Why do they have to be ‘pulled down’ by any force at all?
Well if we go based upon what you said:
"No objects are in motion until a force acts on them to put them into motion."
So if we have an object stationary in mid air, according to you, it shall remain stationary until a force puts it into motion.
So for it to move down, there must be a force to put it into motion.
But really, the question is why should they go down?
What is making them go down?
Density alone is not enough.
A force acting to put them up is not enough.
You have nothing.
So when objects are on the surface, they don’t move at all. When thrown up into air, they are in different conditions. They are then within a medium they do not exist in normally. They are in a medium of less density than they have.
So what?
Why should that make them fall?
You still have no answer.
there is no force which needs to act on them
Yet even you said that "No objects are in motion until a force acts on them to put them into motion."
No force is needed to create a hurricane or lightning.
Yes, there is.
Otherwise they wouldn't form.
Only magnetic force pulls in objects
And electrostatic forces, and gravity.
And this includes the electrostatic forces holding objects together.
If forces only pushes, you wouldn't be able to have solid objects. Everything would be a gas.
His first ‘Law’ states that objects in motion or not in motion are the same thing.
No, it doesn't. Not at all.
Objects are first and always NOT in motion
That is your baseless claim you are yet to justify.
That is not addressed by his second ‘Law’ at all. It continues from that false narrative, so it’s bs as well.
You mean it doesn't agree with your BS narrative.
Objects ARE motionless.
No, plenty of objects are in motion.
You are now literally saying that objects don't move.
Your desperation and dishonesty truly knows no bounds.
They do not both exist in natural state, they are ALL motionless in natural state.
Prove it.
Why hasn't the moon stopped?
In your delusional fantasy, what is the natural state for the moon? To be in motion or not in motion?
If you need more clarification
Clarification isn't the issue, it is justification for your baseless BS.
Show me any object that is always in motion on Earth.
I notice you want to restrict it to Earth.
Why?
What about the moon?
But why should we show you that? You are yet again making ridiculous demands.
Show me any object that is is motion which was not PUT into motion by an external force.
Show me any object that is motionless that was not stopped by an external force.
Or if you would like an example based upon what you say, go pick up a ball, hold it in mid air, and release it. Observe it go into motion. This motion is claimed by you to not be caused by a force.
No ‘objects are in motion’, objects are first PUT into motion.
That is your baseless claim you are yet to support.
the energy FROM that force is the only reason they GO into motion, stay in motion, until that energy dies out, and STOPS their motion.
Again, the energy doesn't magically die out.
Again, when you apply a force to an object to accelerate it you are converting that energy to kinetic energy.
That motion of the object is that energy. It doesn't magically die out. That would violate conservation of energy.
Show me any object in motion that isn’t PUT into motion by a force. You won’t find any.
Show me any object that was in motion but now isn't, that wasn't stopped by a force. You won't find any.
Newton was a great bs artist, but it doesn’t work.
What doesn't work?
So far you have rejected it, with no justification at all and instead asserted baseless BS.
You are yet to show a single part which doesn't work.
Conversely you have literally contradicted yourself, where you say objects need a force to be put into motion, but then claim that they don't so you can pretend no force is needed for objects to fall.
You can't have it both ways.
Either a force is needed so you need a force to make it fall; or you don't need a force and objects can magically accelerate with no force at all.