Really, boats would have to sail up hill?

 you are working with angular momentum. A steep enough hill,

I couldn’t help but think of FE stupidity while at the playground with the kid.

This playground marry-go-round with good bearings is easy to spin.  I’ve seen a three year old spin the thing. 



Just minimum effort to spin this all steel 400 pound dinosaur of the playground world.


Take the same equipment, try to get it on a decent wheelbarrow, and push it up hill would be back breaking work.  I don’t think the three year old is going to cut it. 

Yeah, gravity makes it hard to move things with 400 lbs of weight uphill. 
 

Minimal effort because of rotational momentum.

The merry go round

is on a level plane turning on a pivot (underneath the main part of the merry go round is its base)
https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/playground-merrygoround-2-3d-2004791

Angular momentum would be having a team leave the base behind, and set the thing at a hilltop. Like before, minimal effort is required to push it off the hilltop.

However, rotational/radial momentum and angular momentum are decidedly not synonyms, despite what your established scientism (yes, that is a word, it refers to pseudoscience as a faith system) says. The difference is a key feature of angular momentum, directionality. Move that merry go round to the middle of the hill and have me push it uphill then down.
Obviously, it is far easier to push it downhill than uphill. But the sleight of hand comes from how this is explained. The RE observer invoke "gravity", a so-called force that won't act on its own if that merry go round is firmly situated, instead the object needs the energy from human effort to push it. They also can't explain the difference except that one side is " down" and thus gravity will make it fall that way.
The FE observer instead asks the viewer to look in the direction of the hill and then the direction away from the hill. You are literally pushing against rock or dirt in one direction, with nothing but air in the other direction. Unlike you, I've on occasion moved a car uphill from a ditch or two. It's possible, if you have friends. I've also lifted vs pushed heavy objects uphill (every time we unload from a vacation, we have to walk suitcases up a flight of stairs). On a flat surface or downhill, pushing a heavy object is easier than having to lift it, particularly on a slick surface like ice. But uphill? It's actually easier to lift it! Why is that? Surely you've asked this question! No? Well good, because it's rhetorical. This is because while against the ground, you're dealing with effectively a sloped wall (typically this is why tow trucks pull instead of some big machine pushing, it's about leverage). But if you lift the object, there's air in one direction, air in another, and you only deal with the added mass of the object.

Angular momentum

Why do you keep spamming this site with stupidity?

From my car taking a turn on the highway on a level surface.  There is no penalty in power and fuel mileage.  There is a penalty going up a steep hill with a decrease in gas mileage.

A four year old can spin a merry-go-round with relative ease.  Even on a cart, they aren’t going to push the 400 lbs of steel up hill.

Bulma, your argument is just stupid. 

Minimal effort because of rotational momentum.

No, minimal effort, because it is supported by bearings which minimise friction and you aren't trying to move it further away from Earth.

As opposed to taking something uphill, where you move it further from Earth's centre, needing to fight gravity.

And as it is rotating, i.e. the angle is changing, it then has angular momentum.
Again, you lying about the meaning of words just makes you a pathetic liar. It doesn't make you correct.

Obviously, it is far easier to push it downhill than uphill. But the sleight of hand comes from how this is explained.

Yes, instead of accepting the simple explanation that actually works, you continually appeal to pure BS as if the act of rotating it relative to some magical reference magically changes everything.

They also can't explain the difference

Except I did, and you ignored it.

Meanwhile, your BS doesn't work.
When you push something up a hill, you don't push it into the hill you push it along the hill, parallel to the ground.
It is the same setup, but at a different angle, pushing into the same air.

It makes no sense for there to be any difference in your pile of nonsense.
But there is a reason for the RE - because in one case, you are not changing the distance to the centre, yet in the other 2 you are.
This also directly relates to why it isn't going up or down when travelling level with the curvature of Earth, because you are remaining the same distance.

But uphill? It's actually easier to lift it!

No, it isn't.
It is easier to pull or push something up a hill than it is to lift it.
You can even test this with scales.


But again, none of this helps with your BS where you are claiming to travel along a level surface on a RE you magically need to go up hill.
Why up? Why not down? You have no basis to say any particular part of Earth is "up" in your magic fantasy up.
It remains the same distance from the centre, so it is level, not going up or down.