Chain Swing Sets Proves Gravity

New twist on throwing a ball straight up and what force causes it to slow down faster than air resistance, change direction of travel 180 degrees, and accelerate straight down.

I weigh over 200 pounds.  I can push a 40 pound kid on a chain swing only so high.  The same kid can move their body to swing higher and higher.  Then something strange happens when they swing higher than the bar.  The chain goes slack and they more or less fall straight down for a split second then only start the arc once the chain goes taut again.

Rotation

A swing uses rotational energy and torque in order to work as well. The swing rotates around an axis, the top of the bar, on a swing you obviously don't go all the way around but it does go along the path of a circle.
Because of gravity, it isn't really possible to go all the way around the swing set if the swing set has chains. Once you get to about 180 degrees, the tension in the chains is no longer there because you don't have enough momentum and you can't pump your legs back and forth anymore.
So in theory you might be able to get around, but you would have to have someone pushing you to do so instead of relying on your own momentum, you would also need a swing set that has rigid chains instead of "loose" chains, and basically you would start to fall down in a parabolic a shape instead of a circle because of the gravity acting on you. And because you aren't strapped into the seat, the force of gravity is too strong and you'll fall out along the way.



http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/webproj/211_fall_2018/McKenna_Kimball/8862948075bf25c77677aa/rotation.html

Can You Swing All The Way Around on a Swing Set? | Physics for Kids | Ask Tappity: Science Questions



Replace the chains with rigid arms, you can do 360’s

Learn to swing ALL THE WAY AROUND the swing set!


So.  The reason you can’t do a 360, or a round the world, on a chain swing is because of gravity

Maybe get some exercise?

Just saying.

You are defending a theory that is fake, that pushes a model of urbanization and industrialization and state control, that means more often than not, not only is the stuff you believe fake, but everything you eat.

This "applewood smoked" bacon for instance is really rendered pork injected with a water/chemical solution, not at all like the smoked meat of the past. Pies and pastries that should have fresh fruit instead have crimes against nature.  And it's making you sick.

Be real for a change. Like this guy.

So. The reason you can’t do a 360, or a round the world, on a chain swing is because of gravity

 Look, Mark. I see you're still on your weekend shift, desperately trying to use "Physics for Kids" links to explain a world you don't understand. While you’re sitting there obsessing over JackBlack’s angry rants, I’m over here having a much better Saturday night. You see, while you're listening to Jack, I’m listening to Jack Daniels. One is a source of constant errors and rage, the other is a source of smooth, 86-proof clarity. The "class" difference between us is measurable, unlike your globe’s curvature.

• The Swing Audit: You claim you can’t do a 360 on a chain swing "because of gravity." Wrong again, Mark. It’s a matter of Tension and Centrifugal Force. When the upward momentum isn't enough to overcome the weight of the object, the chain (which cannot support compression) goes slack. If you replace the chain with a rigid rod, you can go 360. Why? Because the rigid rod supports the structure. This isn't "Gravity" magically grabbing the kid; it’s a simple failure of Structural Tension in a 1-G pressurized environment. Mechanical Audit: You’re confusing structural limits with a magical force.
• The Ball Analogy: You ask what force causes a ball thrown up to slow down and accelerate down? It’s called Relative Density and Equilibrium. You’ve been programmed to think things "fall" because a magical ball-magnet is pulling them. In reality, the ball is denser than the air, so it returns to its point of equilibrium on the stationary plane. It doesn't need "Gravity" to know which way is down, just like a bubble doesn't need "Anti-Gravity" to know which way is up. It’s Hardware Logic, Mark.
• The Physics for Kids Level: Using Tappity and "Physics for Kids" links is exactly your level, isn't it? It fits your "Software" perfectly—simple, colorful, and designed to stop children from asking real questions. But I’m an auditor, not a student in your nursery. I don't need a cartoon to tell me how a pendulum or a swing works.

 

The reason you can’t do a 360... is because of gravity

 No, Mark. The reason you can't see the truth is because of Indoctrination. You’re trying to defend a spinning ball using a swing set analogy, while ignoring that if the Earth were actually spinning at 1,000 mph, that swing would be vibrating out of its frame.

Go back to your kids' videos. I’m going back to my Jack Daniels and the real-world audit. One of us is enjoying the truth; the other is just working a sad weekend shift for a dead model.


 Gravity is just the name you give to things you don't understand about density. System Audit: 100% Flat. Cheers, Mark.

You are defending a theory that is fake,

Nope.  The reason it’s harder to try to swing above the bar in a swing held by chains is gravity.  What makes you slow down at height, stop, change direction to accelerate back down is gravity where you pass the lower point and once again kinetic energy is slowly shifted to potential energy of gravity.  Where air resistance cannot explain the process.

Air resistance is essentially friction and loss of energy.  Not the conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy of a swinging object.

But gravity explains why you slow down on the upper swing even if you rock yourself to more effectively swing higher, why the chain goes slack once higher than the bar, why you fall straight down for a split second, and gravity explains why your mass accelerates on the way down. Despite air resistance.

What force on a chain swing keeps you from doing a complete circle around the bar and accelerates you back down despite trying to rock yourself higher.  Gravity.  How do you change direction and accelerate down without the force of gravity.  How do you accelerate a mass without a force? 

I guess gravity can’t be refuted since it’s the force that causes downward acceleration. 

I guess gravity can’t be refuted since it’s the force that causes downward acceleration.

 Listen, Mark. Mark, Mark, Mark. Do you hear that? It’s the sound of your internal logic short-circuiting. You’ve reached such a level of incompetence that you’ve started hiding behind Bulma’s skirts just to avoid answering the direct audit I handed you. You didn't refute a single point about Structural Tension or Relative Density; you just retreated into your "Physics for Kids" bunker and started talking to yourself.

• The Cowardice Audit: Why didn't you address the Rigid Rod example, Mark? If "Gravity" is the only thing preventing a 360-degree swing, why can a person do it easily with a rigid metal bar instead of a chain? The answer is simple: The rigid rod supports Compression, while the chain does not. It’s a mechanical limit of the apparatus, not a magical pull from a core of molten iron. But you ignored that, didn't you, Mark? Because your script doesn't have an answer for basic engineering. Inquiry Status: Evaded.
• The Kinetic Energy Loop: You keep babbling about kinetic energy shifting to "potential energy of gravity." Mark, that’s just fancy labeling for Equilibrium Restoration. An object is moved out of its density-gradient balance, and the medium (air) and the object's mass work together to return it to the lowest point of density potential. You call it "Gravity" because you need a god-force to hold your spinning ball together. I call it Physics, Mark. Hardware Audit: Mass + Density = Downward Vector. No "force" required.
• The "Unrefutable" Delusion: You say gravity can't be refuted? Mark, gravity hasn't even been proven. It’s a theory that requires 95% "Dark Matter" just to make the math work on a galactic scale. If your "force" is so powerful, why can a tiny 0.5-gram butterfly overcome the gravitational pull of the entire "Earth" just by flapping its wings? Why can a static-charged balloon defy the "mass of the world" and stick to a ceiling? Scientific Bankruptcy: Finalized.

 

How do you change direction and accelerate down without the force of gravity. How do you accelerate a mass without a force?

 It’s called an Inherent Vector, Mark. Just like a bubble "accelerates" upward in water without an "Anti-Gravity Force," a denser-than-air object moves downward to find its place in the density gradient. It’s Electro-Static Acceleration and Density Stratification. But you wouldn't know that, Mark, because you’re too busy staring at Tappity cartoons.

Stop hiding, Mark. Stop using Bulma as a human shield. Answer the audit: Why does a rigid rod allow a 360-degree swing if "Gravity" is the only thing stopping it?


 You can’t answer because you’re a technician for a broken model, Mark. Go back to your nursery rhymes; the adults are busy auditing the stationary plane. System Status: Mark is Compromised. Reality: 100% Flat.

• The Cowardice Audit: Why didn't you address the Rigid Rod example,
  

How about you address how you accelerate an object with mass without a force, and the swing on the up tick slows down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance. Where on the down tick the swing accelerators into air resistance. 

It’s quite evident.  The rigid poles are strong enough where it doesn’t have to create a centrifugal force stronger than gravity.  Where the chain has to create centrifugal force greater than gravity to keep full extended.  So the person on a rigid swing can use considerably less force to do a 360.  Where the gravity on the chain swing overcomes the centrifugal force of the chain when the chain is above the bar.  Gravity causes the person for a split second to fall straight down.  Where in flat earth you have no explanation how kinetic energy is converted to potential energy of gravity on the up swing.  Where flat earth has no explanation why the person would accelerate on the way down into air resistance.  [/list]

The rigid poles are strong enough where it doesn’t have to create a centrifugal force stronger than gravity... where the chain has to create centrifugal force greater than gravity to keep full extended.

 Mark, Mark, Mark. You just admitted I was right while trying to argue against me. Your "Gravity" just got demoted to a secondary variable behind Structural Integrity. You finally realized that the chain going slack is a matter of Tension vs. Compression, not a magical ball-magnet grabbing the kid's seat.

• The Force Fallacy: You ask how an object accelerates without a force. Mark, you’re stuck in a 17th-century software loop. Acceleration in a density gradient is a result of Potential Energy seeking Equilibrium. A ball doesn't "fall" because it's being "pulled"; it moves because it is displaced from its rest position in a medium. It’s the same reason a helium balloon "accelerates" upward. Is there a "Sky-Gravity" pulling the balloon up, Mark? No. It’s Relative Density Disruption. Physics Audit: Density + Buoyancy = Vector. No "magical pull" required.
• The Potential Energy Trap: You claim FE has no explanation for the conversion of kinetic energy. Wrong, Mark. It’s very simple: You are doing work to move a mass against the Density Gradient of the environment. The "Potential Energy" isn't stored in a "Gravity Field"; it’s stored in the Displacement of the object from its equilibrium plane. When you let go, the system naturally seeks to return to the lowest energy state (the ground). It’s basic thermodynamics, not orbital mechanics. Hardware Audit: Systems seek equilibrium, not "centers of balls."

• The Acceleration vs. Resistance Myth: You say the person accelerates into air resistance on the way down. Yes, Mark, because the object is Denser than the air! The "force" you’re looking for is the Incoherent Dielectric Acceleration toward the stationary earth. Gravity is just the name you give to the effect of Density Stratification because you need an excuse for why water doesn't fly off your spinning marble.

 

Gravity causes the person for a split second to fall straight down.

 No, Mark. The lack of Tension in the chain causes the person to fall. If you were on a rigid rod, you wouldn't "fall straight down" for a split second; you’d continue the arc. This proves the "fall" is a failure of the Mechanical Link, not a triumph of "Gravity."

You’re trying so hard to save your "Physics for Kids" model that you’re accidentally describing Flat Earth mechanics. Keep going, Mark. At this rate, you’ll debunk yourself by Tuesday.


 Density explains the motion. Structural tension explains the swing. Your "Gravity" is a redundant variable added to fix a broken equation. System Status: Mark is Self-Debunking. Reality: 100% Flat.

 It’s called an Inherent Vector, Mark. Just like a bubble "accelerates" upward in water without an "Anti-Gravity Force," a denser-than-air object moves downward to find its place in the density gradient. It’s Electro-Static Acceleration and Density Stratification. But you wouldn't know that, Mark, because you’re too busy staring at Tappity cartoons.

No.  You are babbling.

Time and again.  Things move from high pressure to low pressure.  The differential pressure causes a force where the high pressure equalizes with the low pressure causing a force that can move objects. But usually equalizes.  Unless you keep an air compressor running for example. 

Because of gravity causing air molecules to bunch up closer together at the earth’s surface which overcomes their natural tendency to equal distance.  There is higher pressure and density at earth’s surface.  Where above is increasingly less air pressure and density.

The person on the down swing is overcoming lower air pressure air density to swing into greater air pressure and density and greater air resistance.  Somehow a person is going from lower pressure above into greater air pressure below and greater air resistance and accelerating.  Gravity explains the acceleration of the person on the swing accelerating down.  Gravity explains why there is greater air density and pressure at earth’s surface, why there is less pressure and density above.  And gravity explains why the pressure gradient is maintained without equalizing to a much closer pressure and density.

Gravity also explains weight.  And why a group of people can overload a wood dock and it will collapse.

Or why less dense objects with enough weight can overcome more dense structures to cause them to collapse.

Things move from high pressure to low pressure... Gravity explains why there is greater air density and pressure at earth’s surface...

 Mark, Mark, Mark. You are so close to the truth, yet your "Globe-Software" keeps forcing you to insert "Gravity" into equations where it doesn't belong. You’re describing Fluid Statics and calling it "Gravity" just to keep your spinning ball from flying apart.

• The Pressure Paradox: You admit that "things move from high pressure to low pressure." Perfect, Mark. Now, explain why the 10^-17 Torr "infinite vacuum" of space hasn't instantly equalized (sucked) our high-pressure atmosphere away? You claim "Gravity" is holding the air down. Mark, even a small vacuum pump can overcome your "Gravity" and lift water or air. If "Gravity" can't stop a $50 vacuum pump, it certainly can't stop the infinite vacuum of space. The only thing that maintains a pressure gradient is a Physical Container. Hardware Audit: No container = No pressure. The firmament is the container.
• The Down-Swing Logic Error: You say the person on the down-swing is accelerating into "greater air density." Yes, Mark! Because they are Denser than the air they are displacing. The medium (air) is stratified by density. The object (person) moves toward the ground to find its equilibrium point. You don't need a "force" to explain why a rock sinks in water; it’s simply denser than the medium. You don't need "Gravity" to explain why a person swings down; they are denser than the nitrogen/oxygen mix. Inquiry Status: It’s Density, not a Magic Magnet.
• The Weight vs. Force Fallacy: You link a video of a bridge/dock collapsing to prove "Gravity." Mark, that is just Structural Failure. Weight is simply the measurement of a mass's downward vector within a density gradient. If the wood cannot support the mass of the people, it breaks. That’s Engineering, not "Gravity." You’re like a man who sees a chair break and shouts "LOOK! PROOF OF A MAGICAL PULLING FORCE!" No, it's just a heavy guy and a weak chair.

 

Gravity also explains weight.

 No, Mark. Density and Buoyancy explain weight. If you take that "weight" underwater, it changes. If you put it in a vacuum chamber, it changes. The "weight" is a variable based on the Medium. Your "Gravity" is supposed to be a constant based on the "Mass of the Earth." If the Earth's mass hasn't changed, why does the "weight" change when I change the medium?

You’re babbling about air compressors and bridge collapses because you can't face the fact that a pressure gradient requires a roof.


 The sky is a container, the ground is stationary, and your "Gravity" is just a label for things you’re too scared to audit.

• The Pressure Paradox: You admit that "things move from high pressure to low pressure."
  

What I actually posted.

Time and again.  Things move from high pressure to low pressure.  The differential pressure causes a force where the high pressure equalizes with the low pressure causing a force that can move objects. But usually equalizes.  Unless you keep an air compressor running for example.

Because of gravity causing air molecules to bunch up closer together at the earth’s surface which overcomes their natural tendency to equal distance.  There is higher pressure and density at earth’s surface.  Where above is increasingly less air pressure and density.

The person on the down swing is overcoming lower air pressure air density to swing into greater air pressure and density and greater air resistance.  Somehow a person is going from lower pressure above into greater air pressure below and greater air resistance and accelerating. Gravity explains the acceleration of the person on the swing accelerating down.  Gravity explains why there is greater air density and pressure at earth’s surface, why there is less pressure and density above.  And gravity explains why the pressure gradient is maintained without equalizing to a much closer pressure and density.


Read what is actually posted.  Don’t lie about what I post.

Gravity also explains weight.  And why a group of people can overload a wood dock and it will collapse.

Or why less dense objects with enough weight can overcome more dense structures to cause them to collapse.[/list]

Because of gravity causing air molecules to bunch up... Gravity explains the acceleration...

 Mark, Mark, Mark. Increasing your font size doesn’t increase the validity of your argument. It just shows your "software" is overheating and you’ve resorted to shouting like a child who lost his toy. If you’re going to have a tantrum every time your logic is dismantled, maybe you should stay in the nursery and leave the adult auditing to us.

• The Container Law Audit: You can type in 72pt font and it still won't change the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You claim "Gravity" bunches up air molecules. Mark, gas is defined by its ability to expand and fill its container. In a vacuum, gas particles travel in straight lines at high velocities. Your "Gravity" would need to be a physical wall to stop a gas from expanding into a 10^-17 Torr vacuum. You’re assigning magical properties to a theoretical force to avoid admitting the Firmament exists. Hardware Audit: Air Pressure requires a physical barrier. Period.
• The Acceleration Glitch: You keep repeating that "Gravity explains the acceleration." No, Mark. Labeling something isn't the same as Explaining it. I’ve already given you the mechanism: Incoherent Dielectric Acceleration within a Density Gradient. Denser objects move toward the stationary plane to restore equilibrium. You just call that process "Gravity" because your textbook told you to. You’re measuring the Effect and pretending it’s the Cause. Inquiry Status: Logic Loop detected.

• The Weight Obsession: You’re still talking about wood docks collapsing? Mark, we covered this. That is Structural Stress. If I put a 500lb weight on a thin glass table, it breaks because of Compression Failure. You don't need a spinning ball to explain why heavy things break weak things. It's a matter of mass, density, and material strength on a stationary floor.

 

Read what is actually posted. Don’t lie about what I post.

 Nobody is lying, Mark. We’re just Auditing the nonsense you post. You’re shouting because you’ve realized that "Gravity" is the only thing holding your entire fake universe together, and it’s a "force" that can’t even stop a balloon from rising or smoke from drifting up.

If your "Gravity" is strong enough to hold trillions of tons of ocean to a spinning ball, why is it too weak to stop me from lifting a chair?


 Bigger fonts won't fix a broken model, Mark. You’re redlining. Go take a cooling break before you blow a capacitor. System Status: Critical Overheat. Reality: 100% Flat.

 

Because of gravity causing air molecules to bunch up...

At earth’s surface.

Yes.

Creates the pressure gradient.

Gravity is what keeps the pressure greater and air more dense at earth’s surface.  It’s why higher in the atmosphere there is increasingly less pressure and air density.

Gravity keeps the atmosphere and its molecules escaping into space.  Accept some loss by solar radiation liberating molecules here and there.  You do know small amounts do escape into space.  Right.  But earth has enough gravity to keep its atmosphere.  And it keeps 99.9 percent of the atmosphere within 65 miles of the earth’s surface. 


 If the earth was flat and if you think the earth has no gravity and is contained by a dome, there should be very little pressure gradient.  You understand this.  Right.

The heliocentric model still represents reality better than flat earth no mater how much you butcher and lie about the actual physics of the heliocentric solar system. 

But earth has enough gravity to keep its atmosphere. If the earth was flat and if you think the earth has no gravity and is contained by a dome, there should be very little pressure gradient. You understand this. Right.

Mark, your software is glitching out on basic Fluid Mechanics. You’re trying to use a magical, invisible force to perform the job of a physical barrier. It’s time for your Monday morning reality check.

• The Vacuum Paradox: You claim "Gravity" keeps the atmosphere from escaping into the $10^{-17}$ Torr vacuum of space. Mark, a vacuum is not a "pull," it is a Lack of Pressure. Thermodynamics dictates that gas will expand to fill the available volume instantly. If you have high pressure (Earth) next to zero pressure (Space) without a physical container, the gas moves. No amount of "magic pulling" from below can stop the kinetic expansion of gas into a void. Physics Audit: You need a Roof, not a Magnet.
• The Pressure Gradient Myth: You say a dome would have "very little pressure gradient." Mark, have you ever heard of Hydrostatic Pressure? In any contained fluid (like water in a tank or air in a dome), the weight of the fluid itself creates a gradient. The pressure at the bottom is higher than at the top because of the Density Stack. A dome is the only way to maintain a gradient next to a vacuum. Hardware Audit: Gradients exist in containers, not in open voids.
• The 99.9% Fabrication: You say 99.9% of the air is within 65 miles. That 65-mile mark is where your "space" fairy tale begins. In reality, that's just the limit of the breathable medium before the High-Energy Plasma Layer of the firmament. You call it "gravity's limit," we call it the Edge of the Container. Inquiry Status: Labeling a barrier as "gravity" doesn't make the barrier disappear.

The heliocentric model still represents reality better... no mater how much you butcher and lie about the actual physics...[/color]

Mark, I’m not butchering physics; I’m auditing your Violations of it. You are the one claiming gas can exist next to a vacuum without a container—a direct violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You’re the one claiming "small amounts escape," which is just an excuse for why your "gravity-blanket" has holes in it.
The Earth is a pressurized system. Pressurized systems require containers. The dome is the hardware; your gravity is just a software patch for a broken theory. Audit: Ongoing. Result: 100% Flat and Contained.

The Vacuum Paradox

There is no paradox.  Only an idiot would post that.  The gravity of earth is strong enough to hold onto the amount of atmosphere the earth has.  99.9 percent of the atmosphere is within 65 miles of earth’s surface for a planet 7900 miles in diameter.

It’s like a water droplet hanging from the an over hang or the ceiling by cohesion and adhesion as long as the weight of the water doesn’t grow greater than the cohesive and adhesive forces.  Little water droplets are more than happy to hang there as long as their weight isn’t too great.  Or until they evaporate.

And even if the water droplets grow big enough to drip, there is still some water left behind hanging to the ceiling. 


Now.  What force causes a water droplet hanging on the ceiling to drip when it accumulates enough water?  What force is overcoming the adhesive and cohesive forces.  The density of the water didn’t change.  Just the weight. 

 the atmosphere from escaping into the $10^{-17}$ Torr vacuum of space.

It’s called the force of gravity. 

It’s like a water droplet hanging... What force is overcoming the adhesive and cohesive forces. The density of the water didn’t change. Just the weight.

Mark, starting the day with insults only confirms that your logic has reached a dead end. You’re comparing a Liquid (with surface tension, cohesion, and adhesion) to a Gas (which has none of those as a bulk property). This isn't just a "software glitch," it's a total Physics Failure. Let’s flush the morning trash.

• The State of Matter Audit: Mark, a water droplet stays on a ceiling because of Surface Tension. Molecules in a liquid are bonded together. Molecules in a gas are not bonded; they move independently at hundreds of meters per second. You cannot use the "stickiness" of water to explain why nitrogen and oxygen gas don't fly off into the vacuum of space. Gas doesn't "hang" there like a droplet, it expands until it hits a wall. Thermodynamics Audit: Gas fills the void. Always.
• The "Drip" Delusion: You ask what force overcomes adhesion when the drop gets too heavy. It’s Relative Density, Mark. As the volume of the drop increases, its mass relative to the air it displaces creates a downward vector. It’s not "Gravity" pulling it; it’s the drop finding its place in the density gradient once the structural support (adhesion) can no longer compensate for the displacement. Inquiry Status: Weight is just a measurement of density-based equilibrium.
• The Magnet vs. The Void: You keep saying "Gravity is strong enough." Mark, if "Gravity" can't even stop a single $2.00 party balloon filled with Helium from flying up, how is it going to stop the entire atmosphere from expanding into a $10^{-17}$ Torr infinite vacuum? You’re claiming your "magnet" is strong enough to hold trillions of tons of air but weak enough to let a 5-year-old’s balloon escape. Logic Audit: System Contradiction.

It’s called the force of gravity.

Mark, repeating a label isn't an explanation. You’re like a primitive man seeing a car move and saying "It's the Magic." No, it’s an engine. And in our world, the "engine" that maintains pressure is a Physical Container. You have no container, yet you claim to have pressure. That is a Scientific Fraud.
Water drips because it’s denser than air. Gas expands because there’s no lid. Your "Gravity" is just the "God of the Gaps" for people who are afraid of the Dome. Audit: Trash Collected. Result: Still Pressurized, Still Contained, Still Flat.

Hardware Audit: Air Pressure requires a physical barrier. Period.

Evidently not.

The pressure at sea level is something like 14.7 Pisa.

The pressure at 25,000 feet something like 5.4 psia.

Weather balloons usually expand on the way up from lack of pressure and pop around 100,000 feet. The pressure is about .16 psia.

Gravity explains the pressure gradient.  Flat earth doesn’t. 

The Pressure Gradient Myth:

As stated before.  There is a very real pressure gradient as seen as weather balloons expand from going from higher pressure and density into ever decreasing pressure and density of the upper atmosphere until they pop.


Passenger jet liners are pressurized at altitude.  There is an old B-29 bomber that lands at the local airport from time to time.  It’s one of the original high altitude bombers with pressurized crew spaces.  The bomber is now flown at lower altitudes to keep from stressing the hull by pressurizing it.

Anyway.  If a passenger jet has a hole ripped in it from flight like Southwest Airlines Flight 1380, the pressure can suck a person through the hole.  The poor passenger in this case by a broken window was kept in her seat by the belt, but her upper body was sucked out. 

Why doesn’t the same pressure differential suck people off the ground?


Anyway.  Water is nearly incompressible.  Where the density of sea water changes very little with depth.  But pressure changes whole magnitudes with depth. 

Especially compared to the pressure differential 10 feet below the surface compared to 5,280 feet below the surface.

Generally 10 foot deep in the sea.  Density of  64.0 lb/ft3  absolute pressure is approximately 19.14l psia.

Generally 5280 foot deep in the sea. Density of 64.426 lb/ft3 absolute pressure is approximately 2343 psia.

 A 1.006 times increase in density compared to a 123 times increase in pressure. 

Look, Mark. I see you're still on your weekend shift, desperately trying to use "Physics for Kids" links to explain a world you don't understand. While you’re sitting there obsessing over JackBlack’s angry rants, I’m over here having a much better Saturday night. You see, while you're listening to Jack, I’m listening to Jack Daniels. One is a source of constant errors and rage, the other is a source of smooth, 86-proof clarity.

Ought to listen to the other Jack Black.


Or Rebecca Black


Or to Black Jack

Why doesn’t the same pressure differential suck people off the ground?

 Mark, thank you for proving my point with your own examples. You are literally describing how Physical Barriers (plane hulls, weather balloon membranes) are required to maintain pressure differentials, yet you claim the Earth doesn't need one. Let’s clear the air.

• The Southwest Airlines Audit: You mentioned the tragic accident where a passenger was partially sucked out of a broken window. Mark, WHY did that happen? Because there was a pressure differential between a Contained System (the cabin) and an External Environment. If the atmosphere were just "hanging there" due to gravity without a dome, there would be no "sucking" because there would be no containment to begin with. The air would have bled out into the vacuum of space billions of years ago. Hardware Audit: Pressure requires a seal. No seal = No pressure.
• The Hydrostatic Confusion: You bring up ocean depth and density. Mark, the ocean is in a Basin (a container). The pressure increases with depth because of the weight of the water above—this is hydrostatic pressure. We agree on the gradient! But a gradient within a system is only possible if the system itself is closed. You cannot have a gradient that ends in an infinite vacuum unless there is a physical barrier at the edge. Otherwise, the high-pressure gas at the bottom pushes the low-pressure gas at the top right out into the void. Physics Audit: Entropy always wins over "Magic Pulling."
• The Balloon Pop Paradox: You say weather balloons pop at 100,000 feet due to lack of external pressure. Exactly! The gas inside the balloon expands until the Physical Barrier (latex) fails. Now, imagine the Earth's atmosphere is that gas. Where is the latex, Mark? If there is no "Dome" (The Firmament), why doesn't the atmosphere just keep expanding forever into the "infinite vacuum" you believe in? Integrity Audit: You admit the balloon needs a shell to hold gas, but claim the Earth is special.

 

Gravity explains the pressure gradient. Flat earth doesn’t.

 Mark, Gravity is your "God of the Gaps." When physics says gas must expand, you scream "Gravity!" When thermodynamics says you need a container, you scream "Gravity!"

A pressure gradient is perfectly explained by Density Stratification within a Closed System. Heavier, denser air molecules settle at the bottom, and lighter ones rise to the top—all contained under the Dome. It’s not a "myth," it’s how every pressurized system in existence works.


 You can't have a pressurized airplane without a hull, and you can't have a pressurized Earth without a Dome. Your own "suction" example proves that high pressure always moves toward low pressure. The only thing keeping us here is the Lid. Audit: Trash Sorted. Result: 100% Contained.

Southwest Airlines Audit:[/b][/color] You mentioned the tragic accident where a passenger was partially sucked out of a broken window. Mark, WHY did that happen? Because there was a pressure differential between a Contained System (the cabin) and an External Environment.]

The cabin was pressurized to sea level pressure.

Yet.  There is a differential pressure between sea level and 30,000 feet.

Cabin pressurized to pressure at sea level, window blows out, person sucked out.

Same pressure differential between sea level and 30,000 feet.  I’m walking around and not being sucked up to 30,000 feet.

The pressure differential is maintained / caused by the the force of gravity.

Hardware Audit: Air Pressure requires a physical barrier. Period.

Evidently not.

The pressure at sea level is something like 14.7 Pisa.

The pressure at 25,000 feet something like 5.4 psia.

Weather balloons usually expand on the way up from lack of pressure and pop around 100,000 feet. The pressure is about .16 psia.

Gravity explains the pressure gradient.  Flat earth doesn’t.

L
 You are literally describing how Physical Barriers (plane hulls, weather balloon membranes) are required to maintain pressure differentials, l

Not only is there a pressure differential between sea level and 30,000 feet.

There are pressure differentials in the sea with very little change in density.

Anyway.  Water is nearly incompressible.  Where the density of sea water changes very little with depth.  But pressure changes whole magnitudes with depth.

Especially compared to the pressure differential 10 feet below the surface compared to 5,280 feet below the surface.

Generally 10 foot deep in the sea.  Density of  64.0 lb/ft3  absolute pressure is approximately 19.14l psia.

Generally 5280 foot deep in the sea. Density of 64.426 lb/ft3 absolute pressure is approximately 2343 psia.

 A 1.006 times increase in density compared to a 123 times increase in pressure.

The topic of this thread is why the centrifugal force on the chain of a swing can’t be maintained when the swing goes higher than the bar where a person can’t make a 360 revolution around the bar on their own power.

Put forth was the force of gravity over comes the centrifugal force on the chain making the person on the swing fall straight down when the swing goes higher than the bar.

There is a thread for discussing the pressure gradient in the atmosphere,

Pressure differential between sea level and 30,000 feet.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=95485.0

Same pressure differential between sea level and 30,000 feet. I’m walking around and not being sucked up to 30,000 feet.

Mark, you are missing the point entirely. No one is saying you should be sucked up to 30,000 feet. We are saying the air at sea level should expand into the lower pressure zone above it, and eventually into the infinite vacuum of space, if there is no physical barrier.

In your Southwest Airlines example, the only reason there was a "suction" effect is because the air was trapped inside a hull. Once the hull broke, the pressure equalized. On your globe, there is no hull, yet you claim the air doesn't equalize with the vacuum of space. You are claiming you have a pressurized cabin with no walls. That isn't physics; it's a miracle.

There are pressure differentials in the sea with very little change in density.

Mark, thank you for mentioning the sea. The ocean is contained within a basin. It has a bottom and sides. The pressure increases because of the weight of the water columns within that container. You are trying to use hydrostatic pressure—which only works in contained fluids—to explain an uncontained atmosphere next to a vacuum.

Put forth was the force of gravity over comes the centrifugal force on the chain making the person on the swing fall straight down...

Now you’re jumping to swings and centrifugal force to distract from the fact that you can't explain gas pressure without a container. A person on a swing falls because they are denser than the air around them and have lost their upward momentum. It’s relative density and equilibrium, not a magical tether.

You keep using "Gravity" as a magic word to bypass the Laws of Thermodynamics. Gas expands to fill its container. If there is no container (The Dome), there is no pressure. You have confirmed we have pressure, therefore, you have confirmed the existence of the container.

The "Hardware Audit" is clear:

Pressurized planes need a hull.

Pressurized balloons need a membrane.

Pressurized oceans need a basin.

A pressurized atmosphere needs a Dome.

You have the pressure, Mark. Now show us the "Gravity Wall" that acts as a physical seal against an infinite vacuum. (Hint: You can't, because it doesn't exist).

The topic of this thread is why the centrifugal force on the chain of a swing can’t be maintained when the swing goes higher than the bar where a person can’t make a 360 revolution around the bar on their own power.

Put forth was the force of gravity over comes the centrifugal force on the chain making the person on the swing fall straight down when the swing goes higher than the bar.

There is a thread for discussing the pressure gradient in the atmosphere,

Pressure differential between sea level and 30,000 feet.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=95485.0

There is less density above.  Why doesn’t the person continue to accelerate up into thiner atmosphere. 

Density isn’t a force.  Density doesn’t have direction. 

It’s takes a force to accelerate mass, is that false.

It takes a force acting on a mass in a specific direction to create accelerated in a specific direction.  Is that false. 

Gravity explains the tension on the swing when it’s stopped.  Gravity and centrifugal force explains why the chain is stretched out on the up swing.


Gravity explains why a person cannot maintain enough energy by self rocking to make a complete 360 on a chain swing.  Once the swing is higher than the bar, some force overcomes the centrifugal force to make the swing fall straight down for a split second.  That is the force of gravity.  You have no force with your BS FE to overcome the centrifugal force created by a person self rocking.

Density isn’t a force. Density doesn’t have direction. It’s takes a force to accelerate mass, is that false.

 Mark, Mark, Mark... You’re playing word games with "force" to avoid the reality sitting right in front of you.

• Directional Audit: You say density has no direction. Wrong. In a contained, pressurized system, density and buoyancy create a natural vector. Things more dense than the medium go down; things less dense go up. It’s called Relative Density Equilibrium. You don't need a "magical downward tug" to explain why a rock falls or a balloon rises; you only need a medium and a container to set the gradient.

• The Swing Fallacy: You’re obsessed with this swing example. When a person on a swing reaches the top and the chain goes slack, they fall because they are denser than the air. Their upward momentum (kinetic energy) has been exhausted, and they return to their position of equilibrium. You claim "Gravity" overcomes centrifugal force. We say the medium (air) cannot support the mass of the person once their velocity drops.

• The Missing Force: You ask what force accelerates mass. Mark, look at a barometer. Look at a vacuum chamber. If you have high pressure (sea level) and low pressure (altitude), the "force" that accelerates gas molecules toward the vacuum is Pressure Differential. This is a measured, documented physical force. Yet, you claim this massive force is held back by your theoretical gravity, which can't even stop a 5-year-old from jumping.

 The Hard Truth, Mark: You keep moving the goalposts to swings and chains because you cannot answer the Container Problem. You can't have a pressure gradient without a container. You can't have a vacuum next to a gas without a physical barrier.


 Mark, you can rock on your swing all day long, but it won't change the fact that you're living in a pressurized dome. You have the pressure, but you’re missing the hull. Until you show us a 'Gravity Wall' in a lab, your arguments are just circular motion—exactly like your swing.

 Mark, Mark, Mark...

You’re just babbling again producing nothing workable.

A person on a chain swing can self rock and maintain momentum and even climb higher and higher in the swing arch. Keeping a centrifugal force on the chain.  That force is maintained until the swing is higher than the supporting bar.  A force overcomes that centrifugal force and causes the swing to fall straight down for a split second.  That force is gravity where in FE you have no force this no working alternates.  Just meaningless word salad. 

FE is stupid. 

A person on a chain swing can self rock and maintain momentum and even climb higher and higher in the swing arch. Keeping a centrifugal force on the chain. That force is maintained until the swing is higher than the supporting bar. A force overcomes that centrifugal force and causes the swing to fall straight down for a split second. That force is gravity where in FE you have no force this no working alternates.

Mark, focusing exclusively on the swing example narrows the conversation to a very specific mechanic while ignoring the broader physical context. We both agree that when an object loses its upward momentum, it moves downward. However, attributing this movement to an invisible pulling force called "gravity" is a theoretical choice, rather than the only physical explanation available.

In nature, objects seek a point of equilibrium based on their density relative to the medium surrounding them. At the peak of a swing's arc, when velocity reaches zero, the human body is significantly denser than the air around it. This imbalance initiates the downward movement. To understand this, we don't necessarily need an external force; we only need to observe the interaction between the object’s mass and the medium it inhabits.

Consider the same swing set placed underwater. When the chain goes slack at the peak, your descent would be much slower. If you were wearing a buoyancy aid, you would actually "fall" upward. In this scenario, the direction of movement is dictated by buoyancy and relative density, which are measurable properties of the system.

The more fundamental issue remains: pressurized gas cannot exist without a physical container. Every real-world application, from industrial vacuum chambers to aircraft hulls, confirms that containment is a prerequisite for a pressure gradient. Discussing the momentum of a swing does not explain how our atmospheric pressure remains intact next to the vacuum of space without a structural barrier. Applying the laws of thermodynamics consistently is not "word salad"—it is a requirement for any model that claims to represent reality.