Density doesnt make things go up or down, gravity does.

Yes, on Earth, most of the time, denser objects go below less dense objects. Bravo, you have just explained density. Now what everyone wants to know is, why downwards? Why not upwards or to the right? We need an explanation for this phenomenon. In science, we cannot say "that's what it is" without looking for an explanation. If objects go downwards, it is because the force that attracts them downwards is greater than the one that attracts them upwards. What is this force and where does it come from?

Yes, on Earth, most of the time, denser objects go below less dense objects. Bravo, you have just explained density. Now what everyone wants to know is, why downwards? Why not upwards or to the right? We need an explanation for this phenomenon. In science, we cannot say "that's what it is" without looking for an explanation. If objects go downwards, it is because the force that attracts them downwards is greater than the one that attracts them upwards. What is this force and where does it come from?

Some classic turbo

We only need a force to put things up into air, because they are denser than air, and originate on the surface, not in air.

When you put something up into air, you are changing their place of origin, and their medium, to another medium not of their origin.

You threw them in one direction, upward, at first, right? Why would you not expect them to fall in the opposite direction to the one you threw them in? 

Objects are on ground, unless put upward into air, by a force. They fall through air again by their greater density than air.

It needs no force to fall through air, their greater density than air makes them fall through it down to the surface again.

Relative density of objects and the medium they’re within create their movement up or down in the medium. A sun rises or sinks in water by its relative density to water. It has  more mass but rises in water because it is less dense than water. Same as a helium balloon in less dense air rises up in it.

Because all things originated on the surface, not within air, so things mist first be PUT UP into air, from there place of origin, the ground.

That makes YOU, the factor which changes their medium, of the surface, into the air, which has much LESS mass and density than the objects ypu put up into air, from where they always ARE, on the surface.


It is YOU who threw them UP, above the surface, into the air.

So obviously, when they all originate on the surface, and have more mass and density than air, and you PUT them UP into air, they will fall THROUGH the air, to the ground again, which has more mass and density than all objects do, so they stop moving when they hit the surface.

Asking why things always go DOWN, not up, or another direction, wrongly assumes that all things originate in the air, as a starting point of your argument. That's wrong, of course, because all things originate on the surface, NOT in air. That was how God created it as.

Like if you could design a planet, which we could live on. You set all the rules, how to build it all, from start to finish.

Why would you ever create a planet we could live on, as a BALL? No, you'd create a planet which has a FLAT surface, for us to move on. We build houses and buildings with flat surfaces, so why wouldn't your planet have a flat surface, to build our houses upon, right?

Simple, and perfect in design, just as the Earth is.

So… Turbs claiming mass returns to mass?  Or is it mass returns to greater mass?  but there’s no gravity? 

🤔

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Everything on Earth, was created to be on Earth, placed on Esrth from day one and ever since then.

You seem to believe everything on Earth was in ‘space’ and pulled down to Earth by a made up force!

Anything ever seen in ‘space’ floating around and pulled down to Earth by your magical force?

That’s what you’d need to show happens in your argument, seeing objects floating around in ‘space’ and getting ‘pulled down by a force’, but nothing ever has been floating in ‘space’ or pulled down by a force they made up and spewed forth to us!

created

Spamming the same delusional BS will not help you.
Things do not return to the point of origin.
They go down.
Origin will not help you, no matter how many times you spam the same pathetic BS.

We do not fall back to a point of origin.

And nor do we fall back to the surface.

As already explained, if you have a cliff and break a rock off it, that rock doesn't fall back to the surface of the cliff, it falls down.
It entirely ignores the fact that the surface is right beside it and instead falls down.
If you have an overhang, you can break something off the bottom, and it falls down, directly away from the surface it was broken off from.

And you can't try to average it over the entire Earth because that would mean everything should fall towards the north pole in your fantasy, not down.
But you can for a RE, and get everything falling to roughly the centre of Earth.

That’s what you’d need to show happens in your argument, seeing objects floating around in ‘space’ and getting ‘pulled down by a force’

So things like meteors falling to Earth which has been shown countless times, but you just reject because they show your argument is pure BS.

What you need to show is that NOTHING has ever fallen to Earth.

Meanwhile all we need to show is that we can pick something up, move it around however we want, and it falls DOWN!
Not back to where it started, but DOWN!

We can also show things like a pressure gradient and a force on a scale. None of which make any sense in your delusional pile of garbage.

Likewise, we can also show the cavendish experiment, an experiment which clearly demonstrates the existence of gravity that you can do yourself, but instead lie about and then flee from because it so trivially shows you are lying to everyone.

Care to stop with your pathetic deflection and try to honestly address the Cavendish experiment?

It seems like there's a semantics match going on. So is gravity mass returning to mass or something else entirely?

Also Cavendish was shite. And you know it I hope.

It seems like there's a semantics match going on. So is gravity mass returning to mass or something else entirely?

At a simple level, it is mass attracting mass. No need for it to be returning.

Also Cavendish was shite. And you know it I hope.

Cause you don’t like the results.  Explain how modern refinements to the Cavendish experiment are bogus.  And if you don’t think gravity is real, explain how an accelerometer in a cell phone uses gravity to reference down.  The heliocentric model leads to advancements, FE is useless to me. 

All objects of different masses, and density, which react in different ways or don’t react at all to any actual forces, except the made up force they named ‘gravity’, because it had to explain why all things of different masses and densities fell from air at the same speed of fall, which proved they fell from air by their greater mass and density than air, all having more mass/density than air to then fall through it at that same rate. More mass and density is not a factor because all things have more mass and density than air.

All objects of different masses, and density, which react in different ways or don’t react at all to any actual forces, except the made up force they named ‘gravity’

You mean the real force you hate and can't show any fault with?
And any objects where the ratio of mass to whatever the force acts on is constant.

which proved they fell from air by their greater mass and density than airdensity than air.

No it doesn't, because that is a complete non explanation and still doesn't address the issue.

Why would a chunk of steel with roughly 3 density of aluminium fall so it accelerates at basically the same rate?
There is no reason with your BS.
But gravity can explain it.

Something far more damning for your BS is the pressure gradient, something you can't explain at all.

It is the only reason all things of different masses and densities fall through air at the same rate. They are all of more mass and density than air, which makes them fall at the same rate through it.

This can be confirmed by having objects of different mass and density being dropped into the ocean.

They will not sink down through the water at the same rate. Your made up force should still pull them down at the same rate according to your argument.

The change is due to the different medium of water. It is denser and has more mass than air does, so lighter and less dense objects sink slower than heavy and dense objects sink in water.

The medium is what changes their rate, mass and density are factors in water, unlike in air.

This was how God designed all life and objects to exist on Earths surface. Our mass and density are greater than the air above us, while lesser than the surface below us where we exist.

Why would there need to be a force pulling us from air and holding us down on the surface, all things were designed to exist on the surface from the very beginning

Why would there need to be a force pulling us from air and holding us down on the surface, all things were designed to exist on the surface from the very beginning

If there is no force holding everything down, then why do you need to apply a force to pick things up?  Are you suggesting that density is a force?  Spoiler alert: it isn't.

It is the only reason all things of different masses and densities fall through air at the same rate.

No, that is not even a reason at all.

Why should being denser than a medium make it fall?
Why should simply being denser make it fall at the same rate?
Also note this is experimentally not true.
You can fill a balloon with carbon dioxide.
It is denser than the air, but it falls quite slowly through the atmosphere, compared to a steel ball or aluminium ball which while being much denser than the atmosphere, the steel ball is much denser than the aluminium, and they both fall at basically the same rate.

And this can be with all three being the same size so they experience the same air resistance.

They are all of more mass and density than air, which makes them fall at the same rate through it.
This can be confirmed by having objects of different mass and density being dropped into the ocean.
They will not sink down through the water at the same rate.

So they will show your claim is pure BS?
That it is not simply a case of being more dense makes them fall at the same rate?

Great job refuting yourself there.

The change here is due to the upwards buoyant force from gravity, and how significant that is compared to the downwards force acting directly on the object due to gravity.

For air, the upwards buoyant force is negligible for most objects, so they fall at basically the same rate.
e.g. going back to steel vs aluminium vs air and water.
The densities as kg/m^3 are roughly 8000 for steel, 2700 for aluminium, 1000 for water and 1.3 for air.
The downwards force due to gravity is given by the volume of the object, multiplied by g multiplied by the density (i.e. the mass times g). The upwards force due to buoyancy from the pressure gradient caused by gravity is the volume the object multiplied by g multiplied by the density of the fluid (i.e. the mass of the fluid displaced times g).
So for steel and aluminium in air, the buoyant force is ~0.016% and 0.048% of the downwards force due to gravity. So the effect is insignificant and can be ignored for most purposes.
But if you put them in water, you end up with the buoyant force being 12.5% and 37%, so quite significant and cannot be ignored.

And importantly, we can measure this difference on a scale. If the scale is accurate enough, you can even do it in air.

So, no. Our model explains it quite well.
But you directly contradicted yourself, and provided no explanation at all.

[imaginary fiend]

You can keep appealing to magic and your imaginary fiend all you want. It wont make it real, and it wont provide an explanation.

Why would there need to be a force pulling us from air and holding us down on the surface

Because all the evidence shows that you need a force to accelerate an object. No force, no acceleration, no going down.

Additionally, we have made force sensors, and can measure the downwards force acting on an object.
Lots of people even have such devices in their home called scales.
If there isn't a downwards force, what are these sensors measuring?

So we have all the evidence available which says one way or another making it clear that a force is required to accelerate something, and we have devices that can directly measure this force.

And on top of that, we also have the pressure gradient in the atmosphere, which would push everything up unless there was a force to counteract that.
So plenty to conclude there is a downwards force proportional to mass.

We have a coherent explanation which actually works.

You instead have "MAGIC!!!!!"
As well as wilful ignorance including by repeatedly ignoring the pressure gradient, and complaining about not having an experiment only to turn around and flee from an experiment.

This was how God designed all life and objects to exist on Earths surface. Our mass and density are greater than the air above us, while lesser than the surface below us where we exist.

Why would there need to be a force pulling us from air and holding us down on the surface, all things were designed to exist on the surface from the very beginning

It’s fascinating to see what flat earthers come up with.

The daftest thing is you could easily tweak your idea very slightly so that it doesn’t fundamentally break the basic mechanics that everything in the modern world is built on, from the industrial revolution up to whatever device you are currently using.

You need a force to accelerate an object, eg dropping something. 

You need a force to deflect a spring.  Without it, a weight on your scales/spring balance/force gauge will read a big fat zero.

These are the two most fundamental relations in mechanics, on which the more complicated things depend.

Why not just accept that and say that the force comes from God’s will to have everything on the ground or something?

You can call the rate things fall Goditational acceleration or something.  Give it the letter g in calculations and you have something that doesn’t completely contradict everything we know about how stuff works.  No idea why it would be measurably different in different places, but I hear He works in mysterious ways, so whatever.

Their own mass and density keep them on the surface.

They aren’t found in air, unless they are put upward into air by an external force.

An external force must act on things that exist on the surface, changing their place of origin and where they originate from, the surface of Earth.

That is the first force used here, putting objects on the surface off of the surface and into the air above the surface.

Things don’t exist in air by themselves, they’re on the surface and always have been on it.

When we throw them up into air, their greater mass and density makes them fall back down through the air, creating their own kinetic force in a fall through air.

That’s why we never feel ourselves being pulled down from air by an external force below us.

We are normally on ground, not within air all around us.

We feel a pull from an external force acting on us, and we don’t ever feel a pull when we’re in air and falling through it downward to the surface of Earth.

We always feel a force which acts on us, because it is not normally felt by us, and we know it’s not from us.

You just need to make up a force for your fairy tale story to hold up, as best you can, but it fails miserably to work at all.

Their own mass and density keep them on the surface.

Again, that clearly isn't the case.
Mass and density provide no reason to move them.

They aren’t found in air, unless they are put upward into air by an external force.

And that force is clearly not the reason, because applying a force to move something to the right doesn't make it fall back to the left.
And again, you don't nee to put them upwards.
You can break it off a cliff face, moving it horizontally; and you can break it off an overhang, moving it downwards.

Your BS simply doesn't work.

That’s why we never feel ourselves being pulled down from air by an external force below us.

Again, the simple fact is objects do have a downwards force acting on them, as easily measured by scales.

What we feel are forces being transferred through our body.

You just need to make up a force for your fairy tale story to hold up, as best you can, but it fails miserably to work at all.

There you go projecting again.
You are yet to provide a single example where the very real force of gravity fails to work.
Instead you just continually lie to everyone about it.
Likewise, you assert pure BS as a magical made up force, which entirely fails to work, and which would work a lot better on a round Earth.

Their own mass and density keep them on the surface.

They aren’t found in air, unless they are put upward into air by an external force.

An external force must act on things that exist on the surface, changing their place of origin and where they originate from, the surface of Earth.

That is the first force used here, putting objects on the surface off of the surface and into the air above the surface.

Things don’t exist in air by themselves, they’re on the surface and always have been on it.

When we throw them up into air, their greater mass and density makes them fall back down through the air, creating their own kinetic force in a fall through air.

That’s why we never feel ourselves being pulled down from air by an external force below us.

We are normally on ground, not within air all around us.

We feel a pull from an external force acting on us, and we don’t ever feel a pull when we’re in air and falling through it downward to the surface of Earth.

We always feel a force which acts on us, because it is not normally felt by us, and we know it’s not from us.

You just need to make up a force for your fairy tale story to hold up, as best you can, but it fails miserably to work at all.

Forget about fairy tales for a moment, forget about what shape the earth is, and all that. 

This is about basic mechanics.  We know that mechanics DOES work, because we built the modern world on it.  Millions of people studied it, verified the principles and used them to develop the technology we rely on over the last couple of hundreds years.  Up to and including whatever device you are currently looking at.

That’s some really solid evidence that it does work.  Whereas you just have a bunch of words that you say. 

Accelerating an object requires a force and deflecting a spring requires a force.  These are about the most fundamental basic principles of mechanics.

If you hold a bathroom scale against a wall and push on it, you  apply a force, deflect the spring(s) and move the dial.  No force, and the dial goes nowhere.  Standing on the scales does the same thing, only with your weight applying the force.

You don’t NEED to deny all this to believe the Earth is flat or things fall because God wants them to or whatever.  You could just replace gravity with a downward force because God and you’d have something that at least doesn’t contradict the basics of how stuff works.

Again, that clearly isn't the case.
Mass and density provide no reason to move them.

That’s very true within their normal state and place of origin, the Earths surface being their place or area or environment of origin.

Everyone but you, the master of all ignorance and foolish arguments, understands and knows what a place of origin means, in relation to Earth, and in relation to a specific environment on or within or above the Earth.

A place of origin is the environment and area things came to exist, and always have existed, in natural state.

The waters of Earth are the place of origin for sea life, our place of origin is on the ground, they are both different and both places of origin.

Each one is a place or environment of origin, and so are those glorious creations in the heavens, a place or environment of origin.

So it’s not a point of origin, it is a place or area or region or environment of origin. Where we could not exist in any other environment but our own, or others could exist in ours, in a natural state.

Fish are in water, the water is their place of origin, their place of existence.

That’s as simple as it gets, so get it or play the idiot, but I’m not wasting any more time on it either way.

origin

How many times are you planning on repeating the same pathetic refuted BS?
We have been over this countless times.
It doesn't explain it at all.
Once more, things do not go back to their point of origin, they go down.
Unless they are pushed up by the buoyant force and they go up.

Everyone but you

I think you mean everyone but you.
When people talk about a place of origin, they are effectively referring to a point, not a surface.
e.g. people will talk about where they originated, being a town, not the entire surface of Earth.

It is only you that seems to want to pretend it means the entire surface.

But again, even that doesn't help you.

What you really want to appeal to is the ancient idea of a natural state, where a god magically makes things go towards that natural state.

That’s as simple as it gets, so get it or play the idiot, but I’m not wasting any more time on it either way.

Sorry, you are already taking up the position of idiot.
I'm not going to kick you out of it.

It is the PLACE OF OUR ORIGIN, which is every point on it.

We first originate at a point on our place of origin, and move over our place of origin to many other points, and go into air above our place of origin, and come back down to our place of origin at any one of the points on our place of origin.

I’m done trying to explain this simple thing to you, what’s the use?

It is the PLACE OF OUR ORIGIN, which is every point on it.

How many times are you planning on repeating this same pathetic BS.
Again, it doesn't work.
No matter how many times you repeat, it still wont work.
There are many problems with it.

Again, things originate at a point, not a surface.
Why should they magically go to the surface rather than a particular point?

If you want to appeal to a composite object coming from multiple points, then it should go back to the average, which would be the north pole in your fantasy so that still fails.
The only hope to save it is by having a round Earth.

I’m done trying to explain this simple thing to you, what’s the use?

You said that before, yet here you are, repeating the same pathetic refuted BS.

No, there is no point in you repeating the same pathetic refuted BS to someone intelligent enough to see it is pure BS.
I will not be convinced by your pathetic assertions.
Especially not when you repeatedly ignore simple points which show it is pathetic BS.

The only purpose in repeating it is to show how pathetic and desperate you are.

Things originate on a place, an area or environment, so obviously on a point within that place of origin. The specific point they first exist is in their place or area of origin. They exist in that place of origin and always will exist there. What each point of that place is has nothing to do with where they originate, we move over the surface, which is our place of origin. Moving from one point to another point is within our place of origin. The whole area is the place of origin.

If someone says he’s from Nigeria, born there, do you say he didn’t originate from Nigeria because he didn’t stay at the same point he was born at?

That’s just stupid

Things originate on a place, an area or environment, so obviously on a point

Yes. The origin at a point.
Not an entire surface.
Thanks for yet again letting everyone know you have been intentionally lying to us.

Moving from one point to another point is within our place of origin.

No, it isn't.
It is moving away from the point of origin.

If someone says he’s from Nigeria, born there, do you say he didn’t originate from Nigeria because he didn’t stay at the same point he was born at?

No, I say he originated in Nigeria, and if your delusional BS that things fall to their origin was true, then if he tried to move away from it he should fall back to it.
That if your BS was true, then attempting to walk away from Nigeria should be like trying to walk up the side of a cliff.

But it is actually your BS that acts like he didn't originate from Nigeria. Because if he leaves Nigeria, say to go to New York, and then jumps, he falls back to New York, while you claim he falls to his origin. That is his origin is new York, and that by simply walking around you change your origin.

That’s just stupid

You most certainly are.

Again, your origin BS doesn't work for countless reasons.
Continually ignoring those reasons and spouting the same pathetic crap doesn't help you.

To further demonstrate you stupidity here is another example:
You say fish originate in water.
So lets say I go to a lake and take a fish out of the water. I'm not going to hold it above the water, instead I'll hold it above the land.
What way does it fall?
DOWN!
The fish still falls down to the ground. It doesn't go back to the water.

Your BS simply doesn't work.

Things originate on a place, an area or environment...

I'm curious as to what you mean by "things originate".  What kind of "things" are you referring to?  What exactly do you mean by "originate"? 

Everything that exists or ever did exist or will exist in future, must have a place of origin.

Any one point within that PLACE OF ORIGIN, not each point each was within that place or area or region of origin.

Don’t you believe all things first existed in ‘space’?

Give me your view on it.

Everything that exists or ever did exist or will exist in future, must have a place of origin.

Again, it depends on how you define "origin".  Does a car have a single point of origin if its components are made all over the world?  Does a plastic bottle originate at the time that it's molded, or when the crude oil was refined into plastic?  Or can we go even farther back to the tree in the prehistoric forest that died, was buried and decomposed into oil?  "Origin" can have various meanings depending on context, and you don't seem to be giving much context.

Everything that exists or ever did exist or will exist in future, must have a place of origin.

They must have a POINT of origin.
Not an entire magical surface.

And again, appealing to origin wont help you, as has been explained repeatedly.

And that point of origin is on our place of origin, on our planet of origin Earth.

This is opposed by the air as a place of origin, where nothing exists but the heavenly bodies higher than the air, being THEIR place of origin.

What is relevant here is that our place of origin is on the surface of Earth, not in the air above the surface. We don’t originate within air or among the stars higher up than the air.


That’s where our greater mass and density will keep us on the surface, and only if put up into air, where we do not exist or originate, does our greater mass and density than that of air make us fall downward through air back to our place of origin, the surface.

That is why there is no NEED for any force to pull us down from air or hold us down to the surface. Our greater mass and density make both of these things happen.


So easy and brilliantly designed that way. Why plug in a stupid pulling down holding down force we don’t even need?