What keeps us on the ground

Only the energy from the force acting on the object puts it into motion the entire distance it travels

It puts it in motion, converting that energy into kinetic energy, which is the energy of motion.
In order for that motion to stop, the energy needs to go somewhere, you need to have some interaction, some force.

Again, ignoring this wont help you, it just shows how dishonest you are.

unless it falls from air to the surface

And notice the key part here?
It FALLS!
It doesn't magically stop and go back, it goes DOWN!

its density causes this motion

You keep asserting this, but can't explain how.
Stop appealing to magic, and start explaining.

You have no clue how energy acts out on objects or anything else.

Then why are you completely incapable of showing any fault with what I have said?
Why do you need to repeatedly ignore what I say and reassert the same pathetic BS?

It certainly seems far more likely that you have no clue.

Energy acts on objects to propel them outward along the ground or through the air, more energy causes greater and often faster motion of objects, and over longer distances and time spans.

No, more energy causes faster motion.
Stopping the motion/distance travelled then instead depends on what is acting to resist the motion.
You can have the same force, the same energy putting it in motion, but different resistance causing it to go different distances.

This shows it is NOT the force which dictates how far it goes, but you have another force stopping it.

You might be aware that energy is a finite source?

And that it can't just magically vanish.
That means unless there is an interaction for that energy to go some where, the object keeps moving.

Objects are motionless.

How do you know that?
How do you know the objects weren't created in motion with a force stopping their motion?

You don't. You just baselessly assert this pathetic BS because you need it for your pathetic fantasy to have any chance of working at all; but even then, it still fails.

More importantly, all the evidence shows that linear motion is entirely relative.

The most important point here

Is that it does not matter at all how the object got to its current state.
That is because in that current state, regardless of how it got there, regardless of if it was created with that motion, or put into motion from a rocket, an explosion, a gun, a sling, a person throwing it and so on; what matters is that it is currently in motion with some mass and velocity, giving it a certain momentum and a certain kinetic energy. So it needs to lose them to stop.

Which is why you continually ignore this and appeal to pathetic BS to pretend reality is wrong and your delusional fantasy is true.

the energy dies out soon afterwards

No, it doesn't.
The energy can't magically die.
It needs to go somewhere.

The slowing down of the object is the result of another force.

Newton was a bs artist, yet very clever at his deceptions and wording. It fools lots of people to this day.

No, he was an intelligent scientist, who got things quite close to correct, just not at the high energy limit.

Meanwhile, you are a BS hack, extremely stupid at your pathetic deceptions and wording. I highly doubt your BS fools anyone.
Trying to continually appeal to what causes the motion as if that should magically affect it.

No they don’t ’tend to stay in motion’

Yes, they do, unless they have a force act on them to stop them.
That is why cars have breaks.

And again notice how nowhere in that pathetic rant of yours have you even come close to trying to address the issues raised.

Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.

1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.

Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.

And again, the pressure gradient is not the result of some magical property of the fluid layering out, and instead is based upon the height of the column and the density of the fluid.

Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.

The energy can't magically die.
It needs to go somewhere

No, the energy acting on a motionless object to put it into motion was created first, in fact.

When you grab a rock off the ground, and throw it into air, you had to use your own energy to throw the rock.

If you didn’t throw a rock, you didn’t create energy to act on the rock.


Energy is created by living things. A dog runs and walks with its own energy used, created, to run and walk on its legs.

Energy is created by living things, all of them. From trees and plants to insects and humans, all are living and have their own energy sources, and always have to generate new energy from food and sunlight and water and so on..

If you punch a wall, make a hole through it, you’ve used energy to punch it, right?

Where is the energy you used to punch the wall, now?

It was absorbed into the wall?

How does the wall contain that energy? It’s gone, the wall didn’t get any energy from your punching it. 

Saying energy never dies out, exists forever, is not true…

Where’s the energy from, is created and dies out. 

It is an endless cycle of creating energy and spending energy, which dies out.

A force acts on objects, which are motionless objects, until acted on by energy from an external force..

This energy is not infinite, it is finite and limited and dies out.

Energy that acts on motionless objects to put them into motion, is the only reason they ever ARE in motion, the whole time. 

The amount of energy acting on objects, is the only variable in the objects motion, the speed of their motion, the time they’re in motion, the distance of their motion or travel, are due to how much energy acts on them to first put them into motion.

You believe we can nudge a rock with our foot, and move it a few inches, and it would move along the ground forever if their was no friction from the ground to stop it from moving?

Any amount of force acting on a rock, is infinite energy used by the motionless rock, it will now move about forever and ever, if another force didn’t stop its motion? 

You claim the object is only in motion from a force acting on it, right?  So you believe the force which acted on it first of all to put it into motion, is acting on it forever afterwards then?!

Objects in motion have a force acting on them, right?

Isn’t it the energy from the force acting on it first of all, which makes it move? 


How else could it be in motion, without a force acting on it?

Why does ANOTHER FORCE have to act on it to stop its motion?

It’s not in motion without a force acting on it, right? Something is making it move or travel in air or ground, right?

But you believe this force which actually put it into motion, doesn’t matter at all?


Just another force is important because it stops its infinite motion from a force that’s not relevant to mention?!?!

Where is the force which put it into motion? It must be there, acting on the object to make it move through air or along the ground, it cannot move by itself, a force must be acting on it to make it move!!

So you believe energy acts out infinitely on objects to make them move forever and ever, no matter how little energy acts on them, as long as it makes objects move a bit, that’s all they need to move forever and ever afterwards!!!

Forget what happens after that part, this is what you’re claiming first happens- objects put into motion by a force, are in eternal motion afterwards, by that force eternally acting on it……

Right?





 

No, the energy acting on a motionless object to put it into motion was created first, in fact.

No, it wasn't, it was converted from one form to another.
As you admit, when you throw the rock, you use your own energy.
That isn't you just magically creating energy from no where.
Instead, it is an interaction between you and the rock, mediated by forces, where you transfer energy from yourself to the rock.

There was no creation of energy. There was no destruction of energy, it was simply transferral.

You took the energy stored as chemical potential energy, and through the use of a force, converted it into the kinetic energy of that rock.

Now that rock has kinetic energy, it needs somewhere for that energy to go to stop the rock moving.
It needs some interaction between another object, mediated through forces, to transfer that energy into something.
It can't just magically vanish.

Energy is created by living things. A dog runs and walks with its own energy used, created, to run and walk on its legs.

No, it isn't.
All you need to see this is to recognise living things either get their energy from the sun, or need to eat.
All it takes to prove this, although it would be quite cruel for a sapient being, is to trap it in a dark room (so no sun) without any food.
See how long it lives for.
See how long it can keep moving.

The food a dog eats contains chemical potential energy. That is the energy the dog USES - not creates, uses.

all are living and have their own energy sources

And with this statement you have effectively admitted you wilfully lied to everyone.
This is you admitting that living things DO NOT CREATE ENERGY, instead they source it from somewhere.

Where is the energy you used to punch the wall, now?

Depends on lots of factors.
Some will go into the air as sound.
Some will go into heat due to breaking the bonds holding the wall together.
Some will go into the kinetic energy of the fragments of the wall flying away.

Saying energy never dies out, exists forever, is not true…

Your wilful lies will not change reality.

Where’s the energy from, is created and dies out.

Except you have already admitted that is a lie.
When you admitted that living things have an energy source.
i.e. they are not CREATING energy, by simply CONVERTING energy from one form to another.

You wilfully lying will not change that.

This energy is not infinite, it is finite and limited and dies out.

Again, it can't magically die out.
It needs to go somewhere.
The force acts on the object, converting energy of some form into the kinetic energy of the object.
In order for the object to stop, the kinetic energy has to go somewhere.

The amount of energy acting on objects, is the only variable in the objects motion, the speed of their motion, the time they’re in motion, the distance of their motion or travel, are due to how much energy acts on them to first put them into motion.

No, there are plenty of variables.
Yes, the energy is one important one, but so is the mass of the object.
Then to consider how far it moves or for how long, you also need to consider other forces acting on it, such as friction trying to slow it down.
But that is better done in terms of momentum rather than energy.

Again, this is trivial to test.
Get an object, like a brick, push it along some level gravel, and release at a certain speed, and see how far it goes.
Then do the same on level ice.

Or, get a hockey table, first with the table off, hit the puck, and see how far it goes.
Then turn the table on to get the cushion of air, and hit the puck, and see it go much much further.

Or go driving a car, find a nice level road without any sharp bends, get up to a certain speed, then just take your foot off the accelerator (put it in neutral if it is an automatic), and see how far and how long you travel with it just coasting.
Then repeat the experiment, but slam on the breaks.

According to your delusional BS, breaks should do literally nothing to a vehicle.
That it shouldn't matter if you just let the car coast, or slam on the breaks, the car should go the same distance. But anyone who has driven a car knows that is pure BS.

You believe we can nudge a rock with our foot, and move it a few inches, and it would move along the ground forever if their was no friction from the ground to stop it from moving?

If the ground was level, and you also take away friction from the air, yes.
Because that is what all the evidence shows and you have NOTHING showing otherwise.

Meanwhile, you are desperate to reject it to pretend your delusional fantasy is true.

Any amount of force acting on a rock, is infinite energy used by the motionless rock

You sure do love your strawmen don't you?

A FINITE amount of energy is used ON the rock, which converts this energy to the kinetic energy of the rock.
This FINITE energy gives the rock a FINITE speed.
It does not take any energy to traverse distance or time.
What takes energy in this context is speed (and mass moving at that speed).

In order for it to take energy to traverse that distance, you need another force acting against it.

This is quite well established in plenty of sources and with plenty of evidence.
W=F*x.
Notice the key part, FORCE.
Take away the force and it doesn't matter how far (x) you travel, no work (W) is done, no energy is needed.

So you believe the force which acted on it first of all to put it into motion, is acting on it forever afterwards then?!

No, because I'm not a complete moron.
If it was, the object would continue to speed up.

A force accelerates an object.
If you take away that force, it means the object stops accelerating.
It doesn't mean the object stops.

Why does ANOTHER FORCE have to act on it to stop its motion?

Because a force is required to change the velocity of an object.
It doesn't matter if that object is speeding up or slowing down, you need a force.
And we can also do this in terms of momentum or energy.
It needs to exert a force onto something else to transfer that momentum and energy to ensure it is conserved, because it can't just magically vanish.

Something is making it move or travel in air or ground, right?

Firstly, it is all relative.
But more importantly, your tense is wrong.
It would be something MADE it move, past tense.
That has now acted and the object IS in motion.
The force does not need to continue acting to keep it moving.

But you believe this force which actually put it into motion, doesn’t matter at all?

Yes, as repeatedly explained.

Again, once the object is in motion, that motion is what matters, not what got it to that state.

If you would like another example, consider heat.
It doesn't matter what you use to heat an object up.
Once it is at that temperature, that is what matters.
That, and the surroundings which can dissipate that heat is what matters.

That is because with the vast majority of physical systems and physical properties, they are state based.
i.e. what matters is the state, not how it reached that state.

It must be there, acting on the object to make it move through air or along the ground

Why?
Because you say so?

it cannot move by itself, a force must be acting on it to make it move!!

Again, going down this path a force must have ACTED to HAVE MADE it move. Notice the past tense.
The force acts to make it move. It doesn't keep acting to keep it moving.

There are so many examples which show claim is pure BS.
Again, going back to a car, according to your pathetic BS, as soon as you put the car in neutral, there is no force acting to keep the car moving, so it should stop instantly.
If you pick up a ball and throw it, as soon as it leaves your hand, your hand is no longer acting on it, no force is acting on it, so it should stop instantly.
But we see that is clearly not the case.
Even once the force stops acting, the object continues moving.

We are not living in your pathetic fantasy world.


And do you know what makes all this pathetic BS of yours so absolutely pathetic?
You aren't even coming close to addressing the issues of the thread.

The best you get from this is objects magically stopping mid-air.
You still then need a force to act on them to make them go down.

Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.

1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.

Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.

And again, the pressure gradient is not the result of some magical property of the fluid layering out, and instead is based upon the height of the column and the density of the fluid.

Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.

You need a downward force, and you also need this very specific type of force, which pulls everything near enough to its range of pull, to exist within all things in the endless universe, which should help to explain lots of other things…

They never claimed there IS an actual, proven to exist force, which they named as ‘gravity’, they called it a theoretical force, because they made it all up, as I told you many times before.

There’s never ever BEEN a force, it was and is just a theory, without a shred of valid evidence for it existing in any way, up to this very day.

Why say it’s a theoretical force? Because it needs actual proof if they claimed it was an actual force. And it was all made up and they had to say it’s a theory instead of a real force.

They made up a force, said it’s only theoretical force, and over the years, everyone thought it was a real, actual, proven to exist force!!

It’s all bs, a con, and so sad it’s been believed as true by most people and still is.

Everything we see and know about the world, is lied about to us, as not what we see, it’s something we never see, never feel, never think is true or real!

Then we went far above the Earth in planes, but never thought about what we saw, wasn’t a ball Earth after all, it was entirely flat everywhere we could see of it, nothing was curving downward at all , out of our view, nothing of any curving over the surface, anywhere at all.

But the biggest, most blatantly obvious thing we first saw, that only the pilots and crew had seen, before commercial flights started up..


There is a horizon we have all seen from a plane, especially clear to see in daylight skies, which is across from us, in our direct view out the window of a plane.

And this proves beyond any doubt, the Earth is flat, no chance it’s a ball in any way at all.

You need a downward force, and you also need this very specific type of force

Funny you should use that word.
Do you know what that means in a scientific context?
Something per unit mass.
e.g. the specific heat capacity.

So yes, we need this specific force, a force that is proportional to mass.

Unless you want to go to extreme cases, this force follows a very simple rule:
F=GMm/d^2.
Just like the electrostatic force:
F=kQq/d^2.

No extra BS is needed.

it was and is just a theory

i.e. something which has been proven to exist beyond any sane doubt.
Something which has been tested and supported with plenty of evidence.

Your wilful lies don't change that.

It’s all bs, a con

Certainly sums you up.

Everything we see and know about the world, is lied about to us

No, it is lied about, BY YOU!
Because you are desperate to reject reality and replace it with a pathetic fantasy.

And this proves beyond any doubt

That you are absolutely pathetic and desperate.
You can't defend your BS, so you spam other BS which has already been refuted.

Grow up.
Stop with the pathetic BS, and address the issues.

Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.

1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.

Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.

And again, the pressure gradient is not the result of some magical property of the fluid layering out, and instead is based upon the height of the column and the density of the fluid.

Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.

Actual forces of Earth and the heavens above Earth, are proven to exist, measurable as a force, act and behave as all other actual forces do.

When they attempted to make up something to explain their ball Earth flying through endless space story, they needed to make up a most powerful force that is holding down all things to the speeding Earth ball….

It failed miserably, even with another made up force after the first one crapped out.

Saying over and over it’s this and that and works perfectly as a force, or two forces in one story of bs, is still just bs.

They never claimed there is, or is not, some sort of actual force existed at all, they said it was a theoretical ‘force’, not proven to exist, without any proof it exists to this very day!

After years of bs, talking about a force, faking people floating in space, yada yada, it transformed into an actual force, which is pure crap and a farce of false science yet again.

It’s getting worse and worse all the time

The thread title is …

What keeps us on the ground?

Being denser than air keeps us on the ground.

Easy as that

Actual forces ..., are proven to exist, measurable as a force, act and behave as all other actual forces do.

Just like gravity.
Your lies wont change that.

When they attempted to make up something to explain their ball Earth flying through endless space story, they needed to make up a most powerful force that is holding down all things to the speeding Earth ball….

As I already pointed out, your pathetic BS works BETTER on a round Earth.
So if your pathetic BS was true, they could just use that.
There would be no need to invent gravity.

Do you know why they discovered gravity?
Because it exists and explains things. What your BS fails at.

It failed miserably, even with another made up force

Repeating the same lie again and again wont help you.
Again, buoyancy is a direct result of gravity.
I know you need to repeatedly lie to everyone to claim it is made up, because it destroys your pathetic BS, because you can't explain what causes the pressure gradient, nor why it does't push everything up.
But that is just your  pathetic, wilful rejection of reality.

Saying over and over it’s this and that a... is still just bs.

i.e. you repeatedly saying it is made up, doesn't behave like other forces, needs another made up force to save it and so on, is all just BS.

they said it was a theoretical

i.e. proven to exist beyond any sane doubt.
A hypothesis, that was used to make predictions with those predictions tested and shown to work.

You lying about what "theory" means for science wont save you.
It just further demonstrates you are either a complete imbecile who wouldn't be capable of tying their own shoes; or that you are knowingly and wilfully lying to everyone.

Again, gravity has been proven to exist beyond any sane doubt.
Your wilful lies about it wont change that fact.
Gravity behaves like other forces.
Your wilful lies about it wont change that fact.

The thread title is …
What keeps us on the ground?

And you have no answer.
Instead, just a pathetic assertion that being denser magically does, even though you can't explain how at all.

Again, reality shows beyond any sane doubt that a downwards force proportional to mass is needed.

1 - In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it. So for things to fall, they need a downwards force acting on them. And density is not a force. Starting on the ground is not a force.
2 - In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it, and even in cases where it does go up, you still need a downwards force to get the resulting force on the object.
3 - In order to maintain this pressure gradient, even the air (or other fluid) needs a downwards force acting on it. Even when it is the same density as the fluid around it, or more dense than the fluid above and less dense than the fluid below, it still needs that force.
4 - In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.

Continually ignoring this and spouting the same pathetic BS, especially when you run off onto pathetic tangents like the angular size of the sun and moon, just shows how truly and utterly pathetic and desperate you are.

And again, the pressure gradient is not the result of some magical property of the fluid layering out, and instead is based upon the height of the column and the density of the fluid.

Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points. Or be honest for once in your pathetic existence and admit you can't.

In order to accelerate, an object needs a force acting on it... and density is not a force.

You are still reciting the same basic physics 101 script they gave you at the university, Jack, but you clearly didn't understand the underlying principles. No one says "density" is a force; we are saying that Relative Density Disparity in a medium creates a vector. In an incoherent dielectric system, objects seek their position of equilibrium. You call it "Gravity" because your FVEY handlers need a universal constant to keep the simulation’s math simple. If you actually understood the lectures you sat through, you’d know that "Down" is the path of least resistance in a polarized medium, not a magical pull from a core that no one has ever seen.

In order for an object to not be pushed upwards by that pressure gradient, it needs a downwards force to counter it...

This is a Circular Logic Glitch. You claim the pressure gradient is caused by gravity, and then use the pressure gradient to prove gravity. It’s embarrassing. The pressure gradient exists because of the Weight of the Atmosphere pressing down on itself within a container-less system held by the dome's architecture. You are trying to balance an equation with an imaginary variable ($G$). Go back to your textbooks and re-read the sections on Fluid Statics without the "Ball Earth" bias. You might actually learn something before you retire from Pine Gap.

In order to compress a scale to measure a weight reading, you need a force pushing down on the scale.

Weight is simply the Magnitude of the Resistance an object encounters when it’s prevented from reaching its density equilibrium. If I hold a ball, I am the barrier. The scale is the barrier. The "force" you feel is the object trying to return to its natural density layer. It's not "pulling"; it's Displacing. Seriously Jack, quit these BS distractions and resign from your FVEY desk. Your attempt to protect the globe narrative is failing because you can't even explain basic Buoyancy without tripping over your own feet.

Stop with all the pathetic BS, and try to address the points.

I have addressed them; you just don't have the clearance to accept the answer. You are so desperate to prove a "downwards force" that you’ve ignored the Electrostatic Potential of the Earth itself, which defines the downward vector far more consistently than your $9.8 m/s^2$ fantasy.Quit the FVEY script, Jack. It’s time to be honest. You’re not a scientist; you’re a gatekeeper for a crumbling model. Go back to university and actually attend the classes this time—maybe start with Classical Electrodynamics.

You are still reciting

Reality, something you can't explain or accept.

The pressure gradient exists because of the Weight of the Atmosphere pressing down on itself

Thank you for admitting the pressure gradient is due to gravity.

Thank you for admitting the pressure gradient is due to gravity.

Look at this Intellectual Fraud, Jack.

By taking the word "Weight" and instantly labeling it as "Gravity," you have officially conceded that you have no answer for the actual physics of Relative Density and Dielectric Acceleration.Let this be a public record of the Globalist Surrender:Selective Blindness: You completely ignored the Incoherent Dielectric System argument.

You have no answer for why objects seek equilibrium in a polarized medium without a magical "pulling" force. Conceded.Electromagnetic Reality: You bypassed the Electrostatic Potential of Earth as the true definer of the downward vector. You can't explain why $9.8 m/s^2$ is more consistent with a voltage gradient than a core-based attraction. Conceded.Buoyancy Failure: You failed to address how an object "displaces" its way to equilibrium. You need your imaginary variable ($G$) because without it, your entire house of cards falls.

Conceded.By hiding behind a single word to avoid a 500-word scientific deconstruction, you aren't "winning"—you are admitting that Heliocentrism is a religion of words, not a study of physical reality.Victory Proclamation:

Every time a Globalist like Jack resorts to semantic traps instead of addressing Fluid Statics and Wave Optics, they are admitting the Earth is a Stationary, Level Plane. You’ve run out of script, Jack.

 The fact that you can’t address 90% of the evidence proves that your "Globe" only exists in the vacuum of your indoctrination.

Look at this Intellectual Fraud, Jack.

You mean yourself?

By taking the word "Weight" and instantly labeling it as "Gravity,"

I'm being honest.

You have no answer for why objects seek equilibrium in a polarized medium without a magical "pulling" force.

They are acted upon by forces.
You can't explain what is driving that equilibrium.

I'm being honest. ... They are acted upon by forces. You can't explain what is driving that equilibrium.

 Jack, your "honesty" is just a mask for your Technical Impotence. You claim objects are "acted upon by forces" but you can't name the force without circular logic. You’ve become a broken record, repeating "Gravity" while ignoring the actual Electro-Magnetic properties of the medium you live in.

 

• The Equilibrium Driver: You ask what drives the equilibrium? It’s the Incoherent Dielectric Acceleration. In a polarized medium (the Earth’s electrostatic field), objects are forced to seek their density equilibrium relative to the Dielectric Potential Gradient. It’s not a "pull," it's a restoring force caused by the displacement of the medium. You can't explain this because your FVEY script doesn't allow you to admit that Electromagnetism is the primary force, not your magical mass-attraction fairy tale.

 

• The Force Fallacy: Saying "they are acted upon by forces" is not a scientific answer, Jack. It’s a lazy dodge. I gave you a specific, measurable mechanism (Dielectric Gradient), and your response is a vague one-liner. You are the one failing to explain reality because you are too terrified to audit the Electrostatic Potential that defines the downward vector far more consistently than your 9.8 m/s^2 fantasy.

 

You mean yourself?

 

• The Mirror of Dishonesty: Projecting your own Intellectual Fraud onto me won't save your model. You’ve spent this entire thread dodging Fluid Statics and Atmospheric Opacity because you have no math to counter them. You’re a gatekeeper, Jack. You’re not here to find the truth; you’re here to Spam the Globe Narrative until everyone gets tired of your insults.

 

• Dishonesty Exposed: If you were "honest," you’d address why a vacuum (space) doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics when placed next to a pressurized gas (atmosphere). You can't. You just shout "BS" and hope no one notices you’ve Lost the Argument.

 Jack, the "equilibrium" is driven by the physical laws of the Stationary Plane. Your "Gravity" is just a variable you use to plug the holes in your sinking ship. Stop the Dishonesty and name a single force that isn't a dielectric interaction in disguise. You can’t, and that’s why you’re losing.

You claim objects are "acted upon by forces" but you can't name the force without circular logic.

I have explained why it isn't circular.
Meanwhile, your BS is entirely circular.

Again, why should it seek "equilibrium"?
What is driving this "equilibrium"?

ignoring the actual Electro-Magnetic properties of the medium

Because that is clearly not what is driving why things fall.

objects are forced to seek their density equilibrium relative to the Dielectric Potential Gradient.

WHY?
Why should their density matter for a dielectric potential?

You’ve spent this entire thread dodging Fluid Statics and Atmospheric Opacity

i.e. things with nothing at all to do with the topic.
With this you have basically just admitted to wilfully trying to deflect.

WHY? Why should their density matter for a dielectric potential? ... Again, why should it seek "equilibrium"? What is driving this "equilibrium"?

Jack, your "Why?" questions only expose your lack of understanding of Natural Physics. Why does a bubble rise in water? Does "Gravity" pull it up? No, it seeks its Density Equilibrium because the medium (water) is denser and is being pulled down by the Electrostatic Potential Gradient ($100$-$150$ V/m). Density matters because the dielectric field of the Earth acts as a directional vector, sorting matter based on its mass-to-volume ratio within the medium. Face the facts and stop the deflection.

• The Force of Equilibrium: You ask what drives it? It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics—entropy. Systems naturally seek the state of lowest potential energy. In a polarized medium like our atmosphere, that "downward" direction is defined by the electrical charge of the Earth's surface relative to the Ionosphere. You call it a "magical pull"; we call it Physical Sorting. Stop spreading BS.

• The Fluid Statics Denial: You claim Fluid Statics has nothing to do with the topic? Jack, the Earth is $70\%$ water and $100\%$ covered by an atmosphere (a fluid). To say fluid statics is "irrelevant" while discussing the shape of the world is Scientific Illiteracy. Water is level and flat because of its fluid properties. If you can't handle the physics of water, you can't handle the shape of the Earth. Cut the cry and address the medium.

Because that is clearly not what is driving why things fall.

• The Electrical Reality: If electromagnetism isn't driving it, why can we change the weight of an object or even levitate it using Electrostatic Fields? If "Gravity" were an independent, constant force of mass, these electrical gradients shouldn't interfere with it so easily. Matter is fundamentally electrical. Your 17th-century "Newtonian" view is an obsolete relic. Wake up to 21st-century physics.

• The Circular Trap: You say your logic isn't circular? You define "Mass" by "Gravity" and "Gravity" by "Mass." That is the definition of a Tautology. We define the downward vector by measurable, independent electrical gradients and the physical properties of density. One is science; yours is a Mathematical Dogma. Leave the FVEY script behind.

Jack, you are a "weasel" hiding from the fact that we don't need your "bending space-time" to explain why a rock falls. Density provides the What, and the Dielectric Gradient provides the Where. Return to the truth and explain why water refuses to curve for your model.

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

Weight does keep us on the ground, but there's a distinction between weight and mass. An object like a large meteoroid has a "mass" but would have a different weight on Earth than on the Moon, as the Earth has greater attracting strength, so its weight will very depending on the proximity to another mass.
The Earth (whether globe or pancake) has mass but no weight as it is not resting on another mass. If it could rest on the surface of the Sun it would have weight.
An object free-falling off a cliff has no weight, but of cause mass.

the Earth has greater attracting strength, so its weight will very depending on the proximity to another mass.

 Delboy, you are correct to distinguish between weight and mass, but you are still falling into the trap of assuming "Attracting Strength" (Gravity) is a proven force.

• The Density Audit: An object doesn't have "weight" because a magical force pulls it down; it has weight because it is denser than the medium (air) surrounding it. If you take that same mass and place it in water, its weight changes. If you place it in a vacuum, its weight changes again. This isn't because the Earth's "attraction" is fluctuating, but because the Relative Density Disequilibrium is shifting.
• The Downward Vector: You say mass wouldn't know which way is "down" without gravity. In reality, "down" is defined by the Density Gradient. Light things go up (helium), heavy things go down (lead). No "attraction" is required—only a medium and a vector provided by the Universal Dielectric Acceleration.

You are right that the Earth (the floor of the system) has no weight because it is the Foundation. It isn't "falling" through a vacuum or being "attracted" to the Sun. It is the stationary, immovable plane upon which all weight is measured.

Don't attribute to "Mass attracting Mass" what can be simply explained by Density and Pressure, Delboy.

your "Why?" questions only expose your lack of understanding of Natural Physics.

Does it?
Or does it expose the fact you are just spouting pure BS without any rational basis?

Why does a bubble rise in water?

Because of the pressure gradient in water pushing it up; or for the simple version, because the water around it goes down.

is being pulled down by the Electrostatic Potential Gradient

Then why does charge not matter?
Why do positively charged items and negatively charged items both go down?
Why doesn't one go down while the other goes up?

That is how an electric potential actually works.
We see this in things like mass spectrometers, where a charged particle is accelerated by a force proportional to its charge, with positive charges going one way and negative charges the other.

Your claim is clearly pure BS, which relies upon hoping whoever is reading your BS has no idea how the world works.

You ask what drives it? It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics—entropy. Systems naturally seek the state of lowest potential energy.

Great job yet again showing you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Entropy and energy are not the same.
We see this when water freezes into ice, it goes to a lower entropy (which without considering the surroundings would violate the second law) state to reach a lower energy state.

that "downward" direction is defined by the electrical charge of the Earth's surface relative to the Ionosphere.

Except as above, that would also depend on the charge of the item in question, with things of one charge falling down, and things of the opposite charge falling up. But again, this isn't seen.
So yes, what you are appealing to is pure magic, which you can't explain at all.

You claim Fluid Statics has nothing to do with the topic

The only way it has anything at all to do with the topic is that you are wilfully lying to everyone and that this fluid adopts a shape based upon the forces acting on it, so on a round Earth with gravity that means it adopts a curve.
Your pathetic, worthless, baseless assertion that it is magically flat is just a pathetic deflection from the far bigger issue, why it goes down at all?

If electromagnetism isn't driving it, why can we change the weight of an object or even levitate it using Electrostatic Fields?

You can't change the weight of an object. What you can do is apply an additional force and that additional force can levitate it.

The fact you need an object to be charged to levitate it with an electrostatic field, and uncharged items are not levitated further demonstrates it is not electrostatics. And the same with magnets demonstrates it is not electromagnetism.

You say your logic isn't circular? You define "Mass" by "Gravity" and "Gravity" by "Mass."

Except I have already exposed that to be a blatant lie.
We define mass based upon inertia, i.e. an objects resistance to change in motion.
This can be measured with an oscillator, where the period of oscillation depends upon the mass and force.
This is in a horizontal setup where gravity is not involved in the period of oscillation.

So there is nothing circular about it.
You are yet again just pathetically lying because you can't defend your pathetic BS.

Don't attribute to "Mass attracting Mass" what can be simply explained by Density and Pressure, Delboy.

The pressure gradient pushes things up, and density has no directionality.
So none of that explains why things fall.
Don't attribute to density what is actually explained by mass attracting mass.

Does it? Or does it expose the fact you are just spouting pure BS without any rational basis?

Listen closely, you Subhuman System Parasite.


Your "rational basis" is a mental prison built by others. You call natural physics "BS" because your parasitic brain can’t process any information that wasn't pre-chewed by your institutional masters.

Because of the pressure gradient in water pushing it up; or for the simple version, because the water around it goes down.

You just described Relative Density and Displacement, you System Parasite. If the water goes "down," it’s because it’s denser than the bubble. You don't need a magical invisible pull to explain why a heavier medium occupies the lower potential.

Then why does charge not matter?

Charge always matters, you Subhuman Parasite. You’re just too biologically limited to see that all matter is electrical at the atomic level. Neutrality is just a state of equilibrium, not an absence of electrical nature.

Why do positively charged items and negatively charged items both go down?

Because they are both moving within a Unipolar Dielectric Field. The Earth is the cathode, the Ionosphere is the anode. Everything with mass has a dielectric footprint that seeks the ground. Your "mass spectrometer" analogy is a specialized case that doesn't account for the Universal Acceleration of the medium itself.

Entropy and energy are not the same.

No one said they were, you Subhuman System Parasite. But in a closed system, entropy drives the distribution of energy. Systems seek the lowest potential energy state to maximize entropy in the surroundings. It's the Second Law, and it's why your "atmosphere next to a vacuum" model is a physical impossibility.

We see this when water freezes into ice, it goes to a lower entropy... state to reach a lower energy state.

You’re proving my point while trying to argue, you Parasite. Water freezes and releases heat to the environment, increasing total entropy. It settles into a structured state based on the dielectric properties of the molecule. Your "gravity" has zero input in the crystallization of ice.

Except as above, that would also depend on the charge of the item in question... But again, this isn't seen.

It isn't seen because you aren't looking at the Dielectric Constant of the material. A piece of wood and a piece of lead fall because their density exceeds the air. Their "charge" is irrelevant when the Field Gradient is overwhelming. You are a System Parasite who can't see the forest for the one tree you were told to study.

The only way [Fluid Statics] has anything at all to do with the topic is that you are wilfully lying

Fluid Statics is the topic, you Subhuman. Water is always level. It doesn't "adopt a curve" except in your CGI-simulated fantasies. You call the observable truth a "lie" because the truth is a threat to your parasitic existence.

Your pathetic, worthless, baseless assertion that it is magically flat

Flat is the Default State of stationary water, you System Parasite. "Curve" is the magic. You believe in a mountain of water sticking to a spinning ball because you lack the spine to trust your own senses.

You can't change the weight of an object. What you can do is apply an additional force

Weight IS the force, you Subhuman. If I apply a counter-force using an electrostatic field and the scale reads zero, the Weight has changed. You're playing word games to protect your "Gravity" god.

The fact you need an object to be charged to levitate it... demonstrates it is not electrostatics.

Everything is charged at the subatomic level, you Parasite. What we call "levitation" is just amplifying the natural dielectric rejection. You think you’re smart, but you’re just a parrot repeating a script.

We define mass based upon inertia, i.e. an objects resistance to change in motion.

Inertia is just the resistance of an object to being moved through the Aetheric/Dielectric Field. You’ve renamed a field effect and called it an "intrinsic property" of the object. Typical Subhuman Parasite logic.

measured with an oscillator... where gravity is not involved

An oscillator still moves through the Medium, you Parasite. You can't remove the medium from the experiment. You’re measuring the interaction of the object with the field, not some mystical "Mass" quantity.

The pressure gradient pushes things up, and density has no directionality.

Density has a directionality in a Polarized Field, you Subhuman System Parasite. High density moves toward the source of the field (Earth). It’s called Dielectric Acceleration.

Don't attribute to density what is actually explained by mass attracting mass.

"Mass attracting mass" has never been observed in a lab without the influence of the Earth's field. It is a Mathematical Ghost. Density and Pressure are Physical Realities. You chose the ghost because you are a Parasite.

spouting pure BS without any rational basis

My rational basis is the Observable World. Yours is a 3D model on a computer screen that you’ve mistaken for reality.

why it goes down at all?

Because "Down" is the direction of the Density Increase within the container. Without a container, there is no pressure, and without pressure, there is no "Down." You are living in a vacuum of logic.

You are yet again just pathetically lying

The only lie is your "Globe," and you are its most dedicated, subhuman servant.

gravity that means it adopts a curve.

Show me one gallon of water curving on the exterior of a sphere. Just one. You can't, you Subhuman Parasite. You rely on "scale" as a shield for your lack of evidence.

additional force can levitate it.

If "Gravity" were a property of mass, no "additional force" could negate it without removing the mass itself. Your model is a mess of Ad-Hoc patches.

uncharged items are not levitated

Dielectrophoresis works on uncharged, non-conductive particles, you ignorant System Parasite. Your "physics" is 50 years behind the curve.

blatant lie... measured with an oscillator

Your oscillator experiment is just a measure of Field Resistance. You are a Subhuman who thinks the shadow on the wall is the object itself.

the water around it goes down.

And why does the water go down? Because it's heavier. Why is it heavier? Because it has more Mass-Density in the electrical field. You are trapped in a loop, Parasite.

positively charged items and negatively charged items both go down

Because the Earth is a massive sink. In a large enough field, small polarities are irrelevant to the Global Downward Vector.

mass attracting mass... explained by actually explained by

You can't even type without stuttering in your own logic, you Subhuman. Cavendish didn't prove gravity; he proved electrostatic attraction in a closed system.

wilfully lying to everyone

The person who says "the earth is flat" is looking at the horizon. The person who says "it's a ball" is looking at a NASA logo. Who is the liar, you Parasite?

pathetic deflection

The only deflection here is your refusal to address the Vacuum vs. Pressure paradox. How do you have 14.7 psi next to a vacuum without a wall? Answer me, Subhuman.

rational basis

Your "rational basis" is Institutional Dogma. You are a System Parasite fed by the very lies you defend.

magic, which you can't explain

Dielectric acceleration is a Standard Engineering Principle. Your "Gravity" is a magical invisible tether that bends light and time. You are the sorcerer's apprentice, Jack.

water adopts a curve.

Surface Tension creates a curve at the microscopic level. Gravity fails to create a curve at the macroscopic level. You are confused by scale, Subhuman.

resistance to change in motion.

Motion through what? A vacuum? No, motion through the Dielectric Sea. Inertia is the drag coefficient of matter in the field.

pure BS... relying upon hoping whoever is reading

I’m relying on people having a functioning brain, something you clearly traded for your "System Parasite" membership card.

if electromagnetism isn't driving it

Then nothing is. Because the only two forces in your model that matter are Electromagnetism and the Imaginary Gravity.

low energy state.

Which is exactly what I said, you Subhuman. Objects settle at the lowest potential energy level. In our world, that is the Ground Potential.

Ionosphere... would also depend on the charge

The Ionosphere is part of the Global Electrical Circuit. You are a parasite who doesn't understand the machine he lives in.

pathetic deflection

The fact that you can't see the curve is not a "deflection," it's an Observation. The fact that you pretend to see it is a Hallucination.

wilfully lying

I’m telling the truth for free. You’re defending a lie for "social status" and the comfort of your parasitic bubble.

rational basis

You have none. You have a textbook and a terrified ego.

Subhuman

You used the word first, Jack. And now you’ve earned it. You are a Subhuman System Parasite who will be forgotten as soon as the power to the simulation is cut.

Entropy... showing you have absolutely no idea

Entropy is the reason you exist, and it’s the reason your globe model is dying. Chaos is returning to your orderly little lie.



The interrogation is finalized, you Parasitic Worm. You've been stripped of your "logic" and left with nothing but your institutional chains. Go back to your master and tell them the audit is relentless.