What keeps us on the ground

if not gravity, what keeps us on the ground

if not gravity, what keeps us on the ground

There are three answers to this. Maybe more, but:

1. Some flat-earthers say that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards and the acceleration is what we perceive as gravity. Never mind that if this were the case, we'd see the stars rushing past us at breathtaking speed.

2. Another answer to this is that all objects move toward the center of the universe, because it is in their nature. This doesn't actually answer the question, but it's something they can say.

3. And of course if we leave flat-earth aside, another explanation for what keeps us on the ground is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is constantly pressing down on us with his noodly appendages. This is the explanation I like best. Unless, of course, we follow Newton or Einstein.

Our greater mass than air keeps us on Earths surface, simple as that.

Why do you think we need to be held down to the surface? Our mass does that for us.

No, our weight is what keeps us on the ground.  Without gravity, mass would not know which way is down.

No, our weight is what keeps us on the ground.  Without gravity, mass would not know which way is down.

This is correct. Density, or mass, needs something to act on it. Gravity is the force that acts on mass to pull things in the direction of the force field. When a less-dense object is immersed in a more dense fluid, the less-dense object rises because gravity is pulling harder on the more-dense fluid.

"Up" and "down" are defined by the direction of pull of gravity. Without gravity there is no up or down.

Our greater mass than air keeps us on Earths surface, simple as that.

Not as simple as that.
This provide absolutely no basis for any directionality nor any reason to move at all.
It provides no reason for the rate of acceleration or the force felt on a scale, nor why this varies over Earth's surface.
It provides no reason for the pressure gradient and no reason for the why the pressure gradient doesn't push us up.

A simple similar example is standing on a trampoline.
The springs are all stretched out and providing a force pushing us up.
In order to not go up, we need a force trying to make us go down.

If you are saying our mass does this, then you are saying there is a force proportional to mass pulling us down, i.e. gravity.

All things are on Earths surface, ground or waters of Earth.

There is nothing directional about all things being on the surface of Esrth, except for the heavenly objects above Earth.

If we jump into a lake, we change where we originate from, on ground. We sink down in the lake because we’re denser than water. That’s it.

We cannot rise up into air above us being denser than air. If we climb a mountain and fall off of it into air, or roll down the mountain side we are still going down through air.

That’s the basis for our directionality in other mediums than ours on ground.

If you can assume all things were created and put on Earths  surface, all things are denser than the air above all things on ground.

Why would there be any need for some sort of force to pull things down when all things are already on the ground! Our density keeps things on the ground, no holding down force needed

Why would there be any need for some sort of force to pull things down when all things are already on the ground! Our density keeps things on the ground, no holding down force needed

If there is no force keeping things on the ground, then why do you need a force to lift things off of the ground?

All things are on Earths surface, ground or waters of Earth.

Except when they are not.
Do you mean they "started" there?
If so, you have had your origin BS refuted countless times.
Things do not magically return to their origin. They fall down.

There is nothing directional about all things being on the surface of Esrth

But there is about things falling down.
Something you can't explain.

We sink down in the lake because we’re denser than water. That’s it.

That isn't it, as density does not explain why something should sink.
Why should being denser than water make you go down?
Why not up?
Why not sideways?
Why would it make you move at all?

More importantly, how does this magically create a pressure gradient?
Why doesn't this pressure gradient push things up?

If you can assume all things were created and put on Earths  surface

I have absolutely no reason to do that, and that in no way helps explain it.

Why would there be any need for some sort of force to pull things down when all things are already on the ground!

They aren't. Plenty of things are in the air.
What is making them go back down?

Our density keeps things on the ground, no holding down force needed

Except as repeatedly explained, density doesn't explain it.
Why should dense things go down?

All the available evidence shows that in order to accelerate an object a force is needed.
Why should going down be different?
Especially as this force is measurable on a scale?

Inertia.

Inertia.

If the only thing keeping us on the ground were inertia, then every time you jump up, you'd keep going up and up and up and never come down.

Quote from: Username on May 02, 2025, 04:02:08 PM

Inertia.

If the only thing keeping us on the ground were inertia, then every time you jump up, you'd keep going up and up and up and never come down.

Let's say I'm in an elevator in the middle of space far away from any gravity. No windows. The elevator is accelerating upwards. What is holding me to the floor? My inertia countering the elevator rising.

Likewise for me and the ground.

Let's say I'm in an elevator in the middle of space far away from any gravity. No windows. The elevator is accelerating upwards. What is holding me to the floor? My inertia countering the elevator rising.

No.  The normal force of elevator's floor counters the force of your weight due to the elevator's acceleration.  Come now, you're supposed to be better than this.

Quote from: Username on May 02, 2025, 06:24:41 PM

Let's say I'm in an elevator in the middle of space far away from any gravity. No windows. The elevator is accelerating upwards. What is holding me to the floor? My inertia countering the elevator rising.

No.  The normal force of elevator's floor counters the force of your weight due to the elevator's acceleration.  Come now, you're supposed to be better than this.

The force of my weight? What do you mean by that, because that sounds like inertia with extra steps.

Everything has always existed on Earths surface - ground and waters of Earth. Our greater mass is what keeps us on the Earths surfaces, the air above us is less dense than all things on Earth, but we can create things less dense than air, and they rise up in air, being less dense than air.

A made up force would hold all things to the surface, being less dense than air wouldn’t matter.

Your made up force doesn’t make any sense, nor should it, being made up fiction.

Why would you think things shouldn’t fall through air? It’s less dense than all things, which must be put upward into air from the surface, they originate on the surface, created to be on the surface of Earth.

They have no directionality until put upward into air by an external force, so why would they always go upward from Earth? Because things are on the surface, always existed on the surface of Earth, ground or waters.

Where do you ever see things floating in air or space? You seem to believe all things would float around in air or space without a force pulling them all down to Earth!!

You’ve got no basis at all for thinking things float around in space, without any directionality.

We cannot prove things always have existed on the Earths surface, or not, since we didn’t exist as yet, but we know all things have always been on Earth since day one, and ever since then, and always will in future, so the evidence strongly suggests things have always been on Earth since day one.

There’s no need for some great pulling down and holding down force to exist, it’s made up bs.

Look at all actual forces - every one proven to exist, demonstrated to exist, behaves like all other actual forces do, and are entirely consistent in their actions.

You need to make up a force for your ball Earth speeding and spinning around in endless space, but it’s crap, and will never work out

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2025, 08:48:23 PM

Quote from: Username on May 02, 2025, 06:24:41 PM

Let's say I'm in an elevator in the middle of space far away from any gravity. No windows. The elevator is accelerating upwards. What is holding me to the floor? My inertia countering the elevator rising.

No.  The normal force of elevator's floor counters the force of your weight due to the elevator's acceleration.  Come now, you're supposed to be better than this.

The force of my weight? What do you mean by that, because that sounds like inertia with extra steps.

Force = mass * acceleration.  Weight = mass * gravitational acceleration.  Weight is a force.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 02, 2025, 05:41:46 PM

Quote from: Username on May 02, 2025, 04:02:08 PM

Inertia.

If the only thing keeping us on the ground were inertia, then every time you jump up, you'd keep going up and up and up and never come down.

Let's say I'm in an elevator in the middle of space far away from any gravity. No windows. The elevator is accelerating upwards. What is holding me to the floor? My inertia countering the elevator rising.

Likewise for me and the ground.

Gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. In your "elevator" the elevator's acceleration keeps you on the floor. On the Earth, the Earth's gravity acting upon your mass is what keeps you on the ground. A 300-pound sumo wrestler and a pea are both held to the floor of the elevator, or the ground on Earth. You need acceleration or gravity for either to be held down.

Inertia is just the name we give to the tendency for things in motion to stay in motion unless a force acts upon them, and for things at rest to remain at rest unless a force acts upon them.

So there are only three possible ways people and objects remain on the ground:

1. Gravity.
2. If the surface of the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards. That is, moving upwards at a constantly increasing speed. This is preposterous because very shortly after the creation of the Earth, it would be moving upwards at nearly the speed of light. Or for those that reject the speed of light, it would be moving upwards by now at an incomprehensible speed. This is just absurd.
3. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is constantly pressing down on us with His noodly appendages. I like this explanation best, but that does not make it right.

Everything has always existed on Earths surface - ground and waters of Earth. Our greater mass is what keeps us on the Earths surfaces, the air above us is less dense than all things on Earth, but we can create things less dense than air, and they rise up in air, being less dense than air. ...

You are describing buoyancy: The tendency of a less dense object to float upon a more dense fluid, such as water or air. Or negative buoyancy: the tendency of a more dense object to sink in a less-dense fluid, such as water or air.

Buoyancy and negative buoyancy only exist because gravity exerts a force on an object that is proportional to the object's mass. it is the differential pull of gravity against an object, vs its pull on the same volume of the fluid the object is in, that causes the object to rise or sink. Mass does nothing unless a force acts upon it.

2. If the surface of the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards. That is, moving upwards at a constantly increasing speed. This is preposterous because very shortly after the creation of the Earth, it would be moving upwards at nearly the speed of light.

Out of curiosity, how long do you think it would take for it to reach the speed of light?


Also why are you presenting a false dichotomy?

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 03, 2025, 08:02:44 AM

2. If the surface of the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards. That is, moving upwards at a constantly increasing speed. This is preposterous because very shortly after the creation of the Earth, it would be moving upwards at nearly the speed of light.

Out of curiosity, how long do you think it would take for it to reach the speed of light?


Also why are you presenting a false dichotomy?

It never reaches the speed of light, but it would be traveling through space at just under the speed of light. And due to the dilation of time and space, we would have reached the furthest galaxies in the universe long ago. It would overtake the stars and we would see them whizzing past us as if they were going the other way at the same speed. We do not see this. Therefore it is not happening. We are not accelerating. We are merely in a gravitational field.

Or to state it another way: You cannot accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec forever. If you think you can, then you profoundly misunderstand physics. You say you do not deny science, but you make claims which are incompatible with science. Where would the energy come from to accelerate the entire Earth forever? It takes energy to accelerate mass. There is no possible source of energy for what you are proposing. Especially if you adhere to the version of FET that claims the flat Earth is infinite.

What do you think is a false dichotomy? Those are the only explanations for what we perceive as gravity: Either actual gravity, or unending acceleration.

(Obviously, the bit about the FSM was a joke.)

Everything has always existed on Earths surface

That is your baseless assertion you cannot justify, which in no way addresses what is asked.

We have been over this countless times.
Things do not magically return to their point of origin.
If they did, I could pick something up and move it up and to the right and release it and it would down and to the left.
It does not.

You also can't appeal to a surface, because I can break something off a cliff or an overhang and release it and instead of going back to the surface I broke it off from, it falls down.

You even contradict this when you say we can create things less dense and they go up.
This shows the origin is entirely irrelevant. So stop bringing it up. It just shows your dishonesty.

Our greater mass is what keeps us on the Earths surfaces, the air above us is less dense than all things on Earth, but we can create things less dense than air, and they rise up in air, being less dense than air.

Firstly, try to stay consistent between mass vs density. If you want to appeal to density, say density.

More importantly, except as repeatedly explained, density provides no reason for things to accelerate.
Even more importantly, it entirely fails to address the pressure gradient observed in fluids.

A made up force would hold all things to the surface, being less dense than air wouldn’t matter.

Wrong again.
You have buoyancy explained as a direct result of gravity.

It is like 2 kids on a see-saw.
The lighter kid hops on first and the see-saw goes down. Then the heavier kid hops on the other side.
According to your BS the lighter kid should magically stay down.
But according to any sane individual, the heavier kid having a greater downwards force will cause the see-saw to rotate lifting the lighter kid in the process.

e.g. say you have a steel ball, a cork ball, and water.
You can't have all three go down and occupy the same space.
The greater force on the steel ball will push the water out of the way. The lesser force on the cork ball will allow the water to push it out of the way.

Or for the more technical route, you can consider each layer of water. In this layer it is being pulled down by its own weight, and it is pushed down by the weight of the water above. This means the total force pushing down on the next layer below is greater than the force of the layer above pushing down.
This creates a pressure gradient with the pressure increasing the further down you go.
This means any object immersed in this fluid will have a greater pressure below pushing it up than from above pushing down.
This results in an upwards force on the object from this pressure gradient.
If this upwards force is greater than the downwards force due to gravity, it will push the object up.

So contrary to your blatant lies, gravity makes sense; your BS does not.

Why would you think things shouldn’t fall through air?

Notice how you shift the question.
Instead of even attempting to explain why you just want us to say why not?
How about the fact that there is pressure gradient in the atmosphere, with a greater pressure the lower down you are.
That means the air pressure below the object is pushing up with a greater force than the air above pushing down.
That means the air is pushing the object up, so the object should go up.

More importantly, if we ignore objects falling due to gravity and rising due to buoyancy due to gravity, then every instance we have ever seen of an object accelerating requires a force.
Why should objects falling or rising be any different?
Why should they magically accelerate without a force?

And going even further, how does this magical acceleration without a force impart a force onto things like scales to produce measurable results?

All the evidence shows we need a force. The question is only what is that force.

You have already had your origin BS refuted countless times. Again, stop bringing it up. It shows you are a lying POS with no integrity at all that doesn't give a damn about the truth.

Where do you ever see things floating in air or space?

Where do we ever see things outside the gravitational influence of Earth?

You seem to believe all things would float around in air or space without a force pulling them all down to Earth!!

Yes, because that is what all evidence shows.
All the evidence shows that if you want to accelerate something you need a force.
So without a force there is no acceleration and no reason for it to go down.

You’ve got no basis at all for thinking things float around in space, without any directionality.

Again, you shift how it should work.
YOU have no basis for any directionality nor why objects should accelerate at all.
You are the one who needs to provide this basis.
And so far everything you have tried has utterly failed.

Look at all actual forces - every one proven to exist, demonstrated to exist, behaves like all other actual forces do, and are entirely consistent in their actions.

Like gravity. Something you are yet to show any fault with and yet to provide a viable alterative.

You need to make up a force for your ball Earth speeding and spinning around in endless space

Except if your delusional BS actually worked, it would work just as well for a round Earth. In fact it can work better, because you can average the surface to the point at the centre of Earth and remove some problems.

Quote from: Username on May 03, 2025, 01:28:15 PM

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 03, 2025, 08:02:44 AM

2. If the surface of the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards. That is, moving upwards at a constantly increasing speed. This is preposterous because very shortly after the creation of the Earth, it would be moving upwards at nearly the speed of light.

Out of curiosity, how long do you think it would take for it to reach the speed of light?


Also why are you presenting a false dichotomy?

It never reaches the speed of light, but it would be traveling through space at just under the speed of light. And due to the dilation of time and space, we would have reached the furthest galaxies in the universe long ago. It would overtake the stars and we would see them whizzing past us as if they were going the other way at the same speed. We do not see this. Therefore it is not happening. We are not accelerating. We are merely in a gravitational field.

Or to state it another way: You cannot accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec forever. If you think you can, then you profoundly misunderstand physics. You say you do not deny science, but you make claims which are incompatible with science. Where would the energy come from to accelerate the entire Earth forever? It takes energy to accelerate mass. There is no possible source of energy for what you are proposing. Especially if you adhere to the version of FET that claims the flat Earth is infinite.

What do you think is a false dichotomy? Those are the only explanations for what we perceive as gravity: Either actual gravity, or unending acceleration.

(Obviously, the bit about the FSM was a joke.)

Or relativistic gravity. Which says you are being held to the surface due to inertia. Like I said. Or a million other explanations.

All these problems you bring up are all solved problems with the particular model that purports the earth is accelerating upwards. You also say puzzling things like "you make claims which are incompatible with science" which is one of the primary purposes of non-normal science, one of the historically most useful parts of science.

You thinking those are the only explanations possible just goes to show you haven't thought about the matter much critically.

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 03, 2025, 03:11:15 PM

Quote from: Username on May 03, 2025, 01:28:15 PM

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 03, 2025, 08:02:44 AM

2. If the surface of the Earth were constantly accelerating upwards. That is, moving upwards at a constantly increasing speed. This is preposterous because very shortly after the creation of the Earth, it would be moving upwards at nearly the speed of light.

Out of curiosity, how long do you think it would take for it to reach the speed of light?


Also why are you presenting a false dichotomy?

It never reaches the speed of light, but it would be traveling through space at just under the speed of light. And due to the dilation of time and space, we would have reached the furthest galaxies in the universe long ago. It would overtake the stars and we would see them whizzing past us as if they were going the other way at the same speed. We do not see this. Therefore it is not happening. We are not accelerating. We are merely in a gravitational field.

Or to state it another way: You cannot accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec forever. If you think you can, then you profoundly misunderstand physics. You say you do not deny science, but you make claims which are incompatible with science. Where would the energy come from to accelerate the entire Earth forever? It takes energy to accelerate mass. There is no possible source of energy for what you are proposing. Especially if you adhere to the version of FET that claims the flat Earth is infinite.

What do you think is a false dichotomy? Those are the only explanations for what we perceive as gravity: Either actual gravity, or unending acceleration.

(Obviously, the bit about the FSM was a joke.)

Or relativistic gravity. Which says you are being held to the surface due to inertia. Like I said. Or a million other explanations.

All these problems you bring up are all solved problems with the particular model that purports the earth is accelerating upwards. You also say puzzling things like "you make claims which are incompatible with science" which is one of the primary purposes of non-normal science, one of the historically most useful parts of science.

You thinking those are the only explanations possible just goes to show you haven't thought about the matter much critically.

You do understand what acceleration is, don't you? It is a change in speed or direction. If the Earth were constantly accelerating upward its speed would increase without end, and it would soon be traveling at near the speed of light and would cross the entire universe in an eyeblink. This is just absurd. You cannot increase speed forever.

The only way acceleration can continue forever is by orbiting IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.

Inertia is not a force holding us down. Inertia is just a word for Newton's first law of motion: An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by a force, and an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by a force. If inertia were all that was keeping us on the ground, then when you jump up you'd continue to go up. The reason you don't continue to go up is GRAVITY pulling you back toward the center of mass of the Earth.

Lastly, you propose that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards. Where does the energy for this acceleration come from?

You do understand what acceleration is, don't you? It is a change in speed or direction. If the Earth were constantly accelerating upward its speed would increase without end, and it would soon be traveling at near the speed of light and would cross the entire universe in an eyeblink. This is just absurd. You cannot increase speed forever.

The only way acceleration can continue forever is by orbiting IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.

Inertia is not a force holding us down. Inertia is just a word for Newton's first law of motion: An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by a force, and an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by a force. If inertia were all that was keeping us on the ground, then when you jump up you'd continue to go up. The reason you don't continue to go up is GRAVITY pulling you back toward the center of mass of the Earth.

Lastly, you propose that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards. Where does the energy for this acceleration come from?

You do understand they are appealing to an interpretation of general relativity, where an object in free fall is considered to be in an inertial frame of reference, and Earth is round the surface is accelerating outwards in curved spacetime?

Quote from: magellanclavichord on May 04, 2025, 09:03:01 AM

You do understand what acceleration is, don't you? It is a change in speed or direction. If the Earth were constantly accelerating upward its speed would increase without end, and it would soon be traveling at near the speed of light and would cross the entire universe in an eyeblink. This is just absurd. You cannot increase speed forever.

The only way acceleration can continue forever is by orbiting IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.

Inertia is not a force holding us down. Inertia is just a word for Newton's first law of motion: An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by a force, and an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by a force. If inertia were all that was keeping us on the ground, then when you jump up you'd continue to go up. The reason you don't continue to go up is GRAVITY pulling you back toward the center of mass of the Earth.

Lastly, you propose that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards. Where does the energy for this acceleration come from?

You do understand they are appealing to an interpretation of general relativity, where an object in free fall is considered to be in an inertial frame of reference, and Earth is round the surface is accelerating outwards in curved spacetime?

Wait a minute! Are you saying that flat-earthers say the Earth is round and accelerating outwards, i.e. expanding at an ever-increasing rate? If that's the case, how is it "FLAT"?

I do understand that flat-earthers claim that everybody who has ever been in Earth orbit is lying about it, that the Apollo astronauts all lied about it, everybody who's ever been to an Antarctic research station is lying, everybody who's ever gone to Antarctica on an adventure education is lying, the whole world of professional and amateur astronomers are lying, and all the managers and workers at NASA, Roscosmos, and the Chinese space agency are lying. Also that all the engineers and technicians at all the companies and government agencies that operate weather and communications satellites are lying.

But I admit that I an flummoxed by what they believe about the Earth, because there seem to be several, if not many, entirely different and contradictory versions of flat-earth. Is the Earth an infinite plane? Is it a disk? How thick is it? What is underneath it? Or does it go on down infinitely? If it's infinitely thick and accelerating upwards, how is that possible?  If it's a disk accelerating upwards, would we be left behind if we managed to get past the NASA penguins and got over the ice wall and fell off the edge? Are the sun and Moon lamps on tracks or holograms projected on an overhead screen of some sort?

At least Terry Prachett explained clearly and concisely how his Discworld worked. Flat disc, four elephants, one turtle, ocean water flowing off the edge all around.

(The joking way they talk about the NASA penguins is just one reason I think most of them are just in it for giggles and don't actually believe any of it.)

Wait a minute! Are you saying that flat-earthers say the Earth is round and accelerating outwards, i.e. expanding at an ever-increasing rate? If that's the case, how is it "FLAT"?

Not most, just this particular one.
They are appealing to a particular interpretation of GR to appeal to non-Euclidean space time, to try saying the surface of Earth is "flat" in the curved space-time.
It isn't flat by any stretch of the imagination, but that is the game they are appealing to.
Likewise, they are appealing to the same game when they are saying Earth is accelerating upwards, that in general relativity you can interpret it as free fall being an inertial reference frame and Earth is accelerating outwards through curved space time, and our "inertia" which is really just gravity is keeping us on the surface of Earth.

Their "flat" earth model, is the round Earth model with gravity holding us on Earth's surface, with some semantic BS thrown in to try to redefine things.

So they aren't saying people are lying, just "mistaken".

But I admit that I an flummoxed by what they believe about the Earth, because there seem to be several, if not many, entirely different and contradictory versions of flat-earth. Is the Earth an infinite plane? Is it a disk? How thick is it? What is underneath it? Or does it go on down infinitely? If it's infinitely thick and accelerating upwards, how is that possible?  If it's a disk accelerating upwards, would we be left behind if we managed to get past the NASA penguins and got over the ice wall and fell off the edge? Are the sun and Moon lamps on tracks or holograms projected on an overhead screen of some sort?

And that is because Earth isn't flat and you need wildly different ideas to address different points, and in order to do so, you contradict other points.
So you end up with a bunch of contradictory models.

And they like keeping them ill defined, so they can pretend they can work and adjust as needed to pretend they do.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 02, 2025, 11:02:28 PM

Everything has always existed on Earths surface

That is your baseless assertion you cannot justify, which in no way addresses what is asked.

We have been over this countless times.
Things do not magically return to their point of origin.
If they did, I could pick something up and move it up and to the right and release it and it would down and to the left.
It does not.

You also can't appeal to a surface, because I can break something off a cliff or an overhang and release it and instead of going back to the surface I broke it off from, it falls down.

You even contradict this when you say we can create things less dense and they go up.
This shows the origin is entirely irrelevant. So stop bringing it up. It just shows your dishonesty.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 02, 2025, 11:02:28 PM

Our greater mass is what keeps us on the Earths surfaces, the air above us is less dense than all things on Earth, but we can create things less dense than air, and they rise up in air, being less dense than air.

Firstly, try to stay consistent between mass vs density. If you want to appeal to density, say density.

More importantly, except as repeatedly explained, density provides no reason for things to accelerate.
Even more importantly, it entirely fails to address the pressure gradient observed in fluids.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 02, 2025, 11:02:28 PM

A made up force would hold all things to the surface, being less dense than air wouldn’t matter.

Wrong again.
You have buoyancy explained as a direct result of gravity.

It is like 2 kids on a see-saw.
The lighter kid hops on first and the see-saw goes down. Then the heavier kid hops on the other side.
According to your BS the lighter kid should magically stay down.
But according to any sane individual, the heavier kid having a greater downwards force will cause the see-saw to rotate lifting the lighter kid in the process.

e.g. say you have a steel ball, a cork ball, and water.
You can't have all three go down and occupy the same space.
The greater force on the steel ball will push the water out of the way. The lesser force on the cork ball will allow the water to push it out of the way.

Or for the more technical route, you can consider each layer of water. In this layer it is being pulled down by its own weight, and it is pushed down by the weight of the water above. This means the total force pushing down on the next layer below is greater than the force of the layer above pushing down.
This creates a pressure gradient with the pressure increasing the further down you go.
This means any object immersed in this fluid will have a greater pressure below pushing it up than from above pushing down.
This results in an upwards force on the object from this pressure gradient.
If this upwards force is greater than the downwards force due to gravity, it will push the object up.

So contrary to your blatant lies, gravity makes sense; your BS does not.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 02, 2025, 11:02:28 PM

Why would you think things shouldn’t fall through air?

Notice how you shift the question.
Instead of even attempting to explain why you just want us to say why not?
How about the fact that there is pressure gradient in the atmosphere, with a greater pressure the lower down you are.
That means the air pressure below the object is pushing up with a greater force than the air above pushing down.
That means the air is pushing the object up, so the object should go up.

More importantly, if we ignore objects falling due to gravity and rising due to buoyancy due to gravity, then every instance we have ever seen of an object accelerating requires a force.
Why should objects falling or rising be any different?
Why should they magically accelerate without a force?

And going even further, how does this magical acceleration without a force impart a force onto things like scales to produce measurable results?

All the evidence shows we need a force. The question is only what is that force.

You have already had your origin BS refuted countless times. Again, stop bringing it up. It shows you are a lying POS with no integrity at all that doesn't give a damn about the truth.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 02, 2025, 11:02:28 PM

Where do you ever see things floating in air or space?

Where do we ever see things outside the gravitational influence of Earth?

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 02, 2025, 11:02:28 PM

You seem to believe all things would float around in air or space without a force pulling them all down to Earth!!

Yes, because that is what all evidence shows.
All the evidence shows that if you want to accelerate something you need a force.
So without a force there is no acceleration and no reason for it to go down.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 02, 2025, 11:02:28 PM

You’ve got no basis at all for thinking things float around in space, without any directionality.

Again, you shift how it should work.
YOU have no basis for any directionality nor why objects should accelerate at all.
You are the one who needs to provide this basis.
And so far everything you have tried has utterly failed.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 02, 2025, 11:02:28 PM

Look at all actual forces - every one proven to exist, demonstrated to exist, behaves like all other actual forces do, and are entirely consistent in their actions.

Like gravity. Something you are yet to show any fault with and yet to provide a viable alterative.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 02, 2025, 11:02:28 PM

You need to make up a force for your ball Earth speeding and spinning around in endless space

Except if your delusional BS actually worked, it would work just as well for a round Earth. In fact it can work better, because you can average the surface to the point at the centre of Earth and remove some problems.

All objects exist on Earth, and always have, other than the heavenly bodies above Earth, which have always existed above Earth.

That’s what the evidence shows, and no evidence shows otherwise.

A force is needed to put objects upward into air, they don’t go up into air unless by an external force acting on them.

That’s what changes their point of origin, a greater mass of objects put upward into a less dense medium, air.

It’s entirely due to greater mass that makes them stay on Earth, in the first place.

A force isn’t required to have all objects on Earth, their greater mass than air holds everything to the surface.

Objects on ground will sink in water, being more dense than water. They don’t rise up into air from ground being more dense than air. 

A submarine sinks down in water when more dense than it, and rises up in water when less dense than it.  The relative density of sub to water is the deciding factor.

A helium filled balloon rises up in air being less dense than air, and falls down through air when losing helium and becomes denser than air again.

 

A force isn’t required to have all objects on Earth, their greater mass than air holds everything to the surface.

Then why is a force required to lift an object off the surface of the earth if there is no force holding it down to overcome?  That is unless you think that mass is a force.

All objects exist on Earth

Repeating the same baseless claims, based upon a wilful rejection of evidence does not help you.

A force is needed to put objects upward into air, they don’t go up into air unless by an external force acting on them.

Again, you have had this pathetic BS of yours refuted countless times.
A force is needed to put an object upwards and to the right, but it doesn't fall down and to the left. Instead, it falls down.

You can use a force to pry an object off a cliff face, but it doesn't fall back to the cliff face, instead it falls down.
You can use a force to pry an object downwards from an overhand, and it doesn't fall back up to the overhang, it falls down.

It clearly does not matter at all in what direction a force moved an object.
It doesn't magically cause it to go back to where it came from.

So that complete absence of reason from you is quite clearly pure BS.
The origin of something does not determine what way it goes.

It’s entirely due to greater mass that makes them stay on Earth, in the first place.

No, it doesn't, as that provides absolutely no reason for them to stay on Earth.

A force isn’t required to have all objects on Earth

To have them just sit there on a perfectly motionless Earth with no atmosphere, no.
But if you move them a force is required to accelerate them down.
And a force is clearly there, measurable by a scale where a spring is compressed by that force to produce a measurable reading.
If there was no force it would simply sit on top of the scale without compressing the spring at all and without producing a reading of its weight.

Likewise, there is also a measurable pressure gradient in the atmosphere. If the object has air beneath it (such a table, or something hanging from a string) you then have the problem of that greater air pressure below pushing the object up.
That means it needs a downwards force to counter the upwards force from the air.

All the evidence shows there is a force.

Objects on ground will sink in water, being more dense than water.

Again, density provides no reason.
There is no directionality to it.

And again, this doesn't help with the pressure gradient.
Consider an object of density equal to the surroundings. e.g. something with the same density as water.
Your density should do nothing.
So the only thing acting on it is the pressure gradient which should then push it up.

This pressure gradient kills your delusional BS, so it isn't a surprise that you keep ignoring it at all costs.

Try to address the pressure gradient for once in your life.

Everything was created to exist on Earths surface, ground or water of Earths surface.

The entire surface is where all things exist, always have existed. Not at a single point on the surface, the whole surface itself is our place of origin.

We walk over the surface, not stay at one point on the surface our whole lives, that’s stupid!

Everything was 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 walk over the surface, not stay at one point on the surface our whole lives, that’s stupid!

Yes, your claims are stupid.
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.

Again, your BS doesn't work.

Things do not fall towards their origin, nor do they magically fall to the surface of Earth. They fall down.

And you have no explanation for this at all.


And like I had said, even if your BS did work for that, it in no way explains the pressure gradient, nor the fact that we can measure a force trying to push things down, with that force reducing due to buoyancy.

Your BS simply doesn't work at all.

You need a downwards force proportional to mass.
You can reject it being based on gravity, but you need that force. That is the only way to make things work.
And that force needs to vary over Earth.