Rockets do not work in the vacuum of space. You will believe anything "expert" scientists say.

a reply to: turbonium1

There's no force stopping the object from falling through air, yet it stops, even on your spinning ball head...

Why don't you explain how an object stops falling without an external force acting on it?

or perhaps you can explain it more clearly...

Already explained it, but once again -

Newtons first law states (in part) that an object in motion stays in motion, unless acted upon by an external force.

Your side used that to argue that objects thrown into the air, which slow down, and stop, fall back to Earth, would keep going up in air, unless acted upon by an external force. They asked me what force makes objects stop moving upward, as Newton claimed was required.

I said there is no force that stops the objects falling to Earth, the ground is not a force, yet the ground stops the object which was previously in motion. Which Newton said didn't happen. He was wrong about that, obviously.

Get it now?

originally posted by: turbonium1
Already explained it, but once again -

Newtons first law states (in part) that an object in motion stays in motion, unless acted upon by an external force.

Your side used that to argue that objects thrown into the air, which slow down, and stop, fall back to Earth, would keep going up in air, unless acted upon by an external force. They asked me what force makes objects stop moving upward, as Newton claimed was required.

I said there is no force that stops the objects falling to Earth, the ground is not a force, yet the ground stops the object which was previously in motion. Which Newton said didn't happen. He was wrong about that, obviously.

Get it now?

yes... You're extremely confused...

an object thrown upwards has the force of gravity pulling it down... thus it will only go up for so long... then gravity takes over, and returns it to earth

without that FORCE... said object would continue to go up...

and I know you don't get it but there it is..

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: turbonium1
Already explained it, but once again -

Newtons first law states (in part) that an object in motion stays in motion, unless acted upon by an external force.

Your side used that to argue that objects thrown into the air, which slow down, and stop, fall back to Earth, would keep going up in air, unless acted upon by an external force. They asked me what force makes objects stop moving upward, as Newton claimed was required.

I said there is no force that stops the objects falling to Earth, the ground is not a force, yet the ground stops the object which was previously in motion. Which Newton said didn't happen. He was wrong about that, obviously.

Get it now?

yes... You're extremely confused...

an object thrown upwards has the force of gravity pulling it down... thus it will only go up for so long... then gravity takes over, and returns it to earth

without that FORCE... said object would continue to go up...

and I know you don't get it but there it is..

The magical non-existent force, of course!

The one force which resists no opposing forces, yes indeed.

No force stops the object when it hits the ground, proving Newton's law is wrong.

I know you like saying 'gravity' does this and that, but I'd like a shred of valid proof 'gravity' even exists. I know that's not happening, of course.

As usual.

a reply to: turbonium1

lol... no the force that everything has to contend with...

Everything that exists on the planet is affected by said force...

like... wtf does that even mean, "no force stops the object when it hits the ground"???

Does it not stop when it hits the ground ffs?

you want evidence... Hold your arms straight out... see how long it takes before they tire and fall DOWN!

There is ALWAYS gravity pulling everything down...

what don't you get about that concept?

a reply to: turbonium1

You

No force stops the object when it hits the ground, proving Newton's law is wrong.

Really? Is that really true?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Normal force
The normal force is due to repulsive forces of interaction between atoms at close contact. When their electron clouds overlap, Pauli repulsion (due to fermionic nature of electrons) follows resulting in the force that acts in a direction normal to the surface interface between two objects.[16]:93 The normal force, for example, is responsible for the structural integrity of tables and floors as well as being the force that responds whenever an external force pushes on a solid object. An example of the normal force in action is the impact force on an object crashing into an immobile surface.[3][4]

Friction
Main article: Friction
Friction is a surface force that opposes relative motion. The frictional force is directly related to the normal force that acts to keep two solid objects separated at the point of contact. There are two broad classifications of frictional forces: static friction and kinetic friction.

The static friction force (
F
s
f
F_[mathrm [sf] ]) will exactly oppose forces applied to an object parallel to a surface contact up to the limit specified by the coefficient of static friction (
μ
s
f
mu _[mathrm [sf] ]) multiplied by the normal force (
F
N
F_[N]). In other words, the magnitude of the static friction force satisfies the inequality:

0
≤
F
s
f
≤
μ
s
f
F
N
.
0leq F_[mathrm [sf] ]leq mu _[mathrm [sf] ]F_[mathrm [N] ].
The kinetic friction force (
F
k
f
F_[mathrm [kf] ]) is independent of both the forces applied and the movement of the object. Thus, the magnitude of the force equals:

F
k
f
=
μ
k
f
F
N
,
F_[mathrm [kf] ]=mu _[mathrm [kf] ]F_[mathrm [N] ],
where
μ
k
f
mu _[mathrm [kf] ] is the coefficient of kinetic friction. For most surface interfaces, the coefficient of kinetic friction is less than the coefficient of static friction.

a reply to: turbonium1

Using your logic. How fast would a bullet fired horizontally to the ground fall to the earth? And at what rate?

Horizontal bullet vs dropped bullet

m.youtube.com...

Or if you throw a brick straight up into the air, it slows down faster than what is accounted for by wind resistance?

originally posted by: turbonium1
The energy used to throw up the brick is the factor in how far it goes up, before it slows down, and stops. At that point, the force is gone, and the mass of the brick makes it fall through the air, and back to the surface.

Why would it take energy to throw the ball upward? What is acting upon that brick that required you to expend extra energy to throw it upward? What is acting upon it that makes it come back down? I mean, why down?

What is so special about the Earth that the brick wants to fall back to it? If there is nothing pulling the brick back to Earth, then the brick has no reason to necessarily fall back that direction.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Magic!! Duh.

a reply to: seagull

Magic!! Duh.

Well it basically equates to that since it falls because of bending space time aka unicorn farts.

a reply to: neutronflux

So these repelling forces in your explanation, are electromagnetic in nature.

a reply to: TheAbove

I would say something more quantum and complicated

Pauli exclusion principle

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle which states that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously. This principle was formulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925 for electrons, and later extended to all fermions with his spin–statistics theorem of 1940.

Stability of matter

The stability of each electron state in an atom is described by the quantum theory of the atom, which shows that close approach of an electron to the nucleus necessarily increases the electron's kinetic energy, an application of the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg.[10] However, stability of large systems with many electrons and many nucleons is a different matter, and requires the Pauli exclusion principle.[11]

It has been shown that the Pauli exclusion principle is responsible for the fact that ordinary bulk matter is stable and occupies volume. This suggestion was first made in 1931 by Paul Ehrenfest, who pointed out that the electrons of each atom cannot all fall into the lowest-energy orbital and must occupy successively larger shells. Atoms therefore occupy a volume and cannot be squeezed too closely together.[12]

A more rigorous proof was provided in 1967 by Freeman Dyson and Andrew Lenard, who considered the balance of attractive (electron–nuclear) and repulsive (electron–electron and nuclear–nuclear) forces and showed that ordinary matter would collapse and occupy a much smaller volume without the Pauli principle.[13][14]

The consequence of the Pauli principle here is that electrons of the same spin are kept apart by a repulsive exchange interaction, which is a short-range effect, acting simultaneously with the long-range electrostatic or Coulombic force. This effect is partly responsible for the everyday observation in the macroscopic world that two solid objects cannot be in the same place at the same time.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

lol... no the force that everything has to contend with...

Everything that exists on the planet is affected by said force...

like... wtf does that even mean, "no force stops the object when it hits the ground"???

Does it not stop when it hits the ground ffs?

you want evidence... Hold your arms straight out... see how long it takes before they tire and fall DOWN!

There is ALWAYS gravity pulling everything down...

what don't you get about that concept?

I get that the concept isn't based on any actual forces, which all offer resistance to opposing forces. You obviously don't understand that.

The ground is not a force, yet it stops an object in motion. According to Newton't first law, an object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by an external force. He was wrong, because the ground - which is NOT a force - stops an object in motion.

Simple as that.


You seem to believe there is a 'force' which 'pulls' all objects to Earth, and 'holds' all objects to Earth, both of which are proven false. Objects fly above Earth freely, without any resistance from a supposed 'pulling' force within Earth. That alone proves there is no force within Earth. Actual forces resist opposing forces, that's how we know these forces actually DO exist, in the first place.

How do you ever prove a force exists unless it offers resistance to opposing forces? Your claim is utterly ridiculous. Every actual force will offer resistance to opposing forces, your so-called 'force' resists nothing at all, even a tiny bird, or insect, flies without any resistance from a 'force' within Earth.

You just assume objects are held to Earth by a force, because objects are already ON Earth. And you assume objects above Earth are 'pulled' to Earth by a force, simply because objects fall through the air. It's the density and mass of objects within air, which has almost NO density or mass, that makes objects fall through the medium of air. If birds and insects were unable to fly above Earth, then a force within Earth makes sense. But obviously, birds and insects fly freely above Earth, without any resistance at all, from a force within Earth. It cannot be difficult for you to understand this concept, surely?

a reply to: turbonium1

You just repeat the same thing over and over... and its all been explained to you hundreds of times

The fact is you are too dense to understand simple basic concepts, even when explained multiple times

Concepts like air pressure, lift... basic physics are beyond your comprehension level as you prove with every post

And like i've said many times before... you can't fix stupid

Anyone else wanna giver a go?

originally posted by: turbonium1

It's the density and mass of objects within air, which has almost NO density or mass, that makes objects fall through the medium of air. If birds and insects were unable to fly above Earth, then a force within Earth makes sense. But obviously, birds and insects fly freely above Earth, without any resistance at all, from a force within Earth. It cannot be difficult for you to understand this concept, surely?

But why is “down toward the Earth” the only direction things fall? If the Earth has nothing to do with why things fall, then why do falling things only fall toward it?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1
The energy used to throw up the brick is the factor in how far it goes up, before it slows down, and stops. At that point, the force is gone, and the mass of the brick makes it fall through the air, and back to the surface.

Why would it take energy to throw the ball upward? What is acting upon that brick that required you to expend extra energy to throw it upward? What is acting upon it that makes it come back down? I mean, why down?

What is so special about the Earth that the brick wants to fall back to it? If there is nothing pulling the brick back to Earth, then the brick has no reason to necessarily fall back that direction.

Why would it NOT take energy to throw the ball/brick up in air? It doesn't throw itself upward in air, or float in air, because it has density and mass. Objects need energy to move along the ground, right? They don't just move along the ground by themselves, they need ENERGY to move. Why would you think objects don't need energy to move upward, then?

Why do objects in air move 'downward'? As I've told you many times - objects in air have mass and density, air has nearly no mass or density, so objects in air will move downward, nowhere else. They cannot move upward after the energy used to lift them up in air is depleted. Energy has limited effect on objects, as we all know, or certainly SHOULD know.


Earth is a controlled environment, you don't understand that. You believe Earth is a ball, flying randomly through 'space', while spinning a thousand miles an hour, going around the Sun at 67,000 mph, and everything in our 'solar system' is hurling through space at 515,000 mph or so!!

There's no proof for any of these claims, of course. It's used to support their whole bs claim about Earth being round, not flat. A round Earth requires massive lies to work, and sadly, they've sold the lies to perfection, or nearly so, anyway.

If you believe Earth is a ball, flying through space, from the start, you will assume Earth cannot be a controlled environment in any way, or structured in a form that supports all life. Which is true...

Earth was built to support life, of all types, in perpetuity. How could life go on, as it does, every day, every year, every century, if Earth was a feeble ball, flying around randomly in a lethal 'universe', it is absurd to even consider it possible, in any way. We cannot move on Earth without encountering lethal hazards, so how can Earth zip through space - all at random, to boot - without any problems? Nonsense. It's a joke, really. Nothing moves randomly ON EARTH without hazards, without something stopping/altering their movements! Even if they DO move, that is.


Now, to the point about why objects would fall down, instead of going upward, or sideways - Earth was created for life to flourish, into perpetuity, which means Earth has to be a safe, controlled environment for all life within it. Simple as that, really.

Because you cannot even consider the Earth is a controlled environment, from the start, you cannot see why objects would always fall straight down to Earth, from air, while never going upward, or going sideways, also.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

It's the density and mass of objects within air, which has almost NO density or mass, that makes objects fall through the medium of air. If birds and insects were unable to fly above Earth, then a force within Earth makes sense. But obviously, birds and insects fly freely above Earth, without any resistance at all, from a force within Earth. It cannot be difficult for you to understand this concept, surely?

But why is “down toward the Earth” the only direction things fall? If the Earth has nothing to do with why things fall, then why do falling things only fall toward it?

As I just explained, the environment of Earth is stable, safe, and consistent, for the same reason objects on Earth fall down to Earth from above, not 'float', or at random, etc...

Try to imagine what would happen if Earth was a spinning ball ripping through space, at random - within a random, unknown, hazardous environment.....

Why would anyone, any God, any creator, make Earth a ball, flying randomly through a lethal environment, if it's meant to support many life forms, forever afterwards?

After creating a round ball to support life, the creator needs a 'force' to hold everything down to his humongous ball, since he forgot that a ball is hard to live on, walk on, stay on. A flat surface works much better, but God forgot about that, when creating Earth, and he had to create a 'force' within Earth, to hold us down to it!!

a reply to: turbonium1

You explained precisely nothing.

Where is your proof of anything? I can give you equations demonstrating gravity's effect. Everything you know about the space environment is from equipment that used it.

Prove it wrong. Don't just tell me, prove it.

Assuming gravity exists, they make equations to support their assumptions.

Having a quantifiable rate that objects will fall through air, in ideal conditions, is not measuring gravitational force, in any way.

They claim it measures the gravitational force of Earth, which is utter nonsense. Anyone can claim something is true, it doesn't make it true.


We know that actual forces cannot be proven unless they offer resistance to opposing force(s).

Equations don't prove a force exists, a force is proven to exist in reality, by resisting opposing forces.

How can a magnetic force exist, unless it offers resistance against an opposing force(s)? It's impossible.

Actual forces that we know exist, are real forces, would NEVER become known to exist, would NOT be proven to exist, ever before, or today, if they didn't offer resistance to opposing forces.


Do you get that, yet?

a reply to: turbonium1

Wow. You reached a whole new level there. Magnets are fake.