this is not what my stance is

I did not mean to mischaracterize your position, apologies for leaving out the qualifier "pushing" (i said "force" instead of "pushing force"). A freudian slip, as it is my view (and that of classical physics) that there is no other type of force.

we should understand that words have meaning, and use them carefully.

Agreed, though earnest mistakes are made (both in speaking and in receiving/interpreting what was said).

Speaking of which, did you understand my previous comment and/or have any response to it?

In the words of obi wan, "Your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them."

Often times what we see (and record in pictures) is not what is. This is the reason that science (empiricism) requires measurement, not merely looking at stuff!

I encourage you to look up "barrel distortion" to understand what causes the curve in the picture above. If the curve in the picture were really the curve of a spherical earth, that earth would be far tinier than we are taught (calculate it yourself if you like)..

If you, or anyone else, are interested in the subject - very much including those with purely critical views - please join us on c/flatearthresearch to discuss and exchange views on it.

It does matter.

Not with arbitrary convention, no. That's arbitrary - of course! It has no bearing on manifest reality.

You're suggesting that objects are being pushed down due to their weight, which means that they'd be being pushed from above.

That's partially correct; they are being pushed down from above - by the weight of the matter above them (though it isn't quite that simple because they are also surrounded by matter with weight as well) - but the force of their measured weight (what i call effective weight - weight with the buoyant force i.e. as measured on a scale) principally comes from the weight of the object itself, as well as the interplay of that objects weight and the weight of the media it displaces.

Objects are built of pieces. Although their effective weight is largely influenced by their volumetric density (the volume of media those pieces collectively displace), their intrinsic weight comes from the matter they are comprised of. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.

Again, objects are comprised of pieces. Each one of those pieces has weight. If it is more consistent with your arbitrary convention of "force must always push from behind" and/or helps you to understand, you may think of each piece pushing on each other in the object "pushing from behind" and cumulatively being the force that "pushes the scale from behind", to use your wacky parlance.

The question then is, what is it that's pushing down on an object from above?

Matter [its weight]! (for us on the surface of earth, typically air)

But that is only a small percentage of what pushes on the scale. Primarily it is the object's weight which pushes on the scale.

Not relative to the direction one is facing, but relative to the direction of the force, all pushing force is from behind. Do you understand?

Not really, but i don't think it matters in any case. It's just an arbitrary semantic distinction you are applying for unknown reasons.

Words like "behind" are always in regards to the direction an object is facing and/or the point of view of the observer.

Let's say i agree to your arbitrary semantic convention, at least for the purposes of this discussion. What then?

but it was debunked

Debunking is for and by idiots. Capable students striving for objectivity prefer earnest and diligent research instead. Of course, that research can involve refutation of various claims.

and it's a known PSYop

Of that i have little doubt. Most flat earth videos are products of the heavily advertised (i.e. heavily funded) flat earth psyop.

against the Law of correspondence, as below so above.

Is that a law? It is certainly an alchemical principle, and echoed (if not straight repeated) in the bohr model.

Even if it were a law, if the earth were flat would that mean that matter couldn't be spherical (or any of the other platonic shapes)? Conversely, if it were spherical would that mean that other shapes (on the micro or macro scale) wouldn't/couldn't exist? More exists in heaven and earth than exists in all our philosophies combined.

Thanks for reposting! I'll check it out - i've never heard of this guy.

NO. the flat earth isn't flat.

If it were, hardly anyone would know that - because virtually no one bothers to actually study/research it. They just "know because teacher told them so", and faithfully repeat as they are required to for matriculation.

It was proven over and over

So people believe, yet if they are asked "When, by whom, and by what specific procedure" they find they can't answer that simple question. Worse, those few that can answer (or rather, believe, they have the correct answer) parrot conditioned (by rote under the guise of education) responses which are plainly wrong - like eratosthenes and columbus (neither of which set out to prove the shape of the world in any way shape or form; they were taught it was spherical from childhood, just like us today, and never once doubted that or set out to prove it true).

This in and of itself is immensely fascinating to the earnest student. The actual shape of the world, is much less so.

Am i wrong in thinking that you posted this video because you were earnestly interested in the topic and/or content of the video? Even if that interest is purely critical/dismissive/mocking - that is still genuine interest in my book.

Deleted :( Could you repost the video link?

If you have genuine interest in the subject (including critical/negative) please join on c/flatearthresearch to discuss and exchange views.

I am deleting my account today

I think for most/many people that is the best thing to do, and wish you well on the other side.

However, if it is as you say and this is an echo chamber holding corral, then you are making their work easier and abandoning those (admittedly few) you would hope to reach/engage with by doing so.

Nope. That's called an observation.

That's all laws are! We observe a phenomenon over and over again, and through repeated measurement confirm it (almost) always happens.

Observations are laws (when you repeatedly validate/verify/measure them enough).

You are simply watching buoyancy

Actually, you are watching the lack thereof in the falling object. If it had enough buoyancy, it would either float or rise.

Stop calling buoyancy and Aether, gravity.

I wouldn't! Buoyancy, aether, and gravity are all separate and distinct things. You still don't seem to be understanding me. Buoyancy is a force, but (as you have already explicitly said, and i have agreed) gravity is not (it's a phenomenon : aka natural/scientific law). They are not interchangeable for this, and many other reasons.

You're arguments that gravity is a scientific term because scientists have used the term for a long time is not an agrument

I agree, it's more like a semantic definition. But as i said, (the law of) gravity is real because we can repeatedly demonstrate it. That's all natural laws are or can be. The word gravity (and the law it represents) has been and is used much more frequently by non-scientists through history anyway.

You could call gravity, Satan jizz, and it would be just as meaningful.

I agree that it is just a name, arbitrary like all the other ones. The point is that there is no reason to discard it. It's a perfectly good word, and scientific concept. Its false conflation with gravitation is the problem.

Whatever new word we contrived would not be as meaningful until everyone else knew and used it. There is no reason to go to all that trouble - they already know and use the word gravity. If you want to speak to someone else, you best use their language and their terms.

True, and that is (and always was) the law of gravity!

There is almost certainly no risk of that.

You can't know or even list the things i "just supported" before you learn how to read and go back and read my comments in the first place.

I'm prepared to wait, but get the distinct impression (from this "conversation" and scores of others with you in the past) that i will be waiting forever :(

Your hoaxes

Learn to read, actually read my comments, and then quote/link one of the "hoaxes". When you, again, utterly fail to do so i shall expect your earnest apology for lying again (i think we are at least up to 7 apologies you owe me now).

I agree that your "responses" and lack of reading comprehension are embarrassing, but you have to keep trying if you are to get any better at it. Don't waste time thinking about what others might think of you. That's what the weak do.

everything i said is true

Wanting that to be the case is fine - if not natural. Declaring it so is religious zealotry. I'm sure several things you said are untrue (and vice versa).

For example, there is no reason to assume that aether would have greater density above us than at the surface (opposite to all other forms of matter) and there is measurement (vertical interferometers) showing that it doesn't. There is also no reason to assume that electrostatic/electrical charge differential between the sky and the ground has anything to do with falling (the measured charge differential fluctuates, but the phenomenon of falling is unaffected).

there is no reason to hold onto a fake law

I agree. Fake laws should be discarded. Gravity, however, is not a fake law. What goes up, must come down - and it is as true today as when the law was first observed and then formalized (and for the same reasons).

Laws are just consistently repeatable/demonstrable phenomena, nothing more. You don't disagree that things fall. We call that tendency to fall gravity, and have for thousands of years. Don't fix what isn't broken, and don't throw the baby (gravity) out with the bathwater (gravitation)!

not sure what you would need to hear to understand that there is no need for the word or concept of gravity or gravitation

If gravity were not real, that would be plenty and i'd agree with you. Gravity (the phenomenon of falling) is real and repeatably demonstrable (as all laws must be, as that is what makes them laws in the first place). It is gravitation (the supposed force that causes gravity) that is not real. Do you understand what i am saying / the distinction i am making? Gravity (thousands of years old) is NOT gravitation (a few hundred years old).

its the most unscientific term in science.

Gravitation, i generally agree with you (though "evolution" is a more unscientific term). Gravity is as scientific as any other validated and validatable law.

You have to learn to read first, in order to determine what is spam and what isn't. You evidently have a long way to go.

In the meantime i wouldn't draw unnecessary mod attention to yourself and get banned for breaking rule #1, again. Now that i think about it, you should tattle more.

so Gravity is just acceleration. we agree

No, that is the standard view of many (if not most) physicists. They may phrase it slightly differently, like that gravity (they mean gravitation) appears much like an acceleration or is "effectively" an acceleration - but the view above is the standard one.

My view (and that of greater humanity going back millennia) is that gravity is the phenomenon of falling - nothing more. It is caused by the weight of the object being greater than the weight of the media it displaces as described in archemides' principal. Unlike gravitation, this cause is experimentally verified and verifiable.

weight is the same as mass

I think we agree in concept, but i disagree with the verbiage. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. There is no mass, just like there is no gravitation (both mathematical fictions derived from real and measured weight). There is only matter, and its weight (though typically when we weigh things with a standard scale - we factor in the buoyant force, what i term "effective weight").

you shouldn't have an opinion if you cant understand that is meant by acceleration

I have a pretty solid grasp on traditional physics, i know what acceleration is and what is meant when physicists say "gravity is (like) acceleration".

and gravity, is not a force. so its totally, utterly unneeded and useless in every sense of the word

It is correct that gravity is not a force. Weight is the force. Gravity is a natural/scientific law (aka a phenomenon, i.e. the phenomenon of falling).

you explain that gravity was an invention by the freemasons ... isaac newton

Gravity was around far longer than them. Even the concept of gravitation was as well, and newton merely invoked it to solve an astronomical math problem. It is gravitation which is fiction, not the law of gravity (which is plain for all to see/demonstrate)!

so call it the laws of Aether. In dense Aether, you fall slow or not at all, Aether gets denser as you get father from the ground.

Interesting view. I myself am an aether proponent, but why/how would it become denser the further you get from the ground?

Even if everything you said were true, it would still not be a good reason to discard the law of gravity. There is certainly an educational challenge as you decouple gravitation from it, but that conflation is a mistake and an attack on science. It has to be fixed anyway if we want to fight against scientific illiteracy.

disproven hoaxes

Name one that i have posted, let alone "spammed".

Provide links/quotes, and when you - again - utterly fail i shall expect yet another sincere apology for lying.

About what

You're the one that keeps caring enough to respond. If no one cares, why bother at all? Paid by the response? Just a bot? Compelled against reason / slave to your emotion / lack discipline?

Then why are you so evidently worried?

THAT’S NICE.

Not being able to read and understand is not nice. It's sad, and i sincerely hope for your sake that you are a bot :(

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS

I already did that once. Can't you remember? Of course not, you just copy and paste because you either are incapable or unwilling to think a single thought of your own.

If you have an earnest question about this thread or anything i actually said here, please by all means share it. But you will have to learn to read and then read all of my previous comments here first in order to do that. Good luck!

no, mass is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.

Mass is fiction. It can't even be defined properly. It is a figment of the imagination, and exists only in equation. It is not a coincidence that when you combine it with the other fictional term, "gravitational acceleration", it returns to the real weight it began and was measured as in the first place :)

I feel much the same way about mass as you seem to feel about "gravity" (though perplexingly, miraculous perpetual acceleration applied to mass to create weight - which is gravitational acceleration / little g - doesn't seem to bother you).

Weight is the adjustment to mass caused by other forces, like buoyancy, your mass is the same, but you weight less in the pool.

It sounds like we have similar views on this. I use the terms "intrinsic weight" (weight without buoyancy) and "effective weight" (weight with buoyancy).

or by centrifical force, the mass is the same, but while spinning, the weight is much higher.

So you would say that someone weighs more when they land on the ground after jumping (and/or weighs less at the apex)? I would say they weigh the same and apply an impact force (as a parallel to your centrifuge example).

do you have other reason besides that?

I think that is reason enough, but the word is not just used by scientists. Long before the scientific method existed or scientists, the word gravity and the natural law of the same name was known and used by significant numbers of people. That very much includes today. There is no reason to get rid of a perfectly good word and sound concept. Otherwise we have to rename the law of gravity into something else (for starters), and this only causes more confusion among scientists and laypersons alike (most everyone we might speak with).

Gravity is NOT a force. its not what makes you fall.

True, and this is what needs to be clarified/corrected. Gravity is a natural law - the phenomenon of falling, known for millennia - nothing more. Natural laws do not and cannot include causes for themselves. That is what theory is for.

The theory (actually a pseudo theory erroneously billed as a law itself - the "force" - pseudo force in point of fact) is called gravitation. The law can never be conflated with the theory contrived to explain it, and to do so is an attack on science.

copypasta that gish gallop, again

And then you copypasta the gish gallop, again.

I sincerely hope you are a bot, this is embarrassing.

Don't you remember when i answered those questions the last time?

Try asking a question about the subject of this thread, but first learn to read and then read my previous comments prior to doing so. Good luck!

Such as how you’re incapable of answering

How can i answer anything if you never ask anything? Again, you desperately need this to be true so you never ask anything :( Or sometimes you just copypasta that gish gallop, again.

You just babble on about how you have the truth, i'm a paid shill, and frequent calls to suicide.

Me : You can't read

You: Correct

Wow, a rare moment of honesty from you. Color me impressed. Now that you have admitted your shortcoming, assuming you aren't a bot - go work on it and actually read what i have written before responding to it in the future.

You manifestly refuse to prove your claims

Another lie from the serial liar. Quote/link when i refused to prove even a single claim i've made. When you, again, utterly fail to do so i shall expect your earnest apology for lying. what'll this be, the 5th time?

You’ve admitted

Please, just mutter to yourself offline. No one needs to hear your schizo conversation with the voices in your head.

that’s a fucking tell

I agree. I've answered all your questions, multiple times in the past, and you do exactly that. Forget/ignore, pretend, and repeat. Your description of yourself is spot on. Always accuse your enemy of the crimes you are committing, eh?

Reported for spam. Your bullshit isn’t allowed here.

I don't think you should be wasting the mod's time, but tattle away if it makes you feel better. I guess you'll just have to hope they miss the comments where you casually demand/encourage suicide and get banned... again like you absolutely deserve to be.

I didn't speculate

I think you did when you said :

that is determined by the electrostatic medium, the sky above is negative charge, the ground below is positive/neutral, and its a small force (1000x stronger than masses attraction, gravity) but it creates the flow from air to ground.

But i can appreciate that you don't think of it as a speculation. The sky can often have a higher charge than the ground - but things still fall.

And I never said that gravity is caused when an object is more dense that the media it displaces

I thought you did when you said this :

its effected mainly by buoyancy; being denser than air

and this from another comment in this thread :

the reason a rock falls when you drop it is is two part, the stronger force is buoyancy. this is calculated using density relative to the density of the medium (air)

but gravity can just be replaced with acceleration and it's the same answer.

Gravity (little g) in equations is an acceleration - it's the same answer by definition. In my view, there is no mass whatsoever and the idea that there is some perpetual acceleration on all objects at rest is both stupid and a violation of many natural laws. Weight is intrinsic to the object.

The simple law of what goes up must come down has NOTHING to do with gravity.

It is the law of gravity, and has been for millennia. It has nothing to do with gravitation (a pseudo theory to ostensibly explain that law created a few hundred years ago).

It's misleading and you are just helping the assholes fool everyone by perpetuating it.

I've encountered many who share your view, however denying the law of gravity exists is silly as well as anti-historical and unscientific. It is an "overcorrection". Gravity (a scientific law millennia old), the name for the phenomenon of falling, is real. Gravitation (a few hundred years old) is the thing that doesn't exist.

If you are committed to a rebrand for marketing/outreach reasons, then what should the law of gravity (the phenomenon of falling) now be called? The law of falling, or law of density separation, doesn't have the same ring to it. I see no reason to wage an emotional and irrational war against a perfectly good and millennia old word.

Generally, i agree.

They did build 2 giant interferometers, and i have little doubt it detected something. It just didn't detect "2 black holes colliding with each other causing gravitational waves", and it was fraudulently/disingenuously advertised to the general public as measurement of "gravity waves".

I’m not quoting anyone

Fair enough.

You have nothing to present

So you desperately need to believe. The truth is that i have plenty to "present", but you won't allow yourself to discuss it - even for an instant. It's a great way to make sure you never learn anything new.

You said nothing

You can't read :( I hope you are a bot, for your sake. That's why you didn't know that i explicitly said gravity existed.

You lose

You can't lose a discussion, but you can lose the plot - as you consistently do. Your "argue/insult your way to truth" approach is stupid and harming you. I urge you to reconsider, if you are capable.

Thanks for admitting

Please mutter to yourself offline. It's very sad, assuming you're a human.

Otherwise, try to actually converse instead of having schizo conversations with the voices in your head. Again, if you are at all capable.

DESTROYED ALL MY CLAIMS

Shouting that you "said the truth" while simultaneously unable to list even one claim actually made by the person you are "speaking" with isn't exactly "destroying" as much as it is completely ignoring. I sincerely hope it is because you are a bot and so literally incapable of doing any better. The alternative is too horrible.