. How many apples do I have?
2*4+8*8+4*13
And that is the correct way to write it out.

No, wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

And if it is wrong, it is the person who wrote it that is wrong, not the statement itself.
Math is a language which has a meaning.
If someone meant (2+4)/6, then they should have written (2+4)/6.
If they instead write 2+4/6, then they wrote the wrong thing.

Let's make this a word problem.

And then understand how to translate it.

But to understand better, and make a comparison, lets make a slight change, and look at two similar word problems:

Maddie raises apples for a living. Currently, she has two shipments of apples, as a result of her hard work. But this is not enough, so she went to OrderApples.org and bought four more shipments. She has to deliver to two places. How many shipments go to each?

vs

Maddie raises apples for a living. Currently, she has two shipments of apples, as a result of her hard work. She also has a join farm with another person that produces 4 shipments, but this is shared equally between the two people. How many shipments does she have in total?

In the first case you have (2+4)/2
In the second case you have 2+(4/2), which is the same as 2+4/2

It isn't a simple case of those particular words are the only possibility so must be the way.
Instead it is a case of understanding how to translate from the words to the text.

If you would like another example, it is like going from the sentence:
"My dog brought me its lead". into
"Mein Hund brachte mir seine führte"
instead of
"Mein Hund brachte mir seine Leine"

Where instead of interpreting lead as a noun which the dog brought to you, you instead interpret it as the verb lead.

You translating it wrong doesn't make the system wrong. It makes YOU wrong.
Likewise, if someone who natively spoke German was learning English and read that sentence and thought of the wrong lead, that doesn't make English wrong. It means the person trying to understand it is wrong.
For math, we try to remove the ambiguity by defining a specific order of operations.
It is an agreed upon convention, just like the meaning of words.
You not liking that order doesn't make it wrong.

So if you screw up and write it as 2+4/6, when what you really meant was (2+4)/6, the mistake is entirely with you.
Don't blame the calculator for your inability to understand.

But the point of why I didn't include parentheses is that this calculator doesn't even think they are worthy of inclusion in the Basic tab of the calculator.

Because that calculator would assume you do the simple thing:
2+4=
/6=

That then gives the correct answer.
That is how those calculators are meant to be used.
The most basic ones wouldn't even allow the equal sign, instead as soon as you entered any other operator it would put an implicit equal, end the calculation and start the next one.

For example, if I use the calculator in Windows 10 on "Standard" mode, then I type in 2 + 4 / 6 =
and it gives me the answer 1.
And if you pay attention as it does so, I type in 2, and the number appears in the big area.
I press + and I see "2 +" up above in small font.
The 2 is still there in big so I can just hit enter to ad it, but I type in 4 instead, and then 4 appears in the big area.
Then I hit /, and the result of 2+4 gets taken up to the top. Not as 2+4 or anything like that, but as 6, with it literally showing "6 ÷".

That is how simple calculators work.
They don't PEDMAS, because they can only handle one operation at a time.

More sophisticated calculators, which can handle multiple operations at a time, need to be able to unambiguously decide what that order that so that every time it is entered it will get the same result; and ideally this order should be agreed upon between different calculators so they all get the same result.
And other than implicit multiplication, they do.

So which simple calculator were you using?
Or is it more likely that to intentionally show this problem, you are using an advanced calculator which does have parentheses, but you chose not to use them?

If you think I reject everything I'm taught

I don't. I'm pointing out the stupidity of your premise.
The fact that it was taught to me as a child does not make it crap that should be dismissed.
The fact that you don't reject everything you were taught shows how stupid that premise of yours is.

The fact I was taught it as a child is NOT a reason to reject it.
So you asking as if it is is really desperate and pathetic.

I reject theoretical knowledge where the conclusions of the formula don't square with testing

Yet you can't provide a single example of this for the RE.
Instead you reject it because you don't like it.

In fact, you appear to outright reject formulae and do whatever you can to avoid them.

It I make a calculation of height of a tree based on angle, I had better climb that tree, or what I calculated is worthless.

That entirely depends on why you are calculating it.
Are you trying to get an estimate of the route zone to know where to avoid digging without undermining the tree?
Are you trying to see how tall it is to see how far away structures need to be to avoid being hit by it if it falls down?
Are you trying to see if it is long enough to be cut down for planks?
Are you trying to see if it is the right height to be cut down and taken inside as a Christmas tree?
Are you trying to see if it is too tall for the powerlines going overhead?
Are you measuring its height to monitor its growth?

There are plenty of reasons to measure the height, not just to climb it.

So when someone tells me the Earth is round, but they have no "apple" to show me, I tell them to bugger off.

And when someone tells you Earth is round, and they have plenty to show you, you just ignore all that they show, make excuses, outright lie, and then appeal to your tiny balls, when the formulae show what should happen to water on your tiny balls.
If you want water to stick to your tiny balls, you need to be in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
But you don't want that.
You instead demand something that shouldn't happen.

You are also told of other experiments to confirm gravity which you ignore.
And plenty of evidence to show Earth is round, which again you ignore, all because water does exactly what is expected for a RE.

A feather and a bowling ball reach terminal velocity

Try it in a vacuum.

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2025, 10:52:38 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 13, 2025, 05:55:39 AM

Show me a sphere that pulls water so that it clings to its side while stationary. Then show me it doing that while moving and orbiting another object.

Why should we when RE doesn’t make that claim?  It’s just another FE straw man fallacy that needs to be retired once and for all.

Nit a strawman


Hes literally asking for space sized examples to prove space sized example.

Since hes thrown out alk space examples as cgi it is impossible.


Only thing yo do is laugh in his fCe

Have you been paying attention at all?

He wants us to prove that water will stick to a globe, by having a small ball, on Earth, being held up above Earth, having water stick to it.

He is NOT asking a for an astronomical example.
He is asking for a test he can do at home.

So he is asking for a test which gives results which would contradict mainstream physics, and will dismiss the RE model if it does exactly what the RE model predicts should happen.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 13, 2025, 05:55:39 AM

Show me a sphere that pulls water so that it clings to its side while stationary. Then show me it doing that while moving and orbiting another object.

Why should we when RE doesn’t make that claim?  It’s just another FE straw man fallacy that needs to be retired once and for all.

Dude, it's a simple request.

You say the Earth has central gravity, and water, soil, lava, etc, etc, etc is pulled toward the center while it rotates and orbits, show me one instance of this happening. Just one. Set up an experiment where Earth's gravity is cut, just as you can cut gravity with superconductors and such.  Then place these objects and let us watch your model.

But you can't.  You mock me and jeer at me for believing something so ridiculous. But you are completely unable to prove the existence of gravity. Meanwhile...

You similarly cannot prove (as per the title) that the sun causes the Earth to orbit, and not (as we would see, were most of us not thoroughly brainwashed) the sun orbiting in and out of our location.

Because this is what I notice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

Point A

Point B


Point C (note the light beneath the clouds)

Plato was right.

Dude, it's a simple request.

Yes.  Simple, but impossible.

You say the Earth has central gravity, and water, soil, lava, etc, etc, etc is pulled toward the center while it rotates and orbits, show me one instance of this happening. Just one. Set up an experiment where Earth's gravity is cut, just as you can cut gravity with superconductors and such.  Then place these objects and let us watch your model.

The thing is, gravity can't be cut off with superconductors or such.  The force of gravity can be overcome by other forces, but it can't be cut off.  The closest we can come is free fall.

But you can't.  You mock me and jeer at me for believing something so ridiculous.

To be fair, you should be mocked and jeered at for thinking that gravity can be turned off.

But you are completely unable to prove the existence of gravity. Meanwhile...

Me proving gravity exists and you accepting that gravity exists are two different things.  You've already demonstrated over and over that you're never going to accept gravity exists, so me trying to prove it does, is nothing but a waste of my time.

You similarly cannot prove (as per the title) that the sun causes the Earth to orbit, and not (as we would see, were most of us not thoroughly brainwashed) the sun orbiting in and out of our location.

I've always thought that round earth geocentrism makes a whole lot more sense that flat earth geocentrism.  At least RE geocentrism has a model that kinda, sorta works.  Then again, I just don't have a big enough ego to demand that the entire universe revolve around me.

Yes.  Simple, but impossible.

Meanwhile, it is very possible to show that the sun orbits the Earth.

You simple make a time lapse from sunrise to sunset, tracking the entire path from day to night.

But you can't actually show your model.

It is a simple request that is impossible for you to carry out.

Here's someone who at least was intellectually honest enough to listen, even if he didn't agree.

Also he starts out by smashing a TV, which gives him major props in my book.

He does a good job explaining flat Earth for dummies even though point #1 is not 100%. If Earth were a true coin, you couldn't dig.

I've always thought that round earth geocentrism makes a whole lot more sense that flat earth geocentrism.  At least RE geocentrism has a model that kinda, sorta works.  Then again, I just don't have a big enough ego to demand that the entire universe revolve around me.

Round Earthers think they are humble and Flat Earthers are arrogant, because they see themselves as the center of the universe.  But it's a strange sort of arrogance that is far more reluctant to have its childhood ideas proven wrong than accept that there is a God who loves and cares for us personally.

The sun isn't really geocentric either. It's democentric. Whether the Earth is round or flat, the sun moves around our perspective. Things are centered around us, not the Earth. But geocentrism is accurate, I guess.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 13, 2025, 11:32:50 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 13, 2025, 10:52:38 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 13, 2025, 05:55:39 AM

Show me a sphere that pulls water so that it clings to its side while stationary. Then show me it doing that while moving and orbiting another object.

Why should we when RE doesn’t make that claim?  It’s just another FE straw man fallacy that needs to be retired once and for all.

Nit a strawman


Hes literally asking for space sized examples to prove space sized example.

Since hes thrown out alk space examples as cgi it is impossible.


Only thing yo do is laugh in his fCe

Have you been paying attention at all?

He wants us to prove that water will stick to a globe, by having a small ball, on Earth, being held up above Earth, having water stick to it.

He is NOT asking a for an astronomical example.
He is asking for a test he can do at home.

So he is asking for a test which gives results which would contradict mainstream physics, and will dismiss the RE model if it does exactly what the RE model predicts should happen.

i have been paying attention

it is HE that doesn't understand that his request is as i described it because HE doesn't comprehend we are already on earth.

it has already been explained to him he's asking us to show fridge magnets meanwhile standing 1000000000x larger super magnet.
it makes no sense.


look at his following post - he's asking for us to turn off earths gravity so we can prove what cavendish already did.
he's moronic.

A fridge magnet defies gravity.



So ummm, how is it that gravity can be so strong that it utterly fails to be provable, because it overrides attempts to do what I ask about making a real demonstration of an orbiting rotating sphere attracting objects to itself, causing them to fall towards that object.
...But so weak that a tiny magnet can overthrow it?

Occam's Razor offers a far simpler explanation. Gravity doesn't exist. It can't prove that demonstration of heavy objects making their own gravity. And it can't

"But... but... things fall! Of course gravity..." No, you are using a different force as a red herring for the force you want to exist. Buoyancy and magnetism are real forces. Gravity is not. Gravity is a stand-in for real forces.

The North Pole is supposed to be a very powerful magnet.  Yet we don't say that other magnets cannot work because of of the North Pole. The Earth's oceans together form a large group of connected waterways. But regardless of how much water, buoyancy is demonstratable.

Yet you pull out this excuse when talking about gravity. Or other matters of round Earth.

BULL
SHIT

The falling you observe is not gravity. Buoyancy is universal. Gravity is a scam dreamed up Newton and other Freemasons.

moron


my legs jumping defies gravity



...but to a degree




except like my legs, and the thing in your photo, i don't keep flying up.
something
SOMETHING holds me down.

guess what that thing is.....




do an experitment.
hold an elastic with your finger to your nose.
with your other hand stretch the elastic away from your face.
your arm being the above legs or the above magnet.
but eventually you'll reach an end.
the tension.
the gravity.
then let go of the elastic.

report back the results

Dude, it's a simple request.

A simple BS request.
A request which you know the results you claim would support a RE would actually contradict it.
A request which you know if granted would contradict gravity.

It has been explained to you repeatedly why your test is BS.
Yet you keep clinging to it.

It has even been explained how you can do a different test to show gravity.
Such as the Cavendish experiment.

Set up an experiment where Earth's gravity is cut

So set up an experiment with pure magic?

just as you can cut gravity with superconductors and such.

Superconductors don't "cut" gravity.

Again, if you want an honest test, do the Cavendish experiment.
You have a rod suspended in the middle from a support by a string and swivel so it can freely rotate (an alternative would be to have it floating).
On the end of this rod, you place 2 large masses.
Then on the ground near them you place 2 large masses, which would result in gravity causing the rod to rotate in a particular direction.
Then observe what happens over a period of several hours.
Note: hours are required due to how weak the force is.

But you can't.  You mock me and jeer at me for believing something so ridiculous. But you are completely unable to prove the existence of gravity.

You believe ridiculous BS, so that isn't surprising.
Meanwhile, gravity has been shown to exist beyond any sane doubt.
There are plenty of experiments to show it exists, and there are plenty of craft in orbit based upon it.

Because this is what I notice.
...
Plato was right.

So Plato was right that you are a complete imbecile, trapped inside your cave and unable to comprehend the wider world?

Because we have explained how we get those observations from a RE model. But you can't explain with yours.
The best you can do is provide vague crap which fails under even tiny scrutiny.

Meanwhile, it is very possible to show that the sun orbits the Earth.

No, it is entirely impossible to do that.
The best you get is showing the relative motion of the sun.
But that doesn't tell you which is moving.

You simple make a time lapse from sunrise to sunset, tracking the entire path from day to night.

Which clearly shows the sun goes BELOW your point on Earth. It doesn't hover above circling.

It demonstrates the FE model is wrong.

But you can't actually show your model.
It is a simple request that is impossible for you to carry out.

You have been shown it plenty of times, and proceeded to ignore it or lie about it.

Round Earthers think they are humble and Flat Earthers are arrogant

Not necessarily.
Plenty of REers are arrogant.
FEers could be arrogant, or just incredibly stupid and ignorant, or brainwashed or plenty of other things.

What is abundantly clear is that they have not reached and do not maintain their position based upon logic and evidence.
You are a great example of that.
Look at how you need to continually flee from such trivial questions.

But it's a strange sort of arrogance that is far more reluctant to have its childhood ideas proven wrong than accept that there is a God who loves and cares for us personally.

You mean the special kind of arrogance that not only do you believe that you are the centre of the universe, but you also believe there is an incredibly powerful being that you call a god that loves you personally and personally cares for you.
That is extreme arrogance.

So ummm, how is it that gravity can be so strong that it utterly fails to be provable

It isn't.
It has been proven beyond any sane doubt.

...But so weak that a tiny magnet can overthrow it?

This just demonstrates yet another failure to understand on your part.

It isn't really the strength that is the issue here.
Instead, the issue is that for gravity, like attracts like, while for magnetism and electrostatics, opposites attract.
That means for gravity, it is very easy to have a large mass come together with a massive gravitation field and be the dominant object; while with magnetism it is much harder.

Gravity is a very weak force, but Earth is so big, so the gravitational attraction to Earth is significant.

Occam's Razor offers a far simpler explanation.

That you are either a complete imbecile, or are knowingly lying to everyone.

With so many things explained by gravity, Occam's Razor indicates it exists.
The fact that there is yet to be a viable alternative presented indicates it exists.

It can't prove that demonstration of heavy objects making their own gravity.

Yes it can. The Cavendish experiment.

Buoyancy

Cannot explain what is observed by itself.

Fluids are observed to have a pressure gradient. There is no reason for that in your magic buoyancy.
This pressure should be pushing objects up, but in your magic buoyancy it isn't.

If we instead honestly analyse the situation, taking note of the pressure gradient and the force applied on the object by it, we end up with your magic buoyancy simply being a downwards force proportional to mass, i.e. gravity.
This gravity then directly causes the pressure gradient, with that pressure gradient then causing the upwards force known as buoyancy.

The North Pole is supposed to be a very powerful magnet.

No, it isn't.
The core of Earth is a fairly weak magnet.

The falling you observe is not gravity.

Then provide a viable alternative.
And then also have that alternative explain the Cavendish experiment.

Contrary to a logical fallacy, you don't "win" an argument when you exhaust your opponent. It doesn't make wrong points right.

The Cavendish experiment

Wherein Cavendish makes a series of weights from a pendulum, carefully manufacturing a situation so no air would interfere.

Yes, I am aware that a bowling ball and a feather drop as fast in a vacuum.

But in the real world, not a carefully controlled lab room (when you control the procedure enough, there is risk of making an experiment that doesn't represent reality), I drop a bookmark and a snowglobe together, and I discover that on average the bookmark hits the ground second. Sometimes, they hit at the same time. I'll chalk it up to a rush of displaced air from the heavier object disrupting the fall of the second.

9.86 m/s is a meme though. It's just a number that he came up with because it sounds cool. This was done in 1798? Ummm yeah, they hadn't invented stopwatches yet. How did he know the exact number of meters falling each second? He didn't. That is why this is the science equivalent of a meme.

Because of the unit conventions then in use, the gravitational constant does not appear explicitly in Cavendish's work.

Exactly. Someone put it in later. Just as someone put it in later that buoyancy needs gravity in order to function.

When the original finding don't produce the exact result, and some third party adds in "Oh yeah, he proved this decimal point amount" when no, in fact it's not mentioned explictly... sorry buddy. That's delusional BS, right there.

Dod you try the elastic experiment?


Please report findings

This?

do an experitment.
hold an elastic with your finger to your nose.
with your other hand stretch the elastic away from your face.
your arm being the above legs or the above magnet.
but eventually you'll reach an end.
the tension.
the gravity.
then let go of the elastic.

That's not gravity. That's tension.

Gravity refers to the downward drifting toward the ground. The supposed "force" that "pulls" objects to the ground rather than just accepting that they fall on their own by virtue of being heavier than air.

What this so-called "experiment" is intended to do is to use pain to forcibly teach me that I am wrong. Unfortunately, I already know the "findings". I get whacked in the face. Not because of gravity, but because of elastic tension. If the elastic doesn't instead snap.

repeat the experiement

lie on the ground.
hold a can of soup above your face.
let go of the can of soup.


like your hovering magnet, did the can keep going up?
or was there something drawing it back?


report back your findings.

A number of your "experiments" seem to involve personal injury.

Let's do a buoyancy test.

Lie down underwater. I will drop a log into the water. If gravity causes the log to fall onto you, you can get up. If it floats completely or sinks only to bob back up, you have to stay under water until... until I say that it is okay to come up. Oh, I need to check on a pot roast. Be back in an hour!

Buoyancy and not gravity is responsible for an object falling. It is simply a difference between air and water.
Now that you're done drowning lie down on nice soft grass. The same log has less density than water, but we will test if it has more density than air. Hold still.

personal injury?
why?
you claim that gravity doesn't exist and propose that once you lift something, it will stay up there forever.
that a magnet can hold up another magnet, and taht there are no oposing forces involved.



so perform the experiment.
report back your findings.

Contrary to a logical fallacy, you don't "win" an argument when you exhaust your opponent. It doesn't make wrong points right.

Likewise, you don't "win" by entirely ignoring the issues raised and jumping topic.
Instead that is a clear sign of defeat, with you having been defeated and entirely incapable of defending your position countless times.
e.g. when you flee from simple questions like asking how the light from the sun magically illuminates the clouds from below when it is above, you demonstrate that you know you have no answer.
When you blatantly lie about simple diagrams showing how an eclipse works, you demonstrate that you know you have no answer.

Wherein Cavendish makes a series of weights from a pendulum, carefully manufacturing a situation so no air would interfere.

i.e. a simple test of gravity, which YOU CAN DO YOURSELF!
So don't like by claiming you can't.

Yes, I am aware that a bowling ball and a feather drop as fast in a vacuum.

i.e. clearly demonstrating your claim is wrong. Your objection is wrong.

when you control the procedure enough, there is risk of making an experiment that doesn't represent reality

Now try it honestly.
When you control the procedure enough, you can remove variables that will influence the result.

Doing it in a vacuum shows what happens in the absence of other forces.
It takes out a big variable, AIR RESISTANCE (as well as the upwards buoyant force).

And in this case, we observe that the objects in the chamber accelerate at the same rate.
i.e. we observe that these objects are acted upon by a downwards force proportional to mass.

Doing it in the air introduces those forces back in. Now you have contend with the upwards buoyant force and air resistance and factor that in to any modelling of the situation. (something you hate to do)

9.86 m/s is a meme though

No, that is just your BS strawman.
Firstly, the value changes depending on location. It is NOT fixed.
Secondly, that value you picked is made up. It varies from roughly 9.76 to 9.84.
But more importantly, you don't even get the units right. It is m/s^2, not m/s.

This was done in 1798? Ummm yeah, they hadn't invented stopwatches yet. How did he know the exact number of meters falling each second? He didn't. That is why this is the science equivalent of a meme.

No, that is why your objection is equivalent to a meme. It is just stupid BS demonstrating such a fundamental lack of understanding of so many things (or just outright dishonesty).

If you understood, you would understand that for a particular location this value applies more generally than just to an object falling straight down.
There are multiple different situations where this value appears.
A more modern example is the force on a balance/scale, being F=g*m.
So if you can independently measure the mass and the force, you can calculate g.

But more importantly, it appears in the motion of a pendulum. Which was used back in the 1700s to determine the value of g.
The period of oscillation of a pendulum is approximately equal to 2*pi*sqrt(L/g), where L is the length of the arm.
So with a pendulum of a known length, you can set it oscillating for a known period of time, and by counting the number of oscillations, you can calculate the period of the pendulum and from that calculate the value of g.

But more importantly, science doesn't give a damn where it came from.
What is important is that this is a value which is empirically obtainable. You can measure it yourself.
So if you don't believe them, you can go find out the value yourself and see how it compares.
You trying to dismiss it by appealing to the history of it just shows deseparation.

Exactly. Someone put it in later. Just as someone put it in later that buoyancy needs gravity in order to function.

Now try again honestly.
The gravitational constant it is referring to is G, not g.

Cavendish was determining the mean density of Earth.
Other than the fact that buoyancy is dependent on gravity, this has NOTHING to do with buoyancy.
The Cavendish experiment did not rely upon buoyancy at all.
It is a direct test of gravity that you can do.
But again, instead of even try you just make up BS excuses to dismiss it.

Depending upon what you do, you can get different results.
If you do it the way Cavendish did, you get the density of Earth.
But you can instead use the same results to get G.

But either way, it is a direct and simple test of gravitational attraction between 2 masses.
So to apply Occam's razor, you need to address this experiment.
If your BS alternative doesn't explain this, Occam's razor rejects it.
If you need multiple explanations to be able to explain why things fall and this, Occam's razor rejects it.

rather than just accepting that they fall on their own by virtue of being heavier than air.

Because as explained, this provides no reason for them to fall.
It cannot explain why it should fall at a particular rate.
It cannot explain why this rate varies over Earth.
It cannot explain why this rate does not depend on the mass in any significant way until the object has a density comparable to that of air.
It cannot explain the force on a scale.
It cannot explain the observed and measured pressure gradient.
It cannot explain why this pressure gradient doesn't then push objects up.
It cannot explain things like the Cavendish experiment.
It cannot explain the countless objects in orbit.

Conversely, gravity explains:
Why it falls down.
Why at this rate.
Why this rate varies with location.
Why this rate does not vary with mass.
Why this results in a force on a scale.
The pressure gradient.
The effect of the pressure gradient which does push objects up as the buoyant force.
The Cavendish experiment.
And why things orbit.


Why should we accept your BS when it can't explain so much, and we have a much better alternative that does explain so much.

Let's do a buoyancy test.

You mean a test of gravity and the resulting pressure gradient and resulting upwards force from it?

Quote

Yes.  Simple, but impossible.

Meanwhile, it is very possible to show that the sun orbits the Earth.

You simple make a time lapse from sunrise to sunset, tracking the entire path from day to night.

For a round earth, yeah, that looks reasonable.  However, that would not match what you would expect to see it the earth was flat.

But you can't actually show your model.

Why not?

https://thoughtfullysustainable.com/solar-system-model/

It is a simple request that is impossible for you to carry out.

I was referring to your "water sticking to a ball" experiment.  Gravity is impossible to turn off, but it's simple to show a round earth spinning on its axis.  The sun, moon, planets and the rest of the universe all rotating around a flat earth, each at slightly different rates, if a bit trickier.

Heavy things fall because they are heavy


Right........

Heavy things fall because they are heavy

Right...

Why else should they fall?

Let's assume that I have a bookcase, and we'll replace "the force of gravity" with "human intervention" and see how easy this is to swallow.

I lay a 1900 page 8.5" x 11" hardcover tome diagonally against a mass market paperback. And then I walk away.

Does it (A) smush the paperback on account of outweighing the paperback by about 15 lb? Or is it (B) because late at night, I snuck into that room and pressed down on it?

This is the absurdity of gravity. You may as well say that a group of faeries flies around looking for any loose object and pushes it down.

Or... maybe Occam's Razor here, and we find that just having objects having mass and density internal to the object requires no outside intervention by gravitas pixies.



One simple adjustment and we have the flat Earth model.



The RE scientists all say the universe is essentially flat. Their only mistake is thinking the Earth is subject to the universe, instead of being the universe. All of these planets (and the sun and stars) orbit the Earth.

You failed to understand Circular Definition.

Water is wet because its wet.

Why else should they fall?

Because a force acts on them to make them fall.
Otherwise, the real question is why should they fall?

Let's assume that I have a bookcase, and we'll replace "the force of gravity" with "human intervention" and see how easy this is to swallow.

You mean you will appeal to the force of gravity but pretend it isn't.

This is the absurdity of gravity.

No, that is yet another pathetic attempt to ridicule it.

Or... maybe Occam's Razor here

As explained above, is clearly not on your side.
Occam's Razor indicates there is a downwards force proportional to mass.

If you want to appeal to Occam's Razor, you need to address the multitude of things gravity already explains, and still have a simpler model.
Until then, it indicates you are wrong.

One simple adjustment and we have the flat Earth model.

Except it then entirely fails to explain pretty much any observation.
e.g. in this model, the sun is always above Earth, there is no way for it to ever set, there is no way for it to illuminate clouds from below or shine up through the clouds.

The RE scientists all say the universe is essentially flat.

By which they mean space is Euclidean, nothing to do with it being a disc.

Or... maybe Occam's Razor here, and we find that just having objects having mass and density internal to the object requires no outside intervention by gravitas pixies.

Do you understand (or even care about) the difference between a scalar and vector?  You really should.

The RE scientists all say the universe is essentially flat.

The universe being flat doesn't mean what you think it means.
https://www.astronomy.com/science/what-shape-is-the-universe/

The Vector!

Occam's Razor indicates there is a downwards force proportional to mass.

It does, does it?

So on top of believing gravitas fey go around zapping everything with downward pull magic to get them to conform to the gravity that the Earth's core (btw, someone earlier confused the North Pole and the Earth's core, saying the latter was a weak magnet (even though it powerfully attracts all compasses in the northern hemisphere)) yet somehow cannot catch up to jumbo jets and birds, you also believe Occam's Razor has whispered in your ear.

Good to know.

In a day or two, I will head to Texas by plane.

Unlike you, who has to reconcile how such a big object isn't pulled down by force proportional to mass (yes, you said that, when the biggest planes are hundreds of tons), I understand that gravity doesn't exist, that planes fly because despite their high weight, they have low density (more than air, yes, but their larger size actually factoes in their favor), that even this density is overcome by aerodynamic motion. I believe the plane will fly just fine without any hangups with gravity. It won't pull the plane down.

Oh, and here's the Cavendish Experiment.

Someone didnt do the elastic experiment.

The point that your arm is tronger to overpower the elastic, but doesnt make the elastic magically disappear, so when your arm is removed, the elastic does what?

Report findings.




So on the airplane, the jet engines have more power than gravity.
And grabity is stillthere because the stewards can walk around serving cookies and drinks.
They arent magically floating up.

SOMETHING is pulling them down.

Someone didnt do the elastic experiment.

The point that your arm is tronger to overpower the elastic, but doesnt make the elastic magically disappear, so when your arm is removed, the elastic does what?

Report findings.

Tronger?

I suppose I'll need you to repeat the log experiment.

So on the airplane, the jet engines have more power than gravity.
And gravity is still there because the stewards can walk around serving cookies and drinks.
They aren't magically floating up.

SOMETHING is pulling them down.

Negative buoyancy and directionality. Both of which are largely internal to the state of the object.

And directionality does not really hold objects in place.

Let's get a picture of a plane for reference.





Now, if the plane did this?


You can see directionality while tilting a bookcase.

Everything will shift to wherever is the bottom.
Upright? The shelf itself. Tilted? Starts to scoot toward the side of the shelf. Tipped to the side? Books (and the fish, and the clock) sit on the side of the shelf. Upside down? Books are on what was the top of each shelf.

Spectacular!


see when the plane is banking into the steward, the steward will feel it.
just like you get slightly heavier on the initial start of an elevator ride up.
the plane and the elevator are pushing into the person.

because an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by another force.
when the plane and the person are both moving >
but then then plane suddenly changes ^, the person still will move >.
and it is the floor of the plane that pushes the person ^.


amazing, eh?!


accounting for forces is what engineers do.
and things falling down, is one (ONE) of those forces.



so the TOTAL forces at your finger tip is the arm extension out, and the elastic tension pulling in.
and when the arm over powers the elastic, it doesn't make the elastic disappear.
and that is evident when the fingers let go.
or is it?
we still haven't heard your findings report.
please report.



spectacular!