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.
Actually objects in a vacuum fall at the same speed. Why?
Actually, no they don't. Buoyancy (and drag) is still in play in a partial vacuum. They fall very similar (often too similar for the precision of our instruments to detect) speeds. You may want to re-read my previous answer to this question.
The acceleration profile in falling is most influenced by the media. The reason things fall is due to their weight, and although the weight of the larger object is greater - it has more matter to move!
Furthermore, the fact that it does appear that if a perfect vacuum were possible to exist - that all things would fall at the same speed essentially rules out the idea of a propagating "force"/"pulling" wave being the cause of it. It is not really a mystery why gravity waves are purely imaginary. If they existed they would need to routinely violate many fundamental laws of nature.
Because the weight of the object doesn't matter. Something else is pulling the object towards the earth.
Why do you think this? The weight of the object (and being greater than the media it displaces) is all that is required for things to fall. Scientifically speaking, it is the experimentally verified and verifiable cause of falling. It requires no magical "pulling force" which is utterly unempirical and hopelessly unscientific (which newton well knew and understood when he invoked it to solve an astronomical math problem).
Please answer this question that I posted before
I answered all your questions! Please let me know which one i missed.
what would be the reason to fool everyone into believing the earth is round
I'm sure you could imagine plenty of reasons if you wanted to - but it isn't necessary.
Humanity requires no help, no "fooling", to be consistently stupid and wrong as they historically always are; To believe ridiculous things are true and teach it to their children for centuries (if not millennia).
In my view, no one is "fooled" as much as they are "taught" through conditioning by rote under the guise of education, from childhood. Do you think we had to be "fooled" into thinking the earth was the center of the universe, or that spirits were causing illness (both things we taught at the best schools for centuries, or longer)?
what did anyone gain by doing this?
Again, there are many potential answers to this speculative question that you could imagine if you wanted to. But it isn't necessary, because it is based on a false premise.
I do not believe the earth is flat
Good! Belief is the enemy of knowledge, and to objective study of any kind (it's called bias).
If you believe the world is flat, spherical, or any other shape - you have faith not fact.
but there would have to be a reason to fool people.
Why? People fool themselves, and believe and teach all sorts of nonsense - and always have. Mythology is a natural/biological habit. It seems we prefer to make up an answer rather than live honestly with the self imposed (and unnecessary) shame of ignorance.
That said, speaking in terms of speculation/imagination - i'm sure you could imagine plenty of things which one or a group of people (that knew the world was not the shape and size we are all taught it is) could possibly gain from not sharing that or further - "fooling" people into not discovering it. For example, the aristocracy knew about and had maps of the "new world" for centuries prior to columbus... Do you know what happened when the cat was finally out of the bag and the poor slaves (often rebranded "citizens") found out there was a place to go to escape their miserable lot?
Why is it towards the earth, and not outward?
Again the question is the same. Why should you expect the object to go away from the earth when you drop it? It's a nonsensical question.
It falls towards the earth to return to equilibrium/rest/lowest available energy state.
It falls because you lifted it (and with the exact same energy used to do so), because it cannot be supported by the matter beneath it, and because its weight is greater than the weight of the media it displaces.
Of course not, but if your vantage to it is limited - it certainly can, and can even be perceived to be convex when it is not. That was my only, admittedly minor, point.
Why are no other planets shaped like a disk?
Huh? All the planets are shaped like discs. It's the earth which isn't a planet [wandering star].
What shape the earth is has no relevance to the shape of the things in the sky which are obviously not the earth.
And if they are, are they all facing us?
It sure appears as though they are.
The only object I can think of that looks like a circle when viewed from different angles is something shaped like a ball.
It depends on your vantage point and the relative distances involved. For instance, a concave shape can be perceived as a convex one depending on your vantage. In the case of very distant objects, as the lights in the sky are assumed to be; if the amount of distance we travel to change our vantage point is small in comparison to our initial distance to the object - then the visual deformation (making a circle seem like an oval, for instance) would be expected to be very small as well. For instance, during the course of the day, the sun changes distance from us as it rises and sets - yet it does not appear to us to be getting smaller or bigger as it does so. Of course it does get smaller and larger as the distance to us changes - but because the change in distance (or vantage) is so small compared to the distance of the object - we can't perceive this size change.
When you drop an object and it goes down, what is causing it to go down?
Its weight. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. It "goes down" aka falls, because you lift it, because the matter you place it on cannot support its weight, and because the object weighs more than the media it displaces.
Objects of different weight fall at the same speed in a vacuum. Why?
They don't really, but the difference in speed is very small. Effectively so small that we teach this "rule of thumb" as "practically" correct.
The speed and acceleration profile of something falling is most influenced by the media through which it is falling and the buoyancy of the object. A balloon does not fall like a brick for this reason. When you remove as much of the air as you can and make a partial vacuum (full vacuum is not attainable) the brick and the balloon fall more similarly because the media you removed was most responsible for the differences in the way they fell.
If you could remove all the matter and achieve a perfect vacuum, then we would expect things to fall at the same rate. The why is the same as before, when the air was present - because the weight of the object is greater than the weight of the media they displace (which in the case of the perfect vacuum would literally be nothing/0)
The fact that things fall at the same rate, and instantaneously upon dropping them, is a bigger problem for the concept of gravitation than you likely realize. How would these imagined "fields" know to apply different amounts of force to overcome differing inertias and to accelerate equivalently? How could they do so instantaneously at infinite distance (or even a finite distance, for that matter)? It is much more natural, intuitive, realistic, and sound from the perspective of physics to recognize that the objects fall because they have nothing holding them up, and are heavier than the media they displace - rather than requiring magical and unequivocally unempirical fields that must violate multiple laws of physics in order to do what we observe.
why do other planets have more or less gravity than earth
Do they? Or do you just believe that they do because someone told you that was a fact? Because you saw someone playing an astronaut hit a golf ball on the tv?
In my view, and that of our ancestors, the planets we see in the heavens are nothing like the earth we stand on. They are wandering stars; luminaries. They are above us, not below. They are not giant rocks or balls of gas. Admittedly, i know how insane that sounds to most.
or does weight magically change depending on where the weight exists in space ?
No, weight remains more or less constant. Effective weight (what we commonly/colloquially refer to as weight : i.e. measured on a scale) varies with many factors - most notably buoyancy - but its intrinsic/actual weight generally does not. Although a battleship floats on water or a dirigible measures 0 when placed on a scale, that does not make their actual weight any less phenomenal or different than the materials they are built/composed of.
Okay genius
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!
Genius
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?
Because there's no force being imparted on them to pull them downward in your worldview.
That is not a sensical answer to my question. If there is no force being imparted on them (other than the intrinsic force of weight and the interplay of that weight and the weight of the media displaced), why should they go east or west?
Gravity accounts for this
Gravitation. And, no - gravitation can't account for anything if it isn't real. I appreciate that in imagination it appears to account for it, but in reality it doesn't and the phenomenon of falling is still caused by weight. Even if gravitation were real, not all things fall, and archimedes had figured out and formally described why millennia ago (almost 2 millennia before the fiction of gravitation was first invoked by newton purely to solve an astronomical math problem).
The cause is made clear in the equation. Weight is all there is, and all that is needed.
I honestly don't know what to say to that other than it's word salad
When you don't understand, the best thing to begin with is to ask questions! The more specific the question the more likely you are to get a specific answer you're seeking.
Throwing up your hands and declaring "word salad" is only appropriate when it is word salad - and that will only be established by asking such questions about it.
What didn't make sense to you? Were the words unclear? Their meaning? Ask for clarification! Be specific! Communication is hard, and takes repeated and concerted effort on both sides!
That aside, physics isn't for everybody - some of us genuinely enjoy it and have a natural aptitude.
I know that you are required to dismiss my views as "insane" and give up trying to communicate immediately by your dogmas, but ask yourself - is that the scientific thing to do? Is declaring every view that contradicts your own as "insane" and then sticking your fingers in your ears and running away the smart thing to do? Especially on a forum devoted to above average rational skepticism and investigation...
Just food for thought. I also wish you well.
Why don't objects with "weight" just displace east to west?
Why should they? The general reason is because they have no imbalance in that axis/dimension to resolve. The force from the displaced media's weight is roughly equivalent on all sides, and the weight of the object seeks equilibrium (down, where - generally speaking - it came from).
Why is it always in the same direction relative to the earth?
Well, technically it isn't. But it is mostly the same direction because that is the direction of least resistance to reach equilibrium. All things tend towards rest.
Things fall because they are lifted (and with the energy used to lift them), and because the media which they sit upon cannot support their weight.
Where does the force emanate from?
From the intrinsic property of matter called weight, and the interplay between the weight of an object and the weight of the media it displaces.
Does it come from the earth, pulling stuff downward towards it?
No. In fact, in classical physics there is no mechanism for pulling at all. Everything is push. A common example is sucking up liquid in a straw - you think you are pulling the liquid up to your mouth - but actually it is the air (and its weight!) which is pushing the liquid up.
Pushing stuff towards earth? If so, where?
Yes. From the weight within, surrounding, and above the object
Or perhaps we call it gravity?
No, no one calls weight gravity ;)
And people who call the (pseudo)force "pull" between mass bodies gravity are making a (albeit common) mistake.
Gravity is a law, thousands of years old. Laws are the observation, they can never be the cause. The supposed cause of the law of gravity (i.e. the phenomenon of falling) is not properly called gravity (1000's of years old) but gravitation (merely a few hundred years old).
Shitposting like this makes conspiracies, as a community, worse.
I defy you to find even one person who believes the above cartoon image is reality, or even a gross depiction thereof.
Agreed.
True, it does (both calculably and in reality demonstrably).
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.
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.
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".