No. Thinking that objects ought to fall east or west when there is no force being applied to them is certainly not "genius". Nor was your first response to my question as to why you believe they ought to fall east or west.
and remove all of the air
Not really, but you can remove a lot of it!
all of the objects will always fall towards the earth
Well, removing more of the stuff in the room is hardly going to help them stay aloft!
Things fall to reach equilibrium / their available lowest energy state as efficiently as possible (by following the path of least resistance). They fall because they are lifted, and with the same energy used to lift them. They fall because they weigh more than the media they displace. When you make that media LESS dense (by removing it, in a partial vacuum) - obviously that doesn't make things fall less....
Again, if you don't understand (or disagree) with any of the explanation above, please ask questions!
objects will always fall towards the earth
When they are heavier than the media they displace, yes! Otherwise, no.
Your whole premise that up is up and down is down because that's just where the natural equilibrium is can be easily disproved by putting objects in a controlled environment and changing their equilibrium in relation to each other.
The equilibrium (or tendency towards rest / lowest energy state) doesn't change in the "vacuum". Why on earth do you think it does, or should? You don't seem to understand archemide's principle. Things fall if they are heavier than the media they displace... Why would putting it in a "vacuum" (aka : a less dense media) change or "disprove" anything about that?
Or maybe "equilibrium" means something completely different to you, like "weight" does?
Nope! Traditional definitions for both - however equilibrium has more potential for misunderstanding, so perhaps "rest" or "lowest available energy state" might be less likely to potentially mislead.
All these words your using are very similar to Scientology jargon
I loathe scientology (except for their stance on psychology and drugging children), but if there are any words you think i am using a non standard definition for - please just ask! It is not nearly as important that we use the standard definitions for words as it is to effectively communicate with one another. As long as we understand what we mean, an alternative definition shouldn't be too much of a problem - should it?
You completely misunderstand. You are operating under the false impression that in order to have a differing view to yours, you must think yourself some sort of "genius". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Being wrong and/or misunderstanding what i'm saying does not make you dumb or me some sort of genius by comparison.
Take that very same statement and apply it to up and down instead of east and west.
Yes, as i said - if there was no force then there would be no down - at all. It just so happens that there IS a force, and in the direction we arbitrarily named down, which we call weight. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. It is not imbued by magical "fields". If you still don't understand - please ask questions! If you disagree, please try to do so using specifics and - even better - examples!
Then maybe you'll see why this "density" argument is stupid.
I'm not making a density argument. In many ways I'm explaining it, and why your "debunk" is nonsensical - but what i'm really doing is sharing my view, and my conclusions from a lot of research on the subject.
If you truly wish to learn about my perspective, it will take time - but i assure you that we will get there eventually. You only need to be earnest and continue the conversation! Ask questions!
Can you please take a minute to explain how your idea of "weight" is different from the average flat earther's concept of "density"?
Sure! And please feel free to ask any other questions you may have.
First, i should clarify that there aren't really any flat earthers (average or otherwise) - just agents and products of a heavily advertised (i.e. heavily funded) psyop.
Second, i should clarify that "weight" is not my idea either. In terms of normal/colloquial meaning and use (going back millennia) my definition for weight is identical. In terms of the use of the word in physics, i use two phrases :
effective weight - The normal weight we all know and love. It is the weight of the objects measured on a scale, and includes the buoyant force.
intrinsic weight - The weight of the object without the buoyant force. The intrinsic weight of an object is directly related to the amount of matter in it, and generally does not change. Ex. a floating dirigible which weighs nothing on a standard scale still has the same intrinsic weight it did when it was in pieces waiting to be assembled.
Many i have encountered say things like : gravity is just density. Although generally true, I think the biggest problem with that statement is the frequent lack of further explanation. A more accurate phrasing is that "gravity, the phenomenon of falling, is just what happens when an object weighs more than the media it displaces".
No. Thinking that objects ought to fall east or west when there is no force being applied to them is certainly not "genius". Nor was your first response to my question as to why you believe they ought to fall east or west.
Not really, but you can remove a lot of it!
Well, removing more of the stuff in the room is hardly going to help them stay aloft!
Things fall to reach equilibrium / their available lowest energy state as efficiently as possible (by following the path of least resistance). They fall because they are lifted, and with the same energy used to lift them. They fall because they weigh more than the media they displace. When you make that media LESS dense (by removing it, in a partial vacuum) - obviously that doesn't make things fall less....
Again, if you don't understand (or disagree) with any of the explanation above, please ask questions!
When they are heavier than the media they displace, yes! Otherwise, no.
The equilibrium (or tendency towards rest / lowest energy state) doesn't change in the "vacuum". Why on earth do you think it does, or should? You don't seem to understand archemide's principle. Things fall if they are heavier than the media they displace... Why would putting it in a "vacuum" (aka : a less dense media) change or "disprove" anything about that?
Nope! Traditional definitions for both - however equilibrium has more potential for misunderstanding, so perhaps "rest" or "lowest available energy state" might be less likely to potentially mislead.
I loathe scientology (except for their stance on psychology and drugging children), but if there are any words you think i am using a non standard definition for - please just ask! It is not nearly as important that we use the standard definitions for words as it is to effectively communicate with one another. As long as we understand what we mean, an alternative definition shouldn't be too much of a problem - should it?
You completely misunderstand. You are operating under the false impression that in order to have a differing view to yours, you must think yourself some sort of "genius". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Being wrong and/or misunderstanding what i'm saying does not make you dumb or me some sort of genius by comparison.
Yes, as i said - if there was no force then there would be no down - at all. It just so happens that there IS a force, and in the direction we arbitrarily named down, which we call weight. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. It is not imbued by magical "fields". If you still don't understand - please ask questions! If you disagree, please try to do so using specifics and - even better - examples!
I'm not making a density argument. In many ways I'm explaining it, and why your "debunk" is nonsensical - but what i'm really doing is sharing my view, and my conclusions from a lot of research on the subject.
If you truly wish to learn about my perspective, it will take time - but i assure you that we will get there eventually. You only need to be earnest and continue the conversation! Ask questions!
Sure! And please feel free to ask any other questions you may have.
First, i should clarify that there aren't really any flat earthers (average or otherwise) - just agents and products of a heavily advertised (i.e. heavily funded) psyop.
Second, i should clarify that "weight" is not my idea either. In terms of normal/colloquial meaning and use (going back millennia) my definition for weight is identical. In terms of the use of the word in physics, i use two phrases :
effective weight - The normal weight we all know and love. It is the weight of the objects measured on a scale, and includes the buoyant force.
intrinsic weight - The weight of the object without the buoyant force. The intrinsic weight of an object is directly related to the amount of matter in it, and generally does not change. Ex. a floating dirigible which weighs nothing on a standard scale still has the same intrinsic weight it did when it was in pieces waiting to be assembled.
Many i have encountered say things like : gravity is just density. Although generally true, I think the biggest problem with that statement is the frequent lack of further explanation. A more accurate phrasing is that "gravity, the phenomenon of falling, is just what happens when an object weighs more than the media it displaces".