if someone who's incapable of having a conversation, let alone a debate, is worth your time, i'm jealous of the time you have.

OK please post evidence that can prove gravity 100% and explain why people float in water - while others things sink right to to bottom and explain why the weight of the earth is strong enough to hold oceans upside down clinging to the earth but a bird can fly or i can jump which exerts enough force to overcome it with ease. Explain why if the Earth is spiraling at 500,000 mph and the earth is sucking in the air so it travels in the exact same specific relative direction as it - how can an airplane moving in the direction of opposite movement doesn't need to account for this force? The air cant be relative to the direction of the moving planet and well as to the random direction of all airplanes travelling though the air.

Here's a nice paper that shows Gravity is false. If you cant debunk it - your just clinging to dogmatic scientific myths

Disproof of Gravity
By Aaron Guerami
aguerami@gmail.com
http://aaronsreality.%2A%2A%2A/
The standard particle model has yet to find any evidence of Gravity. This is most concerning since gravity
is used by most modern equations. Great particle accelerators have hunted for any signs of gravity. None
found!
There are several ways to disprove gravity.
1) Experimentally
One simple experiment shows there is no gravity. The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this
possible? Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the
Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two
masses raised to the second power.
F=GM1M2/r^2
With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but
to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1.
F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force
that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the
helium is rising to meet its level of density.
2) Commutitive
The mathematics of gravity is a concept called Zero Point Mass. This is a mass without a volume.
This is not found in the universe. The main problem here is the reduction of 3 dimensional
densities to 0 dimensional masses. Once a density is reduces to a mass, the mass cannot be
returned to the original shape of the density. So we cannot cube a zero and get anything but
another zero. This breaks the commutative properties of addition.
Let’s look at some of the equations and how gravity fails at a fundamental level.
F=ma : Force equals mass times acceleration.
We have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector and that does not equal a 3
dimensional field. So the main axiom of gravity fails the commutative test.
This alone should disprove gravity.
F = G(M1*M2)/r^2 : Force = The constant of Gravity * (The zero dimensional mass 1 * The zero
dimensional mass 2)/ The 3 dimensional length between them squared. So every object pulls
every other object. The dimensional problem occurs again.
A constant is what is used to fill in the gaps. When things do not work the way we want them to,
we just add a constant to fix the problem. When the equation no longer works, we change the
constant’s value.
Physicists know about this problem. They created gravity waves and shell modeling to
compensate for the dimensionless mass. But gravity is still dimensionless. The dimensionless
mass cannot create a 3 dimensional shape.
We all know that gravity collapses under the scrutiny of the tiny. Quantum level objects do not
show any signs of gravity. The particle accelerators prove this. They have yet to find any force
that works as gravity is described.
3) Gravity fails the multi-body test.
Gravity can only compute the force between 2 objects. Any equation that uses a sum of objects
fails in this way. First the two objects force is computed then the third body is computed with the
resultant of the first two bodies. Then that resultant is computed with the 4 body... That is how
summation works. The problem is that the distance between object 1 and 2 is not evaluated in the
next iteration.
4) Gravity and Complex Systems.
Let’s look at a hurricane that is traveling over the ocean. The spinning winds cause rotation in the
ocean. The low pressure of the storm causes a bulge upward in the ocean. Heat and pressure
are two of the main variables in this system. As the temp increases it decreases the pressure of
the storm, causing an increase in intensity in the storm. The heated air is forced up the eye wall.
This is an example of a temperature/pressure force on density. It is not possible for gravity to
describe this system, with or without spheres.
5) Questions posed by others:
- the rain fall because of gravity.
- the rain occurs because of water vapor cooling (temperature going closer to the dew point).
- the rain formation in itself is a very complex phenomena.
- the dynamics of rain formation depends on the presence of aerosols and fine particles.
- the dynamics of rain formation also depends on complex collision and coalescence
phenomena.
- the ascending motion of air is driven by gravity on all parts of the atmosphere.
- this ascending motion is also affected by the Coriolis force.
- this motion is affected also by the drag of rain.
- this motion is also affected by the detailed geometry of the hurricane.
- the fluid dynamics itself exhibits an incredible complexity, like turbulence and instabilities.
- the term "T" in the Navier-Stokes equation above hides a lot of complexities that often still need
to be understood.
- heat exchange plays an important role, yet it is not simpler than the fluid dynamics.
- the rain fall because of gravity
Rain falls because as cold water it is more dense or less buoyant then the surrounding air.
- the rain occurs because of water vapor cooling (temperature going closer to the dew point).
Yes, that is one way of looking at density and Buoyancy
- the rain formation in itself is a very complex phenomena.
Yes
- the dynamics of rain formation depends on the presence of aerosols and fine particles
Yes, the mixture of dirty water causes it to be a more dense mixture.
- the dynamics of rain formation also depends on complex collision and coalescence
phenomena.
Yes again, as the less dense gas collides with other gases, their temperature reduces and the
gas becomes liquid. This process occurs until the liquid water is heavier than the force of the
updraft.
- the ascending motion of air is driven by gravity on all parts of the atmosphere .
No. The ascending motion of air is due to the changes in temperature. The air heats at the
ground and rises. As it rises it cools and becomes liquid again. The liquid water is more dense
then the surrounding air.
- this ascending motion is also affected by the Coriolis force .
There are only 4 forces, Gluon - nuclear, W Boson - magnetism, Z Boson - electricity, and the
Photon - heat. Those are the only forces that have been experimentally shown.
- this motion is affected also by the drag of rain
Of course, As rain falls it drags against the updraft. This is the friction that removes the heat from
the air. Heat radiates to cold.
- this motion is also affected by the detailed geometry of the hurricane
The motion is the geometry of the cyclone. Geometry is a snapshot in time of an object.
- the fluid dynamics itself exhibits an incredible complexity, like turbulence and instabilities
The whole system is buoyancy. Buoyancy is only fluid dynamics. As a matter of opinion,
everything is fluid dynamics.
- the term "T" in the Navier-Stokes equation above hides a lot of complexities that often still need
to be understood
Like G, they change T frequently. These changes of G try to mimic the evidence. Just change the
constant and you will get what you want to see.
- heat exchange plays an important role, yet it is not simpler than the fluid dynamics
Heat exchange is intrinsic to fluid dynamics. You cannot remove heat from the fluid dynamics
problem.
- yet, suppress gravity and there are no hurricanes anymore
One cannot suppress gravity. Gravity is not real. It’s an old model of how objects move. Evidence
has forced major changes in gravity. There is no supporting evidence of a graviton. It is like the
Higg’s boson. Something that was built to try to explain interactions, but it does not.
6) Silly paradoxes created by gravity.
a. Black Holes are easily disproven by Crothers at sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com
b. Worm holes/Time travel
c. Parallel Universes
d. Relativity
e. Flat universe
f. Graviton decay
g. Higg’s Boson

Kepler's 3 laws are more in line with how planets orbit the sun. This is because of the Sun’s motion
around the galaxy. This causes the elliptical shape of the orbit. Not gravity. Gravity cannot explain 3 body
interactions. If the equation has a G in it then it is a Zero Point Mass system and that does not exist in
the universe.
The rules of the universe are simple. An atoms position in a system is based upon its density in relation to
the surrounding densities and the changes in magnetism, electricity and temperature. Density is the most
important function in determining the position of an object. Density is the vibration intensity within a
volume in relation to the density of the surrounding medium.


This post was edited by card_sultan on Oct 26 2016 02:14pm

I don't need to prove gravity. That's an entirely different animal than globe Earth. However, I can explain some of these things to you.
Floating is a function of a few things, most importantly density. Something more dense than water will sink in it. This is why boats have largely empty chambers.

The oceans are not upside down...so I'm not going to address that.
You can jump because the ratio of your leg strength compared to your mass is appropriate. Gravitational force is calculated based on the mass of the two interacting objects.

As for your air issue, the earth's atmosphere rotates with the Earth, so you don't really have an argument there, unless I am misunderstanding the question.


Anything else?



card has a valuable brain, so if I can sway their opinion, that is worth my time.
if not, at least I get practice in logical debate and a little refresh on some things that I haven't studied in ages.

This post was edited by ringo794 on Oct 26 2016 02:15pm

If you cant prove gravity - the whole concept of the ball earth is just ridiculous nonsensical rubbish that your using to hold up your faith.

Of course on a ball -1/2 of stuff is upside down, if your not going to address that, its a dodge.

Also the air is relative to the Direction of the earth, how can air be relative to the specific direction of the earth and also be relative to the random direction of every plane traveling though iot?

This post was edited by card_sultan on Oct 26 2016 02:20pm

How did you LEARN that there is "probably" no edge? Learning means to gain or acquire knowledge of or skill in (something) by study, experience, or being taught. Knowledge means facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. Where did you come by FACTS that the Earth is flat? Where do you come by knowledge good enough to refute ball Earth theory? How does a spherical sun only shine on part of the Earth at a given time? How can I watch a Monday night football game in San Diego while they have daylight while it is dark in the midwest if the Earth is flat? Whoever said the universe is infinitely large?



Yes, they are yours, you're defending them. I don't need to cling to your unreasoned theories. I have reasonable explanations for everything observable about the Earth that are all consistent with a spherical planet.



Asking you to prove your theory, and then smashing your vain attempts at proof isn't "moving the goalposts," it's "setting right from wrong."



I have to admit, I lol'd irl.

what faith? Please explain what my faith is, cuz I'm dying to know.
You are accusing me of exactly what you are doing.

I am not 100% convinced on gravity OR globe earth, they are simply the most compelling models at the current time.
Globe earth is pretty hard to deny (at least with a QUALITY argument)
gravity is a whole different beast...the model certainly describes nature well, but we don't know a whole lot about it.

Your accusations and assumptions directed at me are making this conversation somewhat disappointing

I don't know why you continually assert that I am 100% attached to gravity/flat earth...

This post was edited by ringo794 on Oct 26 2016 02:20pm

Its called learning, you should try it - typical for someone who got kicked out of school. You only know what you know, which isn't much.



When you haven't even tried to debunked the mountain proof, but instead demand that i answer your stupid ignorant questions - it is 100% moving the goal post - that you think it "setting right from wrong" is just admitting to your delusional reasoning.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Oct 26 2016 02:32pm

Oh, you were being serious?

I love my fellow humans. AND:

My brain works differently from others. Even (or especially, rather) if somebody disagrees with me on most things, I can learn a lot from that person.
To study, appreciate, and consider that which you identify with the least (rather than to dislike it) is true learning.

You are gonna have some trouble here. Card doesn't understand what "relative" velocity means. Like... at all. See this: http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=75117518 He struggles with elementary questions if they involved two moving objects.
So in his mind, a flying airplane is moving 500mph in one direction, while the Earth is flying at 50,000mph in the other. He can't grasp the idea of the plane moving at 500mph relative to the Earth, he just doesn't get it. So that particular part is impossible to explain to him, because he's lacking the fundamentals necessary to picture it in his mind. He believes that as soon as the plane takes off, the Earth and its atmosphere would fly away and leave it behind, so the plane would experience 50,000mph winds as the atmosphere sweeps past it.