And with this bit of bad faith
Bad faith? Are you having trouble answering the question?
Who claimed the earth was flat, and when? Please provide quotes / links to my statements so that i can better address your misunderstanding.
Several times in this conversation you have asked silly questions like you are having an entirely unrelated conversation with someone who isn't me :(
Instead of stupidly assuming you know what i think (based on conversations you have had with other people) and being consistently wrong - why not try to have a discussion with me instead?
I have not only answered all your questions in good faith (and always do), i've answered them pretty thoroughly. If you want to know what shape i think the world is, just ask! It's the foolish assumption that is causing you problems :(
I'm completely done with your novels
If you can't handle a few sentences, then you can't handle conversation or learning :( I do try to be succinct, but i also want to answer your questions thoroughly enough so you understand my perspective.
That said, i know this is a difficult conversation for you and you were never obligated to continue. I assure you it has all been in good faith, however.
Any time you (or an object) are not pushed from behind... Surely you jest
Yes, obviously. Is that a serious question?
Look as politely as i can say this... You don't understand physics
Believe me, the feeling is mutual. But it is not just knowledge of physics that you lack, but knowledge of its history. You can't hope to really understand the teachings now unless you have knowledge of where they came from, and how they were derived.
and your entire argument is built on sophistry.
No. It's built on physics, and it isn't an argument - just my perspective.
I dont plan on ever convincing you.
Good! We should never seek to convince [aka manipulate], we should seek to learn and share what we learn.
So can i just change the subject for a sec to WHY...
Sure, if you wish.
WHY is the earth flat?
Who said the earth was flat?
Why is it being covered up? Who stands to gain? And what fo they stand to gain?
What are you talking about? Who in the world are you talking to? As i said before, while discussing with me - try to ignore the other voices and focus on mine instead ;)
If you want to know/understand my perspective, simply ask - but don't foolishly assume you already know because you spoke to someone else!
In general, if the world is flat then nothing is being covered up. Humanity requires no help in order to be consistently stupid and wrong as it historically always is.
However, if there were some sort of "conspiracy" to hide the true shape of the world i'm sure you could imagine plenty of reasons (things to gain) to do so if you set your mind to it.
How was the planet created if not from gravity?
Gravitation, not gravity. Gravity doesn't create; it is just the phenomenon of falling.
Gravitation cannot explain the creation of the planets or stars, it is a major problem for the standard cosmological model.
In general, recognizing your views (that we were conditioned to believe through rote under the guise of education from childhood) are merely mythology/religion misrepresented as science doesn't automatically replace them with the correct answers (although that would be nice!). The planet was created, of that we can be assured. Did it, or life, create itself spontaneously the way our foolish ancestors believed and taught in a world demonstrably tending towards entropy? No, of course not.
And are all celestial bodies flat?
They certainly appear that way from out vantage (as discs), but they are too far away to determine that scientifically. They are almost certainly not bodies, however - they are luminaries. What shape is a light (not the lightbulb)?
Methinks the woman doth protest too much, eh?
Spot on.
And I don't want to hear anything about lenses or perspective.
How about refraction? Or the fact that the same picture taken from a slightly higher altitude shows clearly that there is no curve.
The real lesson here is that what we see often is not what is - which is why science is not the process of merely looking, but the process of rigorously measuring!
In the words of obi wan, "Your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them."
Not necessarily. Why do you think pushing always comes from behind?
And it magically knows which direction is downward and consistently falls int that direction, even though there's nothing "in the media it's displacing" to tell it to move in that direction
That's quite a ridiculous assumption. It falls downward because it was lifted (and with the same energy used to lift it). It falls downward because that is the path of least resistance to return to rest. If falls downward because it has a column of weight above it pushing it down, as well as its own weight. It falls down because the air cannot sustain the weight of the object. It falls down because it weighs more than the media it displaces. There are many reasons it falls down, and none of them involve magic or sentiently "knowing" which way down is.
How about we isolate another variable
We can observe another variable if you wish, but it's only distracting you. We aren't doing any experiments, we aren't validating any hypotheses, and we aren't isolating any variables.
Lemme guess? Fake.... Right? Completely fake,
When you assume... Ask questions in earnest, or not at all.
The footage is likely fake, but that isn't really relevant - it doesn't HAVE to be fake. When inside a container and falling together (the reason things fall is that the weight of the object is greater than the weight of the media it displaces), things fall together (until the object approaches terminal velocity, of course). The "ISS" is the object, and the media it displaces weighs much less than that so it falls. Everything within it falls too, entrained.
just like the moon, or a sunset, or an eclipse....
Who said those things were fake? Who have you been talking to? For the purposes of this conversation, try talking to me instead of listening to them!
The reason things float or skin in water is gravity. The reason a helium balloon rises and an anvil falls is gravity. It's all gravity.
Wrong! It is all weight, as archimedes principle plainly describes and can be experimentally validated! All that is required is weight, and that is all there is or has ever been. Archimedes did not need fictional imaginary fields to "imbue" matter with weight. He didn't need to wait 2 millennia until newtons folly in order to understand and explain falling (gravity), floating (neutrality), and rising (levity).
There is no force pulling the helium balloon up
True! And there is no force pulling it down when it is heavier than the media it displaces. There is only pushing!
gravity is pulling harder on them and thus they end up at the bottom.....
Gravitation. Gravity is just the phenomenon of falling. The law must never be conflated with the theory contrived to explain the law. It's another attack on science to do so.
They rise because the water above them is being pulled down with greater force than the air
You may continue to imagine that if you wish. As long as you are consistent the equations will still work. Much like defining the world as perpetually accelerating upwards. It's ridiculous, and clearly a fantasy violating many natural laws, but as long as you are consistent - the equations will work.
It's all gravity
Gravitation, and no - it can't be gravitation if gravitation is fiction and was from the the very first time newton invoked it (which is historical fact you can read in his own words, if you wish)... In science, something has to exist first, in order to be attributable as a cause of something. We can't just say - "zeus did it".
Without gravity there's no force pulling or pushing on stuff
Again, so you have been conditioned through rote under the guise of education to believe - but in reality there are many forces and one of them is weight, an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
Without gravity there is no floating, rising, buoyancy, or weight
gravity weight!
Kudos to you for continuing to discuss this, and attempting to learn about a new perspective. I know how difficult it is.
Why don't we do another experiment
We haven't been doing any experiments, nor discussing any. It is very important that you understand that. Experiment has a rigorous and inflexible definition in science, and its colloquial/incorrect usage is an attack on science. We are only talking about observations.
and have air resistance be the only variable?
I'm following so far; we are only observing air resistance.
If the sheet of paper falls slower than the brick of paper, then you've just proven yet again, that "weight" doesn't matter and the variable that effects air resistance is shape....
Once again, the weight of the page alone is not the reason the page falls. The page falls because its weight is greater than that of the media it displaces. This is true in both shape configurations. The acceleration profile is, however, most influenced by the media and the object's interaction with that media - but this, once again, is not the cause of falling. Drag and buoyant force both play large rolls.
Again, all this shows is that the weight isn't what most largely influences the acceleration profile. That is NOT the same thing as showing that it isn't involved, or furthermore - and the point - that the cause of falling isn't as archimedes describes.
Air can't simultaneously be the thing that's creating the force that makes you fall
No one said it was! As i keep saying, and archimedes formalized more than 2 millennia ago - it is the interplay/relationship between the weight of the object and the weight of the surrounding media which causes falling.
It can't be both
I don't see why you think this, but in any case - no one is claiming it is. You seem to be misunderstanding. Hopefully the above has cleared that up.
Air resistance doesn't prove gravity,
Obviously! Who said it did? If you think it was me, please provide quotes so i can better understand what made you come to this conclusion.
but it certainly disproves your model.
We are not discussing a model. We are discussing the cause of falling (or trying to, anyway).
This is also proven by a parachute slowing your descent despite making your weight heavier, not lighter.
You are still getting distracted. We are talking about archimedes principle and the cause of falling. The fact that things don't all fall the same speed is a tangent that is only helping you to lose focus (also, weren't you arguing the opposite a second ago?!)
This is just not true
The equations say it is, and it isn't hard to understand why it's true either. Things do not fall the same rate in the presence of air / through any media (unless they are identical). The oversimplified equations you are talking about are not correct when air (or any media, including low pressure air - aka "vacuum" - is present). They are just "correct enough" for everyday use in some cases.
If all things are equal except the object's weight, they hit the ground at the same time. This is not something you can deny.
How about a glider airplane which is empty and one which is filled with lead. The media itself has a significant impact, especially when the shape causes drag / increased collision with it. A simpler analogy/demonstration would be an empty plastic bottle, and one which is filled with rocks dropped into water (air behaves as a fluid as well).
Ohh you mean if you throw them out of helicopter at 30,000 feet they might land at different times?
I'm saying that they do fall at different times, and this becomes easier to observe when the height they fall from is greater. The media is not null, the buoyant force is not null. They may be small - but they are always non zero.
See the problem with that it becomes impossible to do a controlled experiment
We aren't talking about experiments - we are merely talking about observations. It is certainly possible to observe dropping things out of a helicopter or - better yet - from a weather balloon. Dropping things off a roof is also not an experiment, nor "controlled" - not that it really matters.
you're introducing countless variables that will change the result.
The variables are always there, in reality. The variables i am specifically talking about are drag and buoyancy. They are never (and can never) be zero. This necessarily means that only identical objects can fall perfectly identically and through perfectly identical/uniform media.
In order for science to work you need to isolate the experiment as much as possible
Agreed, but we aren't in any way discussing an experiment. We are merely discussing observation/phenomena. Experiments are horses of an entirely different color.
Lemme guess, "They don't remove ALLLL the air.... They leave behind 0.0000001% of the air in a vaccum"....
Correct, and that is the reason that the buoyant and drag forces (among others) are never and can never be 0 - but i agree that the asymptote points reasonably clearly to the conclusion that if there could be no matter - things would fall at the same rate. All of this is irrelevant though, because the rate of fall isn't at issue - it is the reason for falling which is. The reason for falling remains the exact same in both the open air and in the vacuum chamber; the weight of the object is greater than the weight of the media displaced.
But the point is they are still falling
Exactly.
That's a problem for a model that relies on the premise that it's the surrounding air causing objects to fall.
We are not discussing a model. We are discussing the reason for falling, and more specifically how archemides' principle explains, describes, and can be used to experimentally validate that cause.
Or you misunderstood my answer!
Perhaps try rephrasing it or describing the way in which your question was misunderstood?
The fact that the weight is greater than the weight it displaces. Otherwise it doesn't!
A bowling ball has more weight than a racquet ball.
Agreed.
Which should have some effect according to your idea of displacement.
True, it does (both calculably and in reality demonstrably).
But, If you go to your roof and released both from the same height at the same time, they would hit the ground at exactly the same time.
I am saying that they don't, but that the difference between when one hits the ground and the other one is very small. If you increased the distance, or increased your measurement precision, you would see the difference.
The "all things fall at the same rate" is a rule of thumb which is perfectly adequate for most cases we experience, but is not strictly speaking true. It would arguably be true if "perfect vacuum" were attainable - but even then not in the standard worldview (that you likely have) because there would still be the varying gravitational attraction of varying masses to consider/factor in.
We have a math formula for determining the speed at which objects will fall and the "weight" of the object is not represented anywhere in the math formula.
That's not quite right, but yes - the oversimplification taught to many students is just an acceleration and time. That is assuming there is no buoyant force, drag, etc. to consider - which is of course, untrue.
The fact that the math can still accurately tell you how fast something will fall without this concept being represented anywhere in the formula ought to tell you that you've misidentified the source of this force.
That is a mistake in your logic. It just means the variance in weight is not a major factor in the speed of the falling (assuming an over simplified "perfect vacuum" etc). Besides, what we are discussing is the the relationship of the weight to the weight of the media it displaces, which unquestionably is the cause of falling. That is in archemides' principle - so it is in "the equation".
Weight, an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. The direction for that push force is down when the weight is greater than that of the displaced media, and up when it is lesser.
It's really the normal/standard take, and has been for around 2000 years.
Sort of.
It is the interplay/relationship of that weight, and the weight of the media that it displaces - aka archemides principle. If (and only if) the weight of the object is heavier than the media it displaces, then it falls. Otherwise it floats or ascends.
You’re describing weight as a pulling force, are you not?
Of course not. (effective) Weight is a pushing force (when it is heavier than the media it displaces).
My question is why is it down towards the earth?
Because that is what (effective) weight is. It is a force directed downwards when the weight of the object is greater than the media it displaces.
There are more speculative reasons for why density separation occurs, but sometimes laws are just laws - scientific bedrock.
If you do not know, that’s a perfectly acceptable answer
Always! It is the most honest answer to most questions.
There are many answers for "why down", but i can understand why they don't seem satisfying to you in lieu of your educated imaginary "pulling force".
yeah I have another question. why are you so full of shit.
If i am so full of shit, why can't you articulate specifically what i have said that makes you feel that way, and why? It seems you are just struggling to read "walls of" text and to understand it. When you don't understand, you should ask questions!
also it's possible to post photos or links to photos
Of course, but what kind of photo would help you understand the words i'm using and what i mean by them?
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".
The interplay of the weight of the object and the weight of the media displaced by it, as archemides describes.
When the object's weight is greater, it is down towards the earth. When it is equal it is in no direction. When it is lesser, it is up.
You just seem to have trouble reading :( Also, this is a text forum - what besides words were you looking for?
Try reading the text where i answered your questions for starters.
If you have any further questions, let me know!
So gravity is a downward force?
No! Gravity is a natural law thousands of years old. It is simply the phenomenon of falling - nothing more or less. Weight is the downward force (and the interplay of that weight to the weight it displaces)!
What causes it?
Matter! Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
I see a wall of text but I don't see any answers to my question
You should try reading the "wall" of text ;) The answer is there, though you may not like it / find it satisfying. Tl;dr; The reason things fall down is their weight (and the interplay with the media they displace)
you have no idea what the motive is for pushing lies on people about a globe earth.
Lol. Seriously, read the text. It is easy to imagine what a motive to hide the shape of the world might be assuming you believed someone was doing that. As i don't believe anyone is doing that (and it doesn't seem like you do either), your comment is a nonsequitur.
It’s not a nonsensical question
It is as nonsensical to expect a lifted object to fall upwards as it is to expect a lifted object to fall east/west/sideways and for the same reasons.
There must be a reason why objects would go toward the earth and not away from it.
There is! It's weight (more specifically the interplay of the weight of the object and the media it displaces), an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. Such tendency towards rest is a law of nature. What goes up, must come down - the ancient law of gravity.
That's nuts. You can't be pushed from above, or in front, or below - or any other direction than behind?
How do you think a scale works? What pushes on the spring/detector/scale platform?
Yes, but that isn't the major source of the weight intrinsic to you. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. You are made of matter. There is also matter above you pushing down, as well as matter surrounding you on all sides - also pushing onto you.