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

And that point of origin is

And that's all you need, showing it is a point, not some magical surface.

What is relevant here is that our place of origin is on the surface of Earth, not in the air above the surface.

i.e. it has nothing to do with our point of origin, but some magical vertical structuring you cannot explain or justify.

That’s where our greater mass and density will keep us on the surface

i.e. it has nothing to do with origin at all, but instead is just mass/density magically making things go down.

our greater mass and density than that of air make us fall downward through air

No, it doens't.
Because mass and density have no directionality, and are not forces so are incapable of accelerating objects.
You can say there is a force which acts on mass or density to move objects down, but that is still a force.

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.

Repeatedly asserting the same pathetic BS wont make it true.

We know that there is a force.
A force that can do things like compress a spring to register on a balance/scales.
A force that can be used to lift other things, like on a see saw or a counterweight for an elevator or the weight for a trebuchet.
A force that can be used to spin things and be used to generate electricity like a hydroelectric power station, or for other purposes like grinding flour in a water mill.

So there is quite clearly a downwards force.

Why plug in a stupid pulling down holding down force we don’t even need?

Because it is needed, as repeatedly explained; with you doing NOTHING to even attempt to refute the explanation.

Because mass and density have no directionality, and are not forces so are incapable of accelerating objects

No, density and mass is relative to the medium they’re within.

The surface below us has more mass and density than us, and the air above us had less mass and density than us. That’s why we don’t rise up into air or plummet down into the surface.

That requires no external force, right?

The Earth and all things on Earth are based on their mass and density, from the beginning. It was designed that way by our Creator.

That’s why we are on the surface, and don’t float up into air or drive through the surface.

Everything is based on one direction, and mass and density of each thing.

It’s hardly a coincidence that the ONLY things that rise up into air without any external force are things which have LESS DENSITY THAN AIR!

Your made up force would hold all things down to the surface whether more or less dense than air. But it doesn’t exist, had no need to exist, and that’s why your made up force fails to work at all.

No, density and mass is relative to the medium they’re within.

Which still provides no directionality, nor any reason for it to move.

Again, say I am hanging from the underside of a overhang. There is nothing but air for 1 km down.
What is making me move away from this dense overhang and downwards?

The surface below us has more mass and density than us

Not always, and trivial to demonstrate is not the case with things like steel balls held up by wooden tables.
The reason we don't magically fall through is because it is a solid, not a fluid.

That requires no external force, right?

If you want things to just remain as they are, then no.
But if you want them to go down, you do need a force, as you are accelerating the object.
If you want them to compress a spring on a scale to create a mass reading, then you need a force.
If you want to have them be able to push another object up due to a pivot (i.e. a see-saw) then you need a force to move the object up.
If you want it to be able to turn a turbine or a water wheel, against some form of resistance, then you need a force to overcome that resistance.

So yes, we need a force.
Just ignoring that and repeating the same pathetic BS doesn't help you.

It’s hardly a coincidence that the ONLY things that rise up into air without any external force are things which have LESS DENSITY THAN AIR!

No, it is a direct consequence of gravity; as explained to you repeatedly, and which you have been entirely incapable of showing a fault with.

Your made up force would hold all things down to the surface whether more or less dense than air.

You mean your made up force which you refuse to call a force, and which most people would say is pure magic?

Because the real force of gravity does pull everything down, including the air. But air pressure keeps things like the air up.

Again, your pathetic attempts to pretend gravity is wrong is like trying to refute gravity by putting a light kid on a see saw, then putting a heavy kid on the other side and say gravity must be wrong, because gravity pulled the heavier kid down pushing the lighter kid up in the process.

It is so pathetic and desperate it isn't funny.

No, density and mass is relative to the medium they’re within.

The surface below us has more mass and density than us, and the air above us had less mass and density than us. That’s why we don’t rise up into air or plummet down into the surface.

Does the ceiling in your room more have more or less mass and density than the air below it?

Nothing exists in air, except things in the heavens, and clouds, of course.

But everything else exists on the Earths surface, ground and waters of Earth.

A rock or tree or human or bird or insect exists on Earths surface, born and created to be on Earths surface.

That is where all things were created to be, what made up from the surface and down below the surface, when all things were created to be ON the Earths surface.

It was designed that way by our Creator.

Earth is a controlled environment, a protected and self sustained environment.

The directionality of falling is downward when things are put up from the surface into the air above the surface.

We know that all things exist on the surface, always have been on the surface. We’ve never seen anything existing above the surface other than things I’ve mentioned above.

And none of those things have come down to the surface, either. They were created to exist in the heavens above Earth, as things on the ground were created to exist on the surface.

No force was ever created for this, it was created this way.

There certainly is a force created when things are first put up into air by the first force acting on things.

The force is created by putting things that exist on the surface, above the surface, into air, where things do not exist or were created to be.

When things are put upward from the surface, where they all exist from their creation, it is their greater mass and density which holds them down to the surface. Above things is the air, which has less mass and density than all things do on the surface.

And the surface has more mass and density than all things on the surface do.

Things put upward into air have more mass and density than air, so fall downward through the air to the more mass and dense surface of Earth below them.

Their mass and density create force from their falling down in air motion. As a kinetic force is created by it.

This is not any external force acting on things in air, pulling them down from air. Their greater mass and density creates their fall through air downward to the surface.

Actual external forces don’t act like your made up force.

Actual forces don’t act the same way on objects of different masses and densities. Such a thing would be complete nonsense.

What makes this clearly a made up force, among so many problems it has beyond this one, crumbles by one of the biggest problems of all.

When we compare this supposedly ‘real’ force, to our other actual forces, it’s a joke!

Real forces don’t adjust their strength outward, they all emit their energy outward at one level at one time, hitting whatever is in their path and range of area.

They claim their made up force also does that, except for the next part, which is entirely ridiculous and cannot happen at all in the real world.

After forces emit their energy outward, and hitting all things in its path, each thing it hits, has a different reaction to these forces, if any at all, and those objects with more mass and density than other objects, may not react to the force at all, not have any reaction to it, not be moved or disturbed by the force at all. While other objects will react to it strongly, be moved or thrown around by that same force.

Forces emit energy outward, to whatever is out there to be hit by its energy.

That’s all they do. No more than that.

You would believe what they said to us about there being a force that will adjust its strength or level of energy emitted outward, at one level of energy, after that point, unlike all other actual forces never do, except for this force, which will then adjust its strength to each and every object of various masses and densities, to balance the level of strength each object is hit by, to each one’s mass and density, to a single strength of energy to make them all react the very same way, as if all were the same one object!!

created to be

Again, if you want to just keep asserting this pathetic crap, then just say your magic sky fairy magically pushes things down with pure magic and you have no explanation at all.

Otherwise, you aren't helping your case and are just looking absolutely pathetic.

The directionality of falling is downward when things are put up

And again, as asked repeatedly, WHAT IF THEY AREN'T PUT UP?
They can be put at an angle, especially if they are on a slope or a cliff and you pull it away from that surface.

They don't fall back opposite the direction they came, so that argument is clearly pure BS.
Repeating it after it has been refuted countless times just shows how pathetic, desperate and dishonest you are.

Stop just spouting the same pathetic, refuted BS.

We know that all things exist on the surface, always have been on the surface.

No, we don't.

For a fact we know that some things have been off the surface, countless things.

But ignoring that, that is again your pathetic baseless claim, one in which you have chosen to remain wilfully ignorant of evidence showing it is not the case.

it is their greater mass and density

Again, this is not an answer.
This gives no justification for the directionality.

And the surface has more mass and density than all things on the surface do.

No, it doesn't.
Again, a steel ball can sit happily on an aluminium table.
A lead weight is more dense than the surface of Earth.

You are just desperately spouting pathetic crap which is trivial to show is wrong.

This is not any external force acting on things in air, pulling them down from air.

Then they will not move down, as there is nothing accelerating them downwards.
You need a force to accelerate it.
You need a force to create a reading on a scale.

Actual external forces don’t act like your made up force.

You mean your made up magic?

You have spouted your pathetic crap about gravity so many times it isn't funny, and had it refuted countless times.

Again, the simplest thing to understand you are spouting pure BS.

Take a two identical 2 kg steel weights. If you drop them, they should accelerate at the same rate. Even based upon your blatant lies about gravity.
Now cut one in half so it is two separate 1 kg weights.
Should cutting in half magically make it speed up? No.
Should it magically make it slow down? No.

Your BS makes no sense.

When we compare this supposedly ‘real’ force, to our other actual forces, it’s a joke!

Nope, the only joke there is you.
When we compare gravity to other real forces, it works out just fine.

Like all forces, it is proportional to something.
Again, the simplest way to understand this is to consider two identical objects and join them together.

Forces emit energy outward, to whatever is out there to be hit by its energy.

No, they don't. It is more complicated than that. The easiest way to see that is to ask what happens if there isn't something for that energy to hit? Where does it go then?

But again, even taking your pathetic strawman and applying it, that doesn't mean every object is magically hit with the same energy resulting in the same force.

Again, if this was the case then it wouldn't matter if it was a tiny rock or a massive sail, the wind would impart the same force.
But you know that is pure BS.
The force acts on the object, on some property of that object, with it determining how much force is actually applied.


Now stop with the BS and try explaining where your magic force comes from.

Again, you don’t realize what wind force is, and how it works.

Let’s say a wind blows over an area 400 feet wide. That span of wind is the whole force of it, like a large wave on the ocean, or a strong current on a river, etc.

They emit one force, over a span of distance, not one line or point of wind or wave or current. They are spans of force.

It is the length of an object that gets hit by more of the wind span or wave span at once which is the variable here. The force is no different, it spans over a distance, hits whatever is within its span or the entire span hits it.

Wind does not adjust its strength to objects, it’s the objects which get hit by more or less of that one force of wind.

Your made up force magically adjusts its strength to each objects mass, and equalizes its force to make them all match up and get pulled down at the same rate of speed and acceleration, which is ridiculous and absurd.

Magnetic force would be much like your made up force, except for all objects, not just metals or magnetic objects.

That is how your made up force would act if it really existed. It’d emit one force of energy outward to all things in its reach, but pull them in at various rates of speed, or not pull some in at all, it would vary widely.

The strength of its force would be emitted at one level, constantly and endlessly, like a magnet does.

Forces don’t emit energy at thousands of different strengths at once, nor adjust in strength afterwards, or what each objects mass is, or sense their specific mass somehow, a magical feat in itself, and top it off, balancing how much strength to apply on them to pull them all down at the same speed and acceleration, which it picked for no reason at all, just decided it somehow or other.

That’s some incredibly far fetched story you’ve got here.

Wind isn’t balancing its strength and blowing all objects back by 12 feet at the same speed, that’s what you believe ‘gravity’ does!!

Forces do not care about what the properties of objects are, they simply emit energy outward at some strength, and that’s it.

They aren’t smart forces that assess some property of objects, and then adjust its strength to match them all up to react the same way, that’s what only your bs force is supposed to do, it’s truly a magical feat indeed

Everything in air has more mass and density than air, which means they all fall through air at the same speed. More mass and density of objects doesn’t matter at all in air.

This is further confirmed when objects are in a denser medium than air, which is water.

This differs from air, because objects of more mass and density DO sink down in water at a faster rate than objects of less mass and density.

Objects of less density than water will float on top of water, others will sink down in water.

A sub will sink and rise up in water by its relative density to water. Its own relative density creates its force of motion up or down in water.

Your made up force fails to explain why some objects rise up into air, not held down by this force which holds down all things to the surface. Not holding down some things isn’t good for your force, so you made up another force called buoyancy for this problem.

And it still fails miserably. As it should and must fail, it’s all made up fiction.

Again, you don’t realize what wind force is, and how it works.

Again, I do.
You just want to pretend you don't when it comes to applying the same logic to gravity.

Again, wind acts over area, gravity acts over mass, electrostatics acts over charge, and electromagnetism is more complex.

Let’s say a gravity acts over an object 400 kg wide. That span of gravity is the whole force of it, like a large wave on the ocean, or a strong current on a river, etc.

They emit one force, over a span of mass, not one line or point of gravity or wave or current. They are spans of force.

It is the mass of an object that gets hit by more of the gravity span at once which is the variable here. The force is no different, it spans over a mass, hits whatever is within its span or the entire span hits it.

Gravity does not adjust its strength to objects, it’s the objects which get hit by more or less of that one force of gravity.

See how it works the same?
But you want to pretend you are a complete imbecile and that somehow gravity should provide the same force regardless of the object.
It is dishonest, delusional BS.

Wind doesn't do it, so why should gravity?

Again, take a simple 2 kg object, and then cut it in half.
Why should the force magically double such that each of the 1 kg objects gets the same force as the entire 2 kg object?
Your BS simply makes no sense.

Any person with any intelligence at all, can easily see the total force acting on the two separate 1 kg objects should be equal to the force acting on the 2 kg object.
But not you.
You instead want to pretend that gravity magically sees that the object has been split in half so it now provides twice the force to pull in each 1 kg object with the same force as it did to the 2 kg object.

Your BS is ridiculous and absurd.

Try to just honestly answer that simple question.
Say you have a force of x acting on the 2 kg object from gravity.
We now split this 2 kg object in half into two identical 1 kg objects.
What should the force of gravity be on this 1 kg object?

Do you think it should be x/2 like any sane person?

See if you can honestly answer that question, or if you need to avoid, like the lying, cowardly POS you are.

Forces do not care about what the properties of objects are, they simply emit energy outward at some strength, and that’s it.

Pure BS, as shown by a simple magnet, a paperclip and a piece of paper.
We can hold the magnet and see it attract the paperclip to it, but not the piece of paper.
So clearly there is a property of the paperclip and paper which allows the paperclip to be attracted but not the paper.
We can also do it with different magnets, and see how magnets which can look identical can have different attractive forces. Some might not be able to lift the paperclip, while others can lift the paperclip and what the paperclip is attached to.

So once more, it is quite clear that you are spouting pure BS.

Everything in air has more mass and density than air

Which provides absolutely no reason at all for the object to move in any direction.

More mass and density of objects doesn’t matter at all in air.
This is further confirmed when objects are in a denser medium than air, which is water.
This differs from air, because objects of more mass and density DO sink down in water at a faster rate than objects of less mass and density.

So your confirmation of your pure BS is that your pure BS is proven to be wrong by a different medium?
That isn't confirmation. That is refutation.

What actually explains it is gravity, and the upwards buoyant force produced from the pressure gradient (which you must ignore at all costs) resulting from gravity.
For air, unless you are dealing with an object like a balloon, the upwards buoyant force is negligible.
But in water, it is significant.

If you bother trying to make a coherent, consistent model, you end up with something like:
a = g*V*(rho_obj-rho_fluid)/m.
This makes sense as a downwards force due to gravity (F=g*m) and an upwards force due to the pressure gradient (F=-g*V*rho_fluid).

Your made up force fails to explain why some objects rise up into air

Wrong again.
Your STRAWMAN fails.
The real force of gravity explains it quite well.
The simplest way to understand is that both the air and the object are being pulled down, like 2 kids on a see-saw.
The heavier one goes down while the lighter one gets pushed up.

The more complex way is recognising that fluids will have a pressure gradient due to each layer of the fluid having to support all the weight of the fluid above, resulting in the force increasing the further down you go, so an object placed in this fluid will have a greater pressure from below pushing up than from above pushing down, resulting in an upwards force on the object from the fluid.
Then if this force is greater than the downwards force on the object from gravity the object will go up.

This also explains why the weight of something decreases when it is submerged in a fluid, even partly.

So gravity explains it just fine.

Meanwhile, your delusional has no way to explain this pressure gradient, nor can it explain why this pressure gradient doesn't push things up. So you need to continually ignore it, acting like the pressure gradient doesn't exist; while in other threads directly appealing to this pressure gradient to explain how aircraft altimeters work.

So gravity works fine, your BS does not.
You are yet to show a single fault with gravity, instead resorting to blatantly lying about it again and again.
Meanwhile, plenty of faults have been shown with your pathetic BS which you just ignore and go on to repeat the same pathetic BS again and again.

Now again, try to answer the question honestly for once in your life (if you can't, refrain from posting any crap about anything like this ever again, as it will just further show everyone that you are a lying POS that doesn't care about the truth at all):
Say you have a force of x acting on the 2 kg object from gravity.
We now split this 2 kg object in half into two identical 1 kg objects.
What should the force of gravity be on this 1 kg object?

They made up a force, and it failed to hold up to the problems and conflicted itself as a made up force would always do in the end.

There’s not any reason or consistency of logical accounting within the two distinct mediums, air and water, to the objects put within those two mediums, which makes their made up force account for the direction of those objects going upward or downward in those two mediums.

Saying their made up force is within all objects and ‘planets’ and moons and stars, that more massive objects have more of that force within them than objects of lesser mass, is their entire basis of how that force works here.

That Earth has the greatest amount of this force within it, and all other things on Earth having less of that force within them, are held down to Earth by its having more of that force within it, and things going up into air, being first put upward into air by an external force, but not in air otherwise, will then be pulled down to the surface afterwards by that same force within Earth.

If that is their explanation, that the Earths greater mass means it has greater amount of this force within it than all other objects on Earth do, then it should be a consistently true, without any exceptions to that explanation they gave us for their force.

When it failed to explain many things which don’t work by their explanation for it, because they made it up to explain the ball Earth speeding through endless space while things are not flying off the surface, because a force within Earth holds all things down to it.

So when they claimed everything on Earth is held down to Earth by a force, they had many problems which couldn’t be explained by this.

Their force couldn’t work because it was made up, and didn’t even exist at all.

But they needed it as a force, and say it’s true, despite the failure of it holding up to all the scrutiny, the many conflictions of it, which cannot be resolved at all.

It fails to explain how some objects are not held down to Earths surface at all, which they claimed held all objects on Earth by a force, but that’s not true at all, their whole explanation for their force failed to hold up right there.

That’s when they made up another force to explain the first force not holding up like real forces do, they hold up as real forces.

Their force crapped out, and another force had to be made up yet again.

It’s ironic that they made up another force which is more similar to what really explains all of this.

Except they called it ‘buoyancy’, their newest made up force, which solved the failures of their first made up force, yet it also failed to hold up.

If the very basis of ‘gravity’ is that it’s a force within a ball Earth speeding through endless space, while it is spinning around itself, and flying around the Sun, and all at the same time, at very high speeds, three claims of a ball Earth doing at the same time to account for problems in the story, among many others beyond it.

Earth is a ball, and is tilted off a bit, on its north pole, to the Sun! 

While nothing has a direction in endless space, but the Earth has a tilt of a direction in space, right? Of course it does!!

What decides whether an object rises up into air, or when an object is put up into air by an external force, first of all, because nothing exists in air to start with, and must be put up into air by an external force, where nothing exists to start with, but they ignore that part for their ‘laws of bs’, it’s cut out and they take it from the airborne part….

What decides if objects rise up in air or water, or fall or sink in air or water?

The relative mass and density of objects to the medium they’re within, decides what they do.

That is all that decides it, if all other factors are accounted for first.

Their two made up forces don’t mean s&);t, cannot explain s&&;t about this, because they’re just made up fairy tale s$$(t.

That’s why all objects of different masses fall through air at the same speed, being they’re all of more mass and density than the air they’re all within when they fall through it. More mass doesn’t matter in air, it’s the same for all objects having more mass and density than air, beyond that mass is not a factor. All are going through air at the same speed.

This cannot ever occur from actual forces, it would be impossible to have this happen at all. It’s the stupidest claim ever, and that’s quite an achievement too.

Force will emit energy at once, at some level.

Now the force which was emitted outward at once, at one level of energy, is done, what happens after that doesn’t matter, the force is emitted, and that’s it!

They made up a force

No. They recognised a force.
A force that existed.
They later came up with experiments to show its existence, and were able to carry them out to show this force exists.

Then lying POS like you came along and lied about the force.
You were so desperate to pretend the force is fake, you lie about so many so called "problems", even though they aren't problems at all.

So desperate you need to ignore large parts of reality, like pretending air doesn't exist, all to pretend there are problems with this force which works just fine.

Every attempt by you and other lying POS like you to pretend this force doesn't work have failed.

The sole exception is expanding gravity to general relativity. To taking it from simply rest mass to a more complicated idea.

There’s not any reason or consistency of logical accounting within the two distinct mediums

Except the reasons you have been provided with repeatedly, NOT IGNORING THEIR EXISTSENCE! Understanding that the same force is trying to move them down.
So it is then both the object and the fluid trying to go down.

Or you can go the more complete explanation with the pressure gradient, which also clearly explains it.

Do you make any attempt at all to address these reasons? No.
You just entirely ignore them and repeat the same pathetic refuted lies.

Saying their made up force is within all objects and ‘planets’ and moons and stars, that more massive objects have more of that force within them than objects of lesser mass, is their entire basis of how that force works here.

No. That is YOUR STRAWMAN!

Back in reality, the force is a force proportional to the product of the masses.

they had many problems which couldn’t be explained by this.

Yet you can't provide a single problem.
Instead you can only provide lies which are only problems for your strawmen.

What decides whether an object rises up into air

Is a combination of the direct force of gravity acting on the object, and the indirect force of gravity acting on the fluid to create a pressure gradient in the fluid which in turn means there is a greater force from this fluid pushing up from below than there is from this fluid pushing down from above, resulting in and upwards force from the fluid commonly known as buoyancy.

It clearly has absolutely nothing at all to do with your BS claims of magical origin.
Because it doesn't matter in what direction the object is put into the air, or what direction the surface is, it falls down or goes up.

where nothing exists to start with

Except things like the air, which you are desperate to ignore because of how easily it destroys your pathetic BS.

they ignore that part for their ‘laws of bs’

The only ones with laws of BS here is you and people like you.

It is ignored for the laws of physics because they clearly don't give a damn.
Again, if you take an object and more it to the right, using a force to do so, it doesn't magically fall back to the left.
So the laws of physics clearly don't give a shit where the object started.

In fact, the only example you have of your pathetic laws of BS giving a damn where an object started is things falling back down, and then they magically only care that it needs to go down.

Except it also works if you break something off the side of cliff, it still goes down, not towards the cliff.

And again, that is how we can tell that what YOU are spouting is pure BS.

What decides if objects rise up in air or water, or fall or sink in air or water?

Again, gravity and the pressure gradient that is a result of gravity and something that destroys your pathetic BS.

The relative mass and density of objects to the medium they’re within, decides what they do.

Except it can't, because that doesn't provide any directionality or any reason to move in any direction.
It also requires you to ignore the pressure gradient as you have done countless times.

cannot explain s&&;t about this

Yet instead of even attempting to refute the explanations provided to you, you just continually repeat this same pathetic BS.
As if you know that these real forces can explain it, and that you have no rational objection to them, so you need to just repeatedly lie to everyone.

If it actually didn't explain it and you knew that you would be able to explain what is wrong with the explanation.
But instead you just ignore it as if the explanation was never provided.
Because you are a lying POS that doesn't give a damn about the truth and are happy to repeatedly lie to everyone to pretend your delusional fantasy is true.

That’s why all objects of different masses fall through air at the same speed, being they’re all of more mass and density than the air they’re all within when they fall through it.

Except again, that is not an explanation.
Why should being more dense than the air mean they all go down at the same rate?
And why do you then directly contradict that by saying it magically changes for water?
Why don't all objects that are more dense than water still fall down at the same rate?

Again, your BS doesn't work.

This cannot ever occur from actual forces

Except it can. As explained repeatedly, and even demonstrated with a simple trivial example with an accompanying question that so trivially shows you are lying to everyone that you need to flee from it at all costs.

Again, a force proportional to mass would do just that.
That is entirely possible for a force.
Again, all forces are proportional to something.
If they weren't, all materials would have the same magnetic properties and the same reactivities.
So why can't it be proportional to mass? You have no reason.

And again, the simplest example:
Say you have a force of x acting on the 2 kg object from gravity.
We now split this 2 kg object in half into two identical 1 kg objects.
What should the force of gravity be on this 1 kg object?

Again, sane, honest people can trivially answer the question.
But not lying POS like you so desperate to reject reality.

We don’t need anything to keep us on the ground but our own mass and density.

Mass and density are not a force.  Why do I need to generate an upward force called lift to fly.

Why can’t I simply jump up and keep going up and up.  My legs pushed me off and away from the ground. 

When I jump, what causes me to slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  Stop for a split second.  Change travel of direction 180 degrees.  Then what force causes me to accelerate down.  Not drift down, but accelerate down.  How do you accelerate a mass without an unbalanced force.

No, objects within a foreign medium with less density than the objects, became that way when they were first put up into different environment than they exist in, by an external force acting on them.

Which then has objects within a different medium to theirs, and their greater mass and density make them fall down through the less dense medium to the surface. Only a force can put them up into air, because they have more mass and density than the air, so to go up in a less dense medium than theirs is, requires an external force.

But the opposite is not the same thing. They are now within a less dense medium than theirs is, and no external force is needed to make them fall down through the less dense medium, their mass and density make them fall through air, and their fall creates a force called kinetic force, the force of an objects motion.

No, objects within a foreign medium with less density than the objects, became that way when they were first put up into different environment than they exist in, by an external force acting on them.

You keep saying up when that is not the only option.
If I break something off a cliff, that is breaking it out sideways, not up.
If I break something off an overhang, that is breaking out downwards, not up.

And again, the fact I can push something to the right, using an external acting on the object, and it doesn't fall back to the left, clearly demonstrates your claim is pure BS.

You need more than it simply originating there.

their greater mass and density make them fall down through the less dense medium to the surface.

Again, you have no basis for this.
Contnually asserting the same crap with no explanation does not help.

no external force is needed to make them fall down

Yes, there is.
All the available evidence clearly demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that in order to accelerate you need a force.
On top of that, there is the pressure gradient of the atmosphere pushing them up. THAT REQUIRES A FORCE.
As it starts moving through the air, it encounters air resistance trying to stop it. To fight that and continue moving, it REQUIRES A FORCE.
You can also place it on a support like a table, but if you put too much on it, the table breaks, and that REQUIRES A FORCE.
If you place it on a scale, with a simple spring mechanism, it compresses the spring to measure its weight and that REQUIRES A FORCE.

Everything that says one way or another shows it needs a force.
Your pathetic lies will not change that.

their fall creates a force called kinetic force, the force of an objects motion.

No, their fall is caused by a force called gravity.
There is no kinetic force.
There is no force of an objects motion.
That would be momentum.

But there you go fleeing from a trivial question yet agian.
Once more:
Say you have a force of x acting on the 2 kg object from gravity.
We now split this 2 kg object in half into two identical 1 kg objects.
What should the force of gravity be on this 1 kg object?

Can you answer this, or can you only deflect and lie?

This differs from air,

Things don’t just fall.  Gravity impacts everything from how much load a cable can lift to the trajectory of bullets.  To why a bullet fired from a leveled firearm and a bullet dropped from the same height hit the ground at the same time.




For heavier than air flight you need to creat a greater force of lift to overcome the downward force of gravity.

Gravity is the force acting on styrofoam that causes the more dense steel spring to elongate down in accordance to Hooke’s laws in a hanging spring scale. 

Mass and density are not a force.  Why do I need to generate an upward force called lift to fly.

Why can’t I simply jump up and keep going up and up.  My legs pushed me off and away from the ground.

When I jump, what causes me to slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  Stop for a split second.  Change travel of direction 180 degrees.  Then what force causes me to accelerate down.  Not drift down, but accelerate down.  How do you accelerate a mass without an unbalanced force.

Mass and density are not a force.  Why do I need to generate an upward force called lift to fly.

Because, on Earth, gravity keeps one on the ground. An upwards force will counteract the gravity and enable flight or jumping.

Why can’t I simply jump up and keep going up and up.  My legs pushed me off and away from the ground.

Because human legs don't have enough power to reach escape velocity. (not just gravity and air resistance... multi stage rockets can leave Earth)

When I jump, what causes me to slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  Stop for a split second.  Change travel of direction 180 degrees.  Then what force causes me to accelerate down.  Not drift down, but accelerate down.  How do you accelerate a mass without an unbalanced force.

True. As for the question at the end, it isn't possible to accelerate a mass without some unbalanced force. Acceleration is a change of force, and Newtons 2nd Law states that an external force is needed to change the velocity (or accelerate).

There’s no need for a made up ‘holding all things down to Earth’ force. Everything was created to be on or above Earths surface, a fully designed and controlled environment which put almost all things on Earths flat surface and waters, held within the Earth by a massive circular wall of ice, encased by a massive dome which holds waters, seen as blue in sunlight.

If you refuse to look at our origins, where all things were first created to exist, which is most likely where everything has ever been seen to exist since day one, ever since then, and until the end of Earths existence, as opposed to about 40 years of someone saying a meteor from ‘space’ hit Earth, without a shred of valid proof for it, but I’m sure other things besides effin meteors would be out there if we have a gazillion life forms and objects here as is. Now it’s just ‘meteors’? Are you a loony?  Thousands of years and nothing gets ‘pulled down to Earth’ by a made up bs force, except for some generic rocks nobody even sees until they’re over there effin heads   Gee Earl that must be some sorts alien ship of space shit flying over mamas house!

Thanks bumpkin, you watch the local news like it’s gospel truth like hack black surely does. At least you’re not a bs artist like he is. He prays to the scum at nasa who murdered Gus Grissom for his integrity and courage.  He’ll be the only true hero the world will one day know. Those who were behind it are mostly dead by now, and are paying for what they did or went along with. They well deserve it

Say you have a force of x acting on the 2 kg object from gravity.
We now split this 2 kg object in half into two identical 1 kg objects.
What should the force of gravity be on this 1 kg object?

Angry large fonts that say nothing? Good one.

You’re apparently still clueless about how forces work, despite how many times I’ve explained it to you.

Forces are simply energy, emitted outward by a source, and that’s it. They don’t know or give a s&$t about what happens after that energy is emitted. They aren’t intelligent beings, or have sensors to detect what they hit, or sense their specific mass and density in a millisecond, apply whatever strength of energy needed to it which matches all other objects/mass ratio to a single value, for whatever effin reason it ever would, and equate it to one rate of ‘pulling down to the surface’ speed! I’m sure it’s so different at the ball earth equator too, great argument dipshit

Angry large fonts that say nothing?

They say one very simple thing - you are a pathetic lying coward that can't even bring yourself to answer a trivial question which exposes your pathetic BS.

Even now, still absolutely no attempt by you to answer what should be such a simple question.
All because you know it destroys your BS and says that all your BS about forces and why gravity can't be one is pure BS.

I know how forces work. No matter how many times you have lied about it.
I already know what the answer is. I already know what the answer should be based upon how forces work.
You likely do as well, but know that answering will show either you are entirely insane or are knowingly lying to everyone.

So I'll ask again:

Say you have a force of x acting on the 2 kg object from gravity.
We now split this 2 kg object in half into two identical 1 kg objects.
What should the force of gravity be on this 1 kg object?

Note: This requires an answer expressed in terms of x.
For example you could say it is x, or 2x, or x/2, or 100 x, or anything in terms of that x.

Vague wordy BS is not an answer.

Can you answer this, or can you only deflect and lie, you lying scum?

Angry large fonts that say nothing? Good one.

You’re apparently still clueless about how forces work,

dipshit

When I jump, what causes me to slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  Stop for a split second.  Change travel of direction 180 degrees.  Then what force causes me to accelerate down.  Not drift down, but accelerate down.  How do you accelerate a mass without an unbalanced force.



How do you accelerate a mass without unbalanced forces acting on that mass dipshit. 

Mass and density are not forces. 

Forces are simply energy, emitted outward by a source, and that’s it.

That depends on what kind of force you are referring to.  You do know that there are different kinds of forces, don't you?

I wonder if you understand (or care about) the difference between contact and non-contact forces.

Say you have a force of x acting on the 2 kg object from gravity.
We now split this 2 kg object in half into two identical 1 kg objects.
What should the force of gravity be on this 1 kg object?

It should and would be the very same force, that’s what all of our actual forces do, they cannot do anything other than that.

As much as you’d really like to believe forces can vary their level of strength or energy, after being emitted outward from their source, that isn’t even possible, because forces are just energy, which they emit outward from their sources, at one moment, at one level of strength outward, and that’s it! 

Your laughable invention of a force is emitted outward, at one level of strength or energy…..but somehow can instantly sense all objects masses and densities, while they never want to explain how that could ever happen, because it’s utterly ridiculous and cannot happen in the first place…

But if we ignore how it could happen, and assume it actually DOES happen somehow, like they ignore all that part, then they have a force which is unlike and has powers and features far beyond any other actual forces that exist.   

However it is able to instantly detect and measure each and every object within its range, that is how your magical force can fit in with the reality we see and know so well.

That’s some story, but it’s all nonsense.

Actual forces don’t vary in any way, at any time, at any point at all.

Your story is made up to fit the reality, and nothing made up that no actual forces will ever do, is why your force doesn’t exist in reality, only in fairy tales, in lousy ones that make no sense at all.

And no, your claim of wind being a variable force to objects based on their surface area, which the force varies its strength, but it’s the same strength and one strength emitted outward to whatever is there to be hit by that one force of wind, because wind is a large spread out over an area force, over that area, it is not a line or point outward force, it is a vast path over a large area of force.

Like other forces are, like a wave or current in waters, spread out as a force over a span of distance, not at one point or line or whatever.

They don’t care or know what they hit after emitting their forces. They don’t vary in strength at all, at any point, for any object, it’s just hopeless crap.

Wind is one level of strength that is spread out over a distance or area or span, even a child knows that is true.

It is the OBJECTS which vary in surface area that is hit over more or less span of that force of wind, the wind doesn’t change at all, it is one same strength of force the whole time, over one span of area.

Every force is one level of strength emitted outward from their sources, and what they hit, what happens to the objects it hits, is what varies here.

And they all make sense in how objects vary when hit by  actual forces.

Objects react differently from other objects. Some may not react at all to a force, while others do.

They made up a stupid story about a most powerful force, and everything it does can’t exist, and it conflicts with all our actual forces.

It should and would be the very same force,

Turbs.  You don’t even understand the distance between “force” mass density.

How do you get a mass to accelerate towards the earth without applying an unbalanced force over time. 

Throw out an object from a plane into the air. The object begins to fall and speed up its fall or accelerate in air, due to its greater mass and density than the air it’s put within from a plane.

What would you expect the object to do when it’s put in air from a plane? It’s not going to float around in air, or rise up in air, or move sideways in air, or at an up or down angle in air.

It’s greater mass and density can’t be supported up by the air, nor push it up in air, which leaves only one option for the objects direction of motion in air, which is falling through the air downward, without any support from the air at all.

Mass and density are not forces, I’ve never said they were forces, I said mass and density of objects when within a different medium of less or more mass and density to the objects, creates an unbalanced scenario, with two things of different mass and density from normal conditions.

After a force must act on objects which are on the ground, to thrown them up off the ground into the air, that is what creates an unnatural condition here, we used a force to thrown them out of their normal state into a different state they don’t exist within.

And that is where an objects mass and density create their motion of falling through air, that is how mass and density are USED to create motion, which is the actual force of motion here.

Look at how a submarine moves in water, it will sink down into water, and rise upward in water, and float atop water, so what is the variable in its direction in water?

Your made up force should pull the sub down in water to the bottom surface, so it’s not a force at all, it’s made up but fails to work at all as they claim it does.

Your second made up force doesn’t work either. Objects have less mass and density and less of your first made up force than the ball Earth does, you claim that Earth has greater made up force than all things on Earth do, but your claim is false, it doesn’t hold down all things to Earth by any force you made up.

That’s a big problem you can’t explain by your made up force, which can’t explain anything else either.

Making up another force that makes objects rise up in water and in air, doesn’t help your first made up force, if it cannot hold down all things to the surface, whatever their mass and density are, wouldn’t matter at all. Your very argument is that a force within the Earth is greater than all other things on Earth, and are held down to the surface by that force. No exceptions can exist to that claim. All have less of that force than Earth does, and that’s why all things are held down to the surface by this force.

Why wouldn’t it hold all things to the surface? All things have less of your made up force than the Earth, why would they not be held down if they have less mass and density than the air or water? Aren’t they held down to Earths surface too?

A subs density in water shouldn’t make it rise up or sink down or float atop water, if your force is really true.

Why would an objects density and mass become that same factor I said it was, which rules out your made up force existing at all? Because it is mass and density which explain all of these things. Your made up force sure didn’t explain it, or explain anything else either.

Your force that doesn’t hold down a little balloon filled with helium isn’t held down at all, and why? Because it is less dense than air is, no other reason needed for it.

What makes a sub rise up or sink down in the same water, isn’t from your made up force, depending on its density in water!

Why wouldn’t it pull down all ships on water, it wouldn’t matter how dense they are, with such a powerful force that doesn’t hold anything down to Esrth.

It should and would be the very same force, that’s what all of our actual forces do, they cannot do anything other than that.

When you say the same force, I take it you are saying that each of the 1 kg objects will experience a force of x?

You are saying the force is magically doubling.

Fundamentally, what is the difference between those 2 objects being 2 separate objects, vs being one?
What about if I tie them together with a loose string.
Does that make them count as a single object?
What about if I put them side by side? Do they count as a single object then?
What about if I start with the 2 kg object, and cut almost all the way through, but leave a tiny fragment attached?

How does your magic sentient force decide if it is 2 objects or one?

Even if you want to think about it in terms of energy, you still have the energy magically doubling.
That by simply cutting an object in 2, that magic source of the magic force now has to send out twice as much energy.

Do you not realise just how delusional that is?

However it is able to instantly detect and measure each and every object within its range, that is how your magical force can fit in with the reality we see and know so well.

No, that is how your strawman works.

Gravity, at its simplest is a field, with that field strength being measured in N/kg.
It isn't magically sensing what is there. Instead, that field acts on any object in it, based upon the mass of the object.
Just like an electric field is measured in units which are equivalent to N/C, and it acts on any object in it, based upon the charge of the object.

Gravity is behaving just like the other forces.

And this allows another great comparison.
If a force of x is acting on an object with a charge of 2 C, due to the electric field, then splitting it into two 1 C objects, will result in the force on each object being x/2.

Actual forces don’t vary in any way, at any time, at any point at all.

And now, out of pure desperation, you resort to outright contradicting yourself.
You have already tried lying about gravity by falsely claiming it doesn't vary in strength while saying real forces do. Now you want to say they don't vary at all?

Again, your BS is refuted by simple every day observations.
Take a magnet, a small piece of paper (around the size of a paperclip), and a paperclip.
Notice that the magnet can lift up the paperclip, but not the paper. But put the paper in the paperclip and the magnet can lift up both.
This clearly shows that forces are not magic like you want to pretend.

And no, your claim of wind being a variable force to objects based on their surface area

Is another great example of how you are wrong.
Take an object with a cross sectional area of 2 m^2, and then cut it in half to make two objects, each with an area of 1 m^2.
If the force due to the wind on the original object is x, then the force on each of the smaller objects is x/2.

because wind is a large spread out over an area force

Which is just a fancy BS way of admitting that the force of wind is proportional to area.
Just like the force of gravity is proportional to mass, and electrostatics is proportional to charge.

It is the OBJECTS which vary

Yes, for wind, gravity, magnetism, electrostatics, and so on.
Again, gravity isn't special in that regard.

it conflicts with all our actual forces.

Except you can't demonstrate a single actual problem, and instead need to claim delusional BS like cutting an object in half will magically double the total force and total energy, unlike any real force would ever behave.

due to its greater mass and density

We have been over this countless times.
This does not provide a reason, nor a directionality.

What would you expect the object to do when it’s put in air from a plane?

Without a force acting on it, the same as when I move it to the side. It should remain there.

It’s not going to float around in air

Without a force acting on it, why isn't it?

It’s greater mass and density can’t be supported

Without a force trying to move it down, what is there to support?
It seems fine "supporting" it against sideways motion, why not vertical?

nor push it up in air

We have been over this as well.
The pressure gradient of the atmosphere means there is a greater force pushing up from below, than pushing down from above.
This means the air WILL push it up.

to thrown them up off the ground into the air

Or diagonally, or even sideways off a cliff, or down off an overhang.
Again, that clearly isn't the reason.

Likewise, the fact that pushing an object to the right doesn't result in it falling back to the left, also shows that is not the reason.

You need something else.

Look at how a submarine moves in water

With a balance of forces.
The force of gravity acting directly on it trying to pull it down, and the less direct force of gravity which creates a pressure gradient in the water wish pushes the sub up (with that pressure also trying to crush the sub).
Something you can't explain at all, and instead you need to just entirely ignore the pressure gradient.

Your made up force should pull the sub down in water to the bottom surface

No, your strawman should.
Back in reality, the very real force of gravity you cannot show a single fault with can't just magically pull it through the water. Pulling the sub down means pushing the water up. And it is trying to pull both down.
Why should the sub go down and not the water?

fails to work at all

Again, your strawman fails to work.
Gravity works fine with you yet to show a single fault.

Your second made up force doesn’t work either.

You mean your second strawman fails to work.
While the very real force of buoyancy, which is a direct result of the pressure gradient you need to keep fleeing from, which is a direct result of gravity, still works fine with you still unable to show a fault.

That’s a big problem

No, that is a strawman based upon ignoring how gravity actually works and instead just lying about it while ignoring the repeated explanations of why you are wrong.

Making up another force

Again, we aren't.
We are providing a logical conclusion of gravity.
We don't need to make up anything.
Simply analysing what will happen to a fluid with gravity gives us buoyancy.

Your very argument is

No, that is your strawman.

Your force that doesn’t hold down a little balloon filled with helium isn’t held down at all, and why?

Again, already explained, because pulling it down requires pushing that same volume of air up.

Again, you may as well put a light kid on a see saw, then a heavy kid on the other side, and say gravity must be wrong, because the light kid went up.
It is truly pathetic.

What makes a sub rise up or sink down in the same water

The force of gravity acting directly on it trying to pull it down, and the less direct force of gravity which creates a pressure gradient in the water wish pushes the sub up (with that pressure also trying to crush the sub).

Throw out an object from a plane into the air.

That’s not what I asked.

How about addressing what was posted.

It covers a bullet fired from a level gun barrel hits the ground at the same time as a bullet dropped straight down from the same height. 

This differs from air,

Things don’t just fall.  Gravity impacts everything from how much load a cable can lift to the trajectory of bullets.  To why a bullet fired from a leveled firearm and a bullet dropped from the same height hit the ground at the same time.




For heavier than air flight you need to creat a greater force of lift to overcome the downward force of gravity.

Gravity is the force acting on styrofoam that causes the more dense steel spring to elongate down in accordance to Hooke’s laws in a hanging spring scale. 

Mass and density are not a force.  Why do I need to generate an upward force called lift to fly.

Why can’t I simply jump up and keep going up and up.  My legs pushed me off and away from the ground.

When I jump, what causes me to slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  Stop for a split second.  Change travel of direction 180 degrees.  Then what force causes me to accelerate down.  Not drift down, but accelerate down.  How do you accelerate a mass without an unbalanced force.