Energy must be created into existence
Again, you are playing semantics.
Before you were born and created your own energy, that energy never at all existed, nor did the potential energy exist until you were born on Earth.
You appear to be appealing to some magical idea of energy completely disconnected from reality.
The energy I "create" comes from the potential energy I get from eating food.
If you wish to disagree, then stop eating food entirely (and don't drink anything except water). Continue this for a period of months and show us this creation of energy from nothing.
Otherwise, address the issues raised.
Again, the fact things fall down shows us it is not just energy magically dying. If it was, the object would travel in a straight line, slowing down until it eventually stops in mid-air.
Why would you need to have any force?
No force=no acceleration. Quite simple.
That is, what are you assuming to be found in Earths original state, and assuming space exists, and is an endless area, around Earth.
And you also assume that there is a force, within ball Earths core, holding all things down to the surface of Earth.
No, we aren't.
Instead, we make observations that to accelerate an object, you need to apply a force.
From this we conclude that a force is needed to cause objects to accelerate downwards.
From this people devised experiments which clearly demonstrated an attraction between masses.
This means we conclude this force is real based upon the plentiful evidence supporting it.
Based upon one of the fundamental principles of science which is required to make science useful, we don't appeal to special pleading and assume this is true everywhere.
Saying over and over ‘why is down the direction things go in? Why not up or any other direction?
Then I could ask you ‘why no direction for things’?
And we answered.
A directionality implies a direction is special.
Without a reason for a particular direction you could pick EVERY direction and that averages out to no direction.
Why would you mistakenly assume that what we have always seen, that all things but in the heavens above us, always have been on Earths surface or waters, maybe it’s always been so, unless we know it’s not the case.
That is YOU assuming it, not us.
You ASSUME that everything on the surface of Earth has always been there, even when there is evidence showing the opposite which you just reject because it doesn't fit your fantasy.
You appeal to your own wilful ignorance to assume everything started on Earth.
That’s the most logical and plausible case here
No, it isn't.
It is an entirely baseless assumption which has been refuted by plenty of evidence.
And there is most certainly a logical alternative which makes far more sense which you are unable to show a fault with.
You are just desperate to pretend this must be the case so you can pretend your delusional fantasy is true.
But as repeatedly shown the origin of an object is irrelevant
Everything you say is built upon things that don’t exist, not proven to exist, and then combine them all for your argument.
There you go projecting again.
That is what YOU are doing.
You are making baseless assumptions and just acting like they must be true, while what we are saying is based on evidence.
If everything is on Earth, and always has been on Earth, that would indicate or suggest to us, all things always have been on Earth.
Do you notice the circularity of that?
If everything has always been on Earth then everything has always been on Earth.
Entirely useless.
We don’t know that for a fact, nor can we ever know that.
We know it isn't a fact.
You cannot say gravity exists, say what it does, where it is, and so on…
Except we can, and have.
Nothing proves it exists at all.
Except countless experiments, including those you could do yourself but choose not to because it would destroy your fantasy.
You repeating the same lies wont change that.
These things are not debatable or in doubt. They’re fact.
They are not facts. They are your baseless lies you want to start with so you can pretend your position is true.
So no, we wont start from that BS.
When you struggle to hold up a 50 lb object but easily hold up a 2 ounce object, your made up force called gravity pulls both down at the same rate of speed and acceleration! In other words, it would vary its strength of pull as if they both were the very same weight
No, it wouldn't.
As they accelerate at the same rate, the force applied is proportional to the mass.
Instead of considering a 2 archaic unit object and a 50 archaic unit object, consider that 50 archaic unit object to be 400 of the 2 archaic unit objects.
What would you expect then?
Gravity would be applying the same force to each of those 400 objects as it does to the 1 object. Them being the same mass, they will accelerate at the same rate in the absence of other forces.
But in one case you are holding 1 of them, while in the other you are holding 400.
There is no problem with gravity here, just your repeated BS strawmen.
Gravity remains consistent with you unable to show a fault.
But even if it magically existed as a force, and magically varied its force to pull them down the same rate….
That would mean we’d hold them up as the same weight
Once more, no magic is involved.
This defies so much basic common knowledge.
If you have 2 objects one of which is much heavier, then to accelerate them at the same speed you need to push a lot more on the heavier object.
One would feel like a single 2 archaic unit object.
The other would feel like 400 of them.
So no, we wouldn't expect them to feel the same. Yet again you are just making up crap to pretend there is a problem when there is none.
Everything here is never done by actual forces
Your strawman is not an actual force, nor is it gravity. It is pure magic.
It is where YOU fail.
it is their heavier mass than the air which makes them fall at the same rate.
Which you have no justification for at all.