There IS no gravity.

[Arius]

That's a tragic story, and I'm very sorry to hear it.

Thank you Brother, but don't be sorry,
Proverbs 17:10

Rebuke is more effective for a wise man Than a hundred blows on a fool

.. cause I'm not sorry, for God molds each one of us;

Isaiah 64:8 But now, O Lord,
You are our Father;
We are the clay, and You our potter;
And all we are the work of Your hand.​

I'm not sure how that explains or justifies your posts, though. Especially the way that you call the space industry, the GPS industry, the airline industry, the surveying industry, the ancient Greeks, and quite a few other people liars.

Only ONE, .. the Space-Industry, specifically the one who got a patent on space(r) which is NASA. The rest like the GPS industry, the airline industry, the surveying industry is understandable, they are all allowed to do their job as long as they abide by some rules when it comes to the Globe, which is the only place they'll twist the truth to appease the serpent.

Besides, you were asking about my basic Highschool "vector math", I believe because of this:

Radagast said: That's not actually true. There are multiple gravitational force vectors that combine together using vector math.

For the small outer planets, for example, the gravitational force vectors of the Sun and of Jupiter are both important.

So I took a 28 minute course, and ready to answer y7our questions or look over your figures, .. I think?

Look at Felix Baumgartner's jump from 128,100 feet, there was no mention of measuring the g-force of the total fall, if it was 9.807 m/s^2 all the way, .. or was "gravity" less up there, and increased as he got closer to the ground, .. but just the speed. And of course there was the wind factor. But I do like his "full view of the entire globe" lol (time 2:50)

It's questions like these that adds to the plethora of evidence that gravity is a lie. I believe the rate of fall is the same all the way up to the Dome.

Like in NASA-space, it is claimed it can hold the moon in the globes orbit, yet you have Astronauts floating in their cabins, which shows that gravity gets really weak once in space, yet can hold 7.35 X 10^22 kg giant rock in it's orbit 384,400 km away!?

Now look, if your gravity has the same "pulling-effect" aka G-force on all objects, like a 16,000 lb. elephant and a feather, then it should have the same effect on the Apollo, and the men inside going to the moon, as it has on the moon. The Apollo spacecraft would have needed to keep the jets blasting to fight off earths gravity all the way to the moon, and the men should be pulled against the wall of the cabin that's facing the earth, .. yet they said the Apollo once it broke away from the globes gravity it simply floated most of the way.

- The Apollo program carried the first men beyond the earth's field of gravity and around the moon on Apollo 8 in December 1968 and landed the first men on the moon in Apollo 11 on 20 July 1969 - History NASA.gov

- On July 19, after Apollo 11 had flown behind the moon out of contact with Earth, came the first lunar orbit insertion maneuver. At about 75 hours, 50 minutes into the flight, a retrograde firing of the SPS for 357.5 seconds placed the spacecraft into an initial, elliptical-lunar orbit of 69 by 190 miles.

Question:
a) If the gravity of earth is the same on all mass, which is 9.807 m/s^2, and seems it's this same pull all the way to the moon (which is why you guys have the moon orbiting the globe at 3,683 k/h so the earth would not pull it in), then why was the Apollo gliding most of the way, and why were the Astronauts floating in the cabin?

b) Now if you say the gravity gets weaker, like once the Apollo reaches space, then how is it holding the 7.35 X 10^22 kg moon in it's orbit? (remember that NASA explanation of the bowling ball and feather that all mass has the same falling rate, aka the Globes g-force) so this should mean that the Apollo spacecraft would of have to fight the globes gravity all the way close to the moon, just as the moon has to orbit to keep it from being pulled to the globe!
From this I would say the Apollo should of "gradually spiral out" making a larger and larger orbit around the globe till it reached the moons gravity! That would take a lot of fuel!

c) Please explain why the 450 ton ISS is orbiting 17,150 km/h, if the earths gravity is equal on all masses? If that's the fact, then why isn't it orbiting the same speed as the moon, only much, much slower than the 3,683 km/h it's supposedly moving at?

In other words, let's put both the moon and the ISS lined up with each other, one at 408 km away, and the other, the moon at 384,400 km away, and since like in that Brian Cox experiment you guys say all mass has equal g-force of earth pulling on them, and ignore the G-force of the falling objects, if lined up, .. because the moon is much farther, the ISS should be orbiting much, much, much slower than the moon, which is 3,683 km/h!?

Wait a minute, .. I just took a quick course in figuring out "Tangential Speed"
Next post.

God bless you.

 

[Arius]

@Radagast I have another question, it's on 'Tangential speed'.

How can NASA claim the moon to be traveling at 3,683 km/h and still complete a whole circle around the earth???

The moon is said to be at a distance of 384,400 km. from the Globe. (radius)
Times 2 = Dia. of 768,800 km
Times pi = 2,414,032 is the circumference
Divided by time, which is one rotation in 24 hours = should be traveling at 100,584.66666 km/h
That's 96,901 km/h slower than what it should be traveling at to make a full circle around the globe?
Can you please explain that?

 

[A_Thinker]

Gravitational FORCE is based upon MASS, and thus, is not the same for all objects.

ACCELERATION due to gravity is the same for all objects caught in Earth's gravitational field.

 

[A_Thinker]

@Radagast I have another question, it's on 'Tangential speed'.

How can NASA claim the moon to be traveling at 3,683 km/h and still complete a whole circle around the earth???

The moon is said to be at a distance of 384,400 km. from the Globe. (radius)
Times 2 = Dia. of 768,800 km
Times pi = 2,414,032 is the circumference
Divided by time, which is one rotation in 24 hours = should be traveling at 100,584.66666 km/h
That's 96,901 km/h slower than what it should be traveling at to make a full circle around the globe?
Can you please explain that?

The moon completes one orbit around the Earth in 27-28 days ... which when divided into your 24-hour speed, ... yields the 3,683 km/h that NASA claims ...

 

[Arius]

The moon completes one orbit around the Earth in 27-28 days ... which when divided into your 24-hour speed, ... yields the 3,683 km/h that NASA claims ...

Thank you, .. so the "math" works, got it.
But still haven's answered why all Globe-scientists "expect" all mass, no matter the size, to fall to earth at the exact same speed?

 

[Arius]

Gravitational FORCE is based upon MASS, and thus, is not the same for all objects.

Thank you, which goes by these rules, correct:
1. the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass.
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

ACCELERATION due to gravity is the same for all objects caught in Earth's gravitational field.

This comment obviously contradicts your first comment; "Gravitational FORCE is based upon MASS, and thus, is not the same for all objects."
So which is it? Is gravity based on MASS thus is not the same for all objects, or is gravity the same for all objects?

The 16,000 lb. elephant and the feather would agree with your first comment, but in REALITY, as you have seen the Brian Cox experiment show something very different.
Does earths gravity null all other gravity found in different sizes/weights/density of masses?
Or this is the only explanation NASA has to keep their trillions of dollars "Space program" alive?

 

[A_Thinker]

Gravitational FORCE is based upon MASS, and thus, is not the same for all objects.

ACCELERATION due to gravity is the same for all objects caught in Earth's gravitational field.

This comment obviously contradicts your first comment; "Gravitational FORCE is based upon MASS, and thus, is not the same for all objects."

Gravitational Force ... and Acceleration due to Gravity ... are not the same thing.

Gravitational Force is the actual force acting to bring an object of mass to the Earth's surface ... while the Acceleration due to Gravity is the change in speed a falling object experiences as it falls due to Earth's gravity..

 

[A_Thinker]

Gravitational Force ... and Acceleration due to Gravity ... are not the same thing.

Gravitational Force is the actual force acting to bring an object of mass to the Earth's surface ... while the Acceleration due to Gravity is the change in speed a falling object experiences as it falls due to Earth's gravity..

Gravitational Force would be observed in the impact experienced at the point of contact of a falling object. Therefore, it would be much better to be hit by a falling feather ... than by a falling bowling ball.

Acceleration due to Gravity can be observed in the Speed at which objects fall due to Gravity.

Gravitational Force is the more intuitive of the observations of the experience of Gravity ... in that the observation agrees with what we would naturally expect.

Acceleration due to Gravity is not so intuitive. It seems that a bowling ball should fall faster than a feather, ... perhaps because we always also see the effect of Air Resistance upon objects falling in air. However, in a vacuum, where there is no air resistance, the bowling ball and the feather fall at the same speed.

 

[Arius]

Gravitational Force would be observed in the impact experienced at the point of contact of a falling object. Therefore, it would be much better to be hit by a falling feather ... than by a falling bowling ball.

.. you meant to say: "it would be much better to be hit by a gravitating feather ... than by a gravitating bowling ball", .. correct? Things don't just "fall", they gravitate. Like those lead balls against them pins video showing absolute proof of gravity, right? So how do you explain that? Wouldn't you add the lead-ball's g-force to the earths when doing a "lead ball and feather drop" experiment with Brian Cox?

Acceleration due to Gravity

can be observed in the Speed at which objects fall due to Gravity.

So I don't get moderated out of here sooner, why don't you tell me when I can laugh at your comments? Now I should report you for mocking me-bloody-intelligence, but that would just shorten my stay here. Instead, I will take all the mocking you give me, .. praise the Lord!

Gravitational Force

is the more intuitive of the observations of the experience of Gravity ... in that the observation agrees with what we would naturally expect.

.. like if we dropped Jupiter on the earth, "we would expect it would fall at 9.807 m/s^2, just like EVERYTHING else" because as you say, it would be intuitive. And also would back up NASA-space math.

Acceleration due to Gravity

is not so intuitive. It seems that a bowling ball should fall faster than a feather, ... perhaps because we always also see the effect of Air Resistance upon objects falling in air. However, in a vacuum, where there is no air resistance, the bowling ball and the feather fall at the same speed.

You keep mocking-me-intelligence dude!

So we no longer use NASA-math but switch to this; "what's intuitive or not"?
For instance Arius you dumb evolving animal, and cousin of apes; .. in a hurricane, dropping a bowling ball and a feather to measure gravity would not be intuitive, .. did I get that right?

 

[A_Thinker]

.. you meant to say: "it would be much better to be hit by a gravitating feather ... than by a gravitating bowling ball", .. correct? Things don't just "fall", they gravitate. Like those lead balls against them pins video showing absolute proof of gravity, right? So how do you explain that? Wouldn't you add the lead-ball's g-force to the earths when doing a "lead ball and feather drop" experiment with Brian Cox?

In common experience (i.e.) here on Earth, motion which occurs due to the attraction of Earth's gravity is called "falling".

.. like if we dropped Jupiter on the earth, "we would expect it would fall at 9.807 m/s^2, just like EVERYTHING else" because as you say, it would be intuitive. And also would back up NASA-space math.

In the common experience, Earth's mass vastly overwhelms the mass of any object in its gravitational field, ... and, thus, establishes the effective Acceleration due to Gravity.

In the attraction between Earth and Jupiter, Jupiter, being more massive, would determine the effective Acceleration due to Gravity. So ... it would be much more like the Earth "falling" into Jupiter.

As to intuitiveness, ... we (humans) intuit, based upon what we commonly see. For example, the sun rises in the East, and sets in the West, on a somewhat varying 24-hour clock. Also, the moon changes phases from full moon to new moon every 27-28 days.

Science is, ultimately, an attempt to record, predict, and make sense of what we observe ... and, also, what we might not, typically, obeserve.

So we have observed that more massive objects (i.e. a bowling ball) exert more "falling" force than less massive objects (i.e. a feather).

But, we have also observed that, absent the effect of air resistance, ... objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration.

Science has recorded, can predict, and has attempted to provide an explanation for these (2) particular observations and more ... which has provided a basis for the scientific progress we observe today ...

 

[Arius]

In common experience (i.e.) here on Earth, motion which occurs due to the attraction of Earth's gravity is called "falling".

Again you got that backwards, .. look:

This shows that measuring the RATE OF FALL is what cosmological science calls "gravity".
Besides that lead-ball against the steel pins experiment, of which I did not see any gauges measuring the amount of gravity of the lead-balls, .. so please show me ONE experiment other then the rate of FALL of objects used to measure gravity?

In the common experience, Earth's mass vastly overwhelms the mass of any object in its gravitational field, ... and, thus, establishes the effective Acceleration due to Gravity.

In the attraction between Earth and Jupiter, Jupiter, being more massive, would determine the effective Acceleration due to Gravity. So ... it would be much more like the Earth "falling" into Jupiter.

So you're saying that your globe-earths gravity would become negligible, not have any addition to Jupiter's g-force, .. is that what you are saying?
In other words, the g-force of Jupiter is "things falling on the ground of Jupiter at exactly 24.79 m/s^2" so are you saying that your globe earth would fall on Jupiter at that same rate?

As to intuitiveness, ... we (humans) intuit, based upon what we commonly see. For example, the sun rises in the East, and sets in the West, on a somewhat varying 24-hour clock. Also, the moon changes phases from full moon to new moon every 27-28 days.

Science is, ultimately, an attempt to record, predict, and make sense of what we observe ... and, also, what we might not, typically, obeserve.

So we have observed that more massive objects (i.e. a bowling ball) exert more "falling" force than less massive objects (i.e. a feather).

But, we have also observed that, absent the effect of air resistance, ... objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration.

Science has recorded, can predict, and has attempted to provide an explanation for these (2) particular observations and more ... which has provided a basis for the scientific progress we observe today ...

Let me see if I understand you correctly? So what you're saying is that; "In that Brian Cox/NASA vacuum chamber bowling ball and feather drop experiment, NASA scientists were predicting that the bowling ball will weigh 10 lb. and the feather 0.0025 g?
Well let's look at the video again, because all I heard was them saying: "He, he, he, they came down exactly the same!"

Time 2:26

I didn't see any scale there, or that they cared what they weigh when they dropped, only that they both came down exactly the same.

And now you made it clear to everyone here that NASA 'predicts' that their globe earth would fall on Jupiter at "exactly the same" as a feather would.

Thank you, that is exactly what I wanted to see you say in writing.
Post #370

Well my FE Debater friends, and those still not 100% sure about the fact that there is no gravity in mass, and that NASA never sent anything anywhere in BB-space other than in their mainframe computer simulation universe, .. what more proof do you need?
Welcome to Flat Earth everyone!

 

[A_Thinker]

Again you got that backwards, .. look:

This shows that measuring the RATE OF FALL is what cosmological science calls "gravity".
Besides that lead-ball against the steel pins experiment, of which I did not see any gauges measuring the amount of gravity of the lead-balls, .. so please show me ONE experiment other then the rate of FALL of objects used to measure gravity?



So you're saying that your globe-earths gravity would become negligible, not have any addition to Jupiter's g-force, .. is that what you are saying?
In other words, the g-force of Jupiter is "things falling on the ground of Jupiter at exactly 24.79 m/s^2" so are you saying that your globe earth would fall on Jupiter at that same rate?



Let me see if I understand you correctly? So what you're saying is that; "In that Brian Cox/NASA vacuum chamber bowling ball and feather drop experiment, NASA scientists were predicting that the bowling ball will weigh 10 lb. and the feather 0.0025 g?
Well let's look at the video again, because all I heard was them saying: "He, he, he, they came down exactly the same!"

Time 2:26

I didn't see any scale there, or that they cared what they weigh when they dropped, only that they both came down exactly the same.

And now you made it clear to everyone here that NASA 'predicts' that their globe earth would fall on Jupiter at "exactly the same" as a feather would.

Thank you, that is exactly what I wanted to see you say in writing.
Post #370

Well my FE Debater friends, and those still not 100% sure about the fact that there is no gravity in mass, and that NASA never sent anything anywhere in BB-space other than in their mainframe computer simulation universe, .. what more proof do you need?
Welcome to Flat Earth everyone!

What you are having a hard time understanding ... is that Gravity has more than ONE aspect. Gravity produces FORCE and ACCELERATION. The two are linked ... but not the same.

Similar to how the SUN produces HEAT and LIGHT. These are not one-effect phenomena ...

 

[Arius]

What you are having a hard time understanding ... is that Gravity has more than ONE aspect. Gravity produces FORCE and ACCELERATION. The two are linked ... but not the same.

Similar to how the SUN produces HEAT and LIGHT. These are not one-effect phenomena ...

Aaahh, .. I understand now, like hot water bottle produces heat, but NOT light, just as the big Gravity produces FORCE, but little gravity is just the falling, .. right, .. or am I wrong again? Boy I feel dumb.

So 'G'ravity is the acceleration, and 'g'ravity is the force? Or is it the other way around?
So tell me, when the feather and the bowling ball drops, which gravity is acting on them, the 'G' or the 'g'?

Because according to this:

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass.
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.
​

And this graph

compliments the above by showing that each different size mass has it's own ​

gravitational force:​

The acceleration is due to Gravity, "g" [m/s^2]
That's a capital G in Gravity marked as "g", .. and as you can see, all them imaginary planets have different g-forces according to their mass.

But now according to what you're saying, we can also add that; "there are 7 letters in the word 'gravity', and they're linked, but not the same", .. because I suppose the 'g' can be used in hundreds of different words, and this I agree can get very complex.

So go ahead and start explaining the true value of the word "gravity", letter by letter, start with a capitalized Gravity, .. I really want to hear this!? Let everyone see the NASA Globetard Answers to us Flattards so we can determine which one of us earns the "tard"?

 

[A_Thinker]

Aaahh, .. I understand now, like hot water bottle produces heat, but NOT light, just as the big Gravity produces FORCE, but little gravity is just the falling, .. right, .. or am I wrong again?

Gravity is a phenomenon whereby all objects in the universe containing mass ... are attracted to one another. Gravity has a number of observable effects.

One effect of Gravity is a the FORCE by which all objects in the universe containing mass ... are attracted to one another. An example of such is the FORCE (i.e. WEIGHT) of winter snow upon your home's roof. It does not MOVE, but it does exert a FORCE.

Another effect of Gravity is the ACCELERATION/SPEED experienced by a relatively SMALL object of mass ... FALLING to a relatively LARGE object of mass.

 

[Arius]

Gravity is a phenomenon whereby all objects in the universe containing mass ... are attracted to one another. Gravity has a number of observable effects.

One effect of Gravity is a the FORCE by which all objects in the universe containing mass ... are attracted to one another.

Another effect of Gravity is the ACCELERATION/SPEED experienced by a relatively SMALL object of mass ... FALLING to a relatively LARGE object of mass.

Perfect, .. I love it, let the readers refer to your post #347 for any questions on gravity. If this doesn't start turning Bible-Believers back to Gods created Flat Earth, then nothing will.

Just one question, not for me, but for our readers: "Would that 'FORCE' that attracts mass have any 'ACCELERATION/SPEED' by any chance?

Can I ask you something @A Thinker? "Are you working for, or retired from NASA or any of the hundreds of their civilian companies like space-X? Or you just refuse to accept the fact that gravity does not exist in mass, which means that you (like me and the rest of the Flat Earthers) have to get rid of our paper or plastic globes we once thought made us look smart decorating our desk or book shelves?

 

[A_Thinker]

Just one question, not for me, but for our readers: "Would that 'FORCE' that attracts mass have any 'ACCELERATION/SPEED' by any chance?

By definition and experience, FORCE does not have ACCELERATION/SPEED.

For instance, the FORCE (i.e. WEIGHT) of snow on the roof of your house does not have ACCELERATION/SPEED. You might reference the latest Allstate Insurance "Mayhem" commercial on that.

I don't work for the SPACE exploration industry, but I do work in AEROSPACE (we design/manufacture jet engines). If you've flown, you've likely flown on a plane with our engines.

A FORCE can cause MOTION in an object of mass ... IF it is not countered by other sufficient FORCES. If a FORCE causes MOTION, that MOTION will have a SPEED, and thus, an ACCELERATION.

As long as there is no MOTION, ... there is no SPEED or ACCELERATION.

In Engineering school, we spent considerable time constructing FORCE diagrams ... which graphically demonstrate the combined EFFECT of the FORCES acting upon an object.

There are a number of FORCES acting upon every body of mass on the Earth. In spite of the FORCES acting upon them, objects can exist in a state of EQUILIBRIUM because the FORCES acting upon them are all counterbalanced.

It is only when the combined FORCES become unbalanced that MOTION, and thus, SPEED and ACCELERATION occur.

So ... as long as the COMPRESSIVE, TENSILE, FRICTIONAL, etc. FORCES of your roof's construction counterbalance the FORCE (i.e. WEIGHT) of the snow resting upon them, ... there will be no MOTION, and thus, no SPEED or ACCELERATION. If the FORCE (i.e. WEIGHT) of the snow on your roof overcomes the FORCES holding up your roof, ... there will be MOTION, SPEED, and ACCELERATION ... and a need for a new roof.

The example of a FORCE DIAGRAM shown below can be found at ...

Force Diagram instructions

 

[Arius]

By definition and experience, FORCE does not have ACCELERATION/SPEED.

For instance, the FORCE (i.e. WEIGHT) of snow on the roof of your house does not have ACCELERATION/SPEED. You might reference the latest Allstate Insurance "Mayhem" commercial on that.

I don't work for the SPACE exploration industry, but I do work in AEROSPACE (we design/manufacture jet engines). If you've flown, you've likely flown on a plane with our engines.

A FORCE can cause MOTION in an object of mass ... IF it is not countered by other sufficient FORCES. If a FORCE causes MOTION, that MOTION will have a SPEED, and thus, an ACCELERATION.

As long as there is no MOTION, ... there is no SPEED or ACCELERATION.

In Engineering school, we spent considerable time constructing FORCE diagrams ... which graphically demonstrate the combined EFFECT of the FORCES acting upon an object.

There are a number of FORCES acting upon every body of mass on the Earth. In spite of the FORCES acting upon them, objects can exist in a state of EQUILIBRIUM because the FORCES acting upon them are all counterbalanced.

It is only when the combined FORCES become unbalanced that MOTION, and thus, SPEED and ACCELERATION occur.

So ... as long as the COMPRESSIVE, TENSILE, FRICTIONAL, etc. FORCES of your roof's construction counterbalance the FORCE (i.e. WEIGHT) of the snow resting upon them, ... there will be no MOTION, and thus, no SPEED or ACCELERATION. If the FORCE (i.e. WEIGHT) of the snow on your roof overcomes the FORCES holding up your roof, ... there will be MOTION, SPEED, and ACCELERATION ... and a need for a new roof.

The example of a FORCE DIAGRAM shown below can be found at ...

Force Diagram instructions

Oh, yeah, not fair, you went to school.
OK I apologize for my lack of schooling, you are absolutely right, which is how I learn about many things by debating. Again I apologize for my ignorance. Of course you know that I was strictly going by the bowling ball and feather "falling" experiment, right, all the while you KNEW back of your head about the rope force, and just let me make a fool of myself by having the falling bowling ball in my mind.
You are correct, "force does not necessarily have to have speed".

But, .. this still doesn't prove "gravity".

Having you pointed this out, let's do this:
Put the bowling ball on the rope and measure the 'force'. Now add a cue ball to the rope along with the bowling ball, we have greater force, .. but is it gravity, .. or simply falling objects seeking their buoyancy rest that are creating the force!? That's why they fall the same rate, because there is NO pulling force. Besides, gravity would be like magnetism, the farther away, the weaker it gets. Two magnets would pull something on the table, or up, or down through the air faster.

Since there is no sign of gravity in mass, falling weight creates force. In a Zero-G plane they are all "falling". On all the imaginary planets, NASA defines gravity by "falling objects". If it was actual force, like G-force pulling, then you know very well (especially as an engineer) that different masses would have different g-forces (which in space with planets they admit), and would be added to the g-force of the imaginary planets.
If the Astronauts bounced/kind of floated on the moon, this also PROVES that they believe less mass has less "pull", and more mass has "greater pull". So I am still amazed how NASA didn't catch that in the bowling ball experiment? But then, I worked a lot with engineers, tool and die designers, NASA must really pick them if they missed that.

In the bowling ball all the molecules are falling, only being in the same medium, they remain bouyant. If we were to grind the bowling ball up to dust particles, and spread them over different mediums like air water, earth, rock etc. they would all fall towards solid earth, through air, water until they come to their buoyancy rest, isn't this right? Just as a dislodged log from under water would create an upwards force.
So again, where is gravity?

I don't work for the SPACE exploration industry, but I do work in AEROSPACE (we design/manufacture jet engines). If you've flown, you've likely flown on a plane with our engines.

How cool is that? Starting in 974, fter working a bunch of small aircraft machining shops from Detroit, to San Diego, I got in the big companies like Rohr industries in Chula Vista, .. Teledyne Ryan, Garret Phoenix, then Air Research, then Honeywell. Also Hughes, then Macdonald Douglass Helicopter (worked on the first Apache AH-64E here in Tempe AZ when it started up I think like back in the early 80's, .. I retired from Honeywell machining, inspecting lemonade stands, .. just kidding, it was mostly machining, then later as a certified inspector of impellers, (Zeiss, Comparators etc.) so most likely I manufactured many of the plane engines you engineered!? So we're like buddies, ..

Hey, who knows, maybe you were one of those engineers along with the CNC programmers who thought I was the dumbest CNC operator in the entire company and requested management to keep me off your projects, yet I ended up being the only operator/set up man authorized to make critical program changes on night shift in the whole factory?? Authorized by 'upper management' who were over engineers and programmers.
You would remember me, I WAS dumber then a log (uneducated, very little schooling) yet had this God-given ability to pick up on, and solve complex problems, fixture alterations, program changes, tool design, where in some cases, I changed everything around on machining them titanium impellers;

from getting one part in two shifts, to two parts in one shift. Got awards for it too, and a lot of animosity from engineers/programmers when they came in the morning and seen it. You engineers get pretty proud of your work, and didn't take lightly to lemonade stand operators making changes to your work, especially to that extent, lol. Not that I had any disrespect for your work, .. you guys are pretty awesome, especially when it came to 5-axis machining. Praiseworthy, .. but I guess I was just better at solving complex problems??

 

[A_Thinker]

OK I apologize for my lack of schooling, you are absolutely right, which is how I learn about many things by debating. Again I apologize for my ignorance.

Don't apologize for overcoming challenges to become who you are ... I've had challenges to overcome, as well.

But don't be unwilling to continue learning ...

Despite a keen interest in Science and an education and career in Engineering, I have learned a great many things since joining in on the great Flat Earth debate.

I've learned that the moon is tidally locked in its rotation around the earth ... so that we only see the one face from Earth. I've learned about calculating the amount of elevation expected to be hidden by the curve of the Earth at various distances. And he discussion has refreshed my knowledge about gravity, forces, motion, speed, and accelerations.

Put the bowling ball on the rope and measure the 'force'. Now add a cue ball to the rope along with the bowling ball, we have greater force, .. but is it gravity, .. or simply falling objects seeking their buoyancy rest that are creating the force!?

The force still exists in a vacuum where buoyancy is not possible ...

That's why they fall the same rate, because there is NO pulling force.

Oh yes there is a pulling force. Observe the force of gravity putting tensile stress on the rope. Feel how taut the rope is. The bowling ball is being pulled to the Earth.

That's the pull of gravity.

If it was actual force, like G-force pulling, then you know very well (especially as an engineer) that different masses would have different g-forces ...

Different masses do have different g-forces, ... but they have the SAME g-acceleration on Earth (which is established by the Earth's massively greater gravity).

If the Astronauts bounced/kind of floated on the moon, this also PROVES that they believe less mass has less "pull", and more mass has "greater pull".

Less mass does have less "pull", and more mass has greater "pull". Nobody is denying that.

In the bowling ball all the molecules are falling, only being in the same medium, they remain bouyant.
...

So again, where is gravity?

Recall ... gravity also operates in a vacuum, where there is no medium in which buoyancy can occur ...

How cool is that? Starting in 1974, fter working a bunch of small aircraft machining shops from Detroit, to San Diego, I got in the big companies like Rohr industries in Chula Vista, .. Teledyne Ryan, Garret Phoenix, then Air Research, then Honeywell. Also Hughes, then Macdonald Douglass Helicopter (worked on the first Apache AH-64E here in Tempe AZ when it started up I think like back in the early 80's, ...

I know most of your references here. I started in 1978. We build small turbine engines for helicopter as well, for Bell, and small jets, such as the Cessna Citation, as well as the military's C130's. We also designed and produced the engines for the tilt-winged Osprey, plus a host of other applications.

The larger company produces engines for Boeing's 737's, the new 787 Dreamliner, and a number of Airbus applications.

I actually worked to support the NC function in our operation. I supported the Engineers who actually produced coding for NC operations. I worked in this function for 25 years, and, in my experience, I worked with smart and dedicated Engineers and Machinists. We were all a team, ... working together to produce a quality product. We needed everyone applying their expertise ... to get the job done. I've seen obstinance on both sides, and Engineers can be just as frustrating and bull-headed as operators and machinists, if not more so.

BTW ... a good set-up man is worth his weight in gold ...

 

[Rick Otto]

Gravity is a phenomenon whereby all objects in the universe containing mass ... are attracted to one another. Gravity has a number of observable effects.

One effect of Gravity is a the FORCE by which all objects in the universe containing mass ... are attracted to one another. An example of such is the FORCE (i.e. WEIGHT) of winter snow upon your home's roof. It does not MOVE, but it does exert a FORCE.

Another effect of Gravity is the ACCELERATION/SPEED experienced by a relatively SMALL object of mass ... FALLING to a relatively LARGE object of mass.

Maybe so...
But if the sun were about a 1/2" big , the nearest star is about 7 miles away.
So gravity is not holding constellations or galaxies together.

 

[A_Thinker]

Maybe so...
But if the sun were about a 1/2" big , the nearest star is about 7 miles away.
So gravity is not holding constellations or galaxies together.

Not sure how to make sense of this ...