Here lets have a discussion

scientific obviously

Question, if things won’t to go down due to buoyancy then why do all things in a vacuum fall at 10m/s(2) no matter thé mass or density of the object. What part of buoyancy will create the constant of 10m/s(2). Furthermore, if you are believing in a flat earth can you produce a model that can consistently show the following : change in tropics. Change in night and day which accurately reflect how we can clearly observe light to act. How does the Coriolis effect work in a flat earth. These are just a few of the many problems a flat earth model just cannot put into one single model without defying basic laws of physics.

Well gravity = 9.81m/s(2)

No one?

Tell me youre a flat earther

Ah can you answer my questions

Alright

um

well done!

Yes they do, in a vacuum

We have done many experiments within a vacuum which shows a falling of any object at 9.81m/s(2)

Look in flat earth and see if you can answer my questions

Hmmmmm

You cannot explain why it falls either

why is that?

Citizen Z, please go through your scientific method on density causing things to fall and not up

why would a denser object then air fall down towards the earth and not up

I can indeed

1) Natural : Objects denser then atmospheric air has been clearly visible to fall. Whilst object less dense then the medium it is in rises. Mass cannot move without a force applied to it.
2) Hypothesis : The medium in which an object is in must be in affect by forces caused by the surrounding medium, as mass cannot move without a force applied to it which is a natural process.
3) Experiment : Place an object within a medium less dense then the object,. Record speed and impacts. Place the object in a medium more dense then the object. Record speed and impacts. Place the object in a vacuum and record speed and impact. Repeat tests with other objects with different densities.
4) Prediction : An object with more density then the surrounding medium will fall down and vise versa. In a vacuum the objects will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s(2).
5) Conclusion : Once the object is in a vacuum, the object will fall down. Therefore a force is being applied downwards. This acceleration is 9.81m/s(2). However, when an object is in a medium more dense then itself, the object rises. This implies a force is being applied up. This force is labelled Buoyancy. It must be able to overcome this clearly visible force of 9.81m/s(2). This implies what we have clearly seen, objects rise when the buoyant force overcomes this 9.81m/s(2) which is caused by the weight of the object (which is mass multiplied by this acceleration) being pushed back by the medium at a force greater then the 9.81m/s(2). This implies that a 9.81m/s(2) must exsist. We call this constant force. Gravity

Yes i am!!

That is how F=ma works

that is how your weight is figured out

The earth is just so great in mass that it pushes back with a force so great that there is no noticeable affects

because "every force has an equal and opposite reactions"

@hgb Do you know what the Coriolis effect is

Now can you explain how it works on a flat earth

Its a clear VISIBLE natural of this

natural evidence*

Fast moving objects such as planes are influenced by the coriolis effect with the winds being heavily deteremined by it

okay thanks for proving the globe earth as it does infact occur for planes

You can see it through hurricanes

> Well i just showed density of the medium is the direct cause for things to rise or faill
@Citizen Z You did not show that at all. You instead showed that objects fall at a constant 9.8m/s(2) when there is no medium. Why does that constant exist?

Why do ALL objects fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8m/s(2) when unaffected by air resistance

How?

Thats not for me to explain. Burden of proof

How would a forces that attracts mass RADIALLY work on a flat earth

No it doesnt

it acts uniformly towards the centre of the mass

Which happens to create a sphere around this centre point

Towards the centre

I am

∞/2

just not true

it would collapse onto that single point

yes but tell me

where would its centre of mass be

it it the exact point

The problem with that is there is a centre of gravity somewhere

An infinite plane with uniform mass does not exist

There is

It does because then a centre of the object can be found

which is its centre of mass

which is where force would be applied from radially

making it crumple in on itslef

as the mass of such size would create such an immense gravity that it collapses in on itself

No. You cant wrap your head around the idea that gravity comes from the centre of mass

which is the object is unifrom

it is the centre of the object

The centre is still the centre

There is an experiement you can do to test the centre of mass. You hold a ruler over the edge of the table and find the exact point where it doesnt topple over. Now repeat this on top of the previous ruler over and over again until you have a ruler of the edge of the desk

each time you have found the centre of mass

now suggesting that the ruler is uniform of density then why doesnt the gravity topple the rulers?

First of all. The centre of mass definitely is affected by shape just look at the toys that use this effect as a gimmick

The centre

like ive been saying

what do you mean?

> Perform an experiment. Have a large plane perpendicular to the earth, place an object near it, see where the gravitational force acts on that object.
@hgb Is this plane got more mass then the earth. If so the earth will be attracted to the plane. Also this plane woult crumple in on its centre of mass to create a sphere

The centre of gravity isnt used to calculate the centre of mass ever. It shows where gravity will be in effect

ok

larger

following inverse gravitational square law

no?

i just told you

the inverse gravitational law

thats not true

no

ok

They would now be two different objects. their gravity would be reliant on the mass of each half. It would not be equal as each half of the earth is not equal

Yea

so for a split second you would feel the force decrease to 0 as you have an opposite and equal force applying pushing you into an equilibrium

no

because

that implies an infinite mass

which is doesnt have

Yea

not infinte

or close

because it doesnt have infinite mass

why cant you get your head around this

the distance will increase

but

only to the extent of gravity

the centre of gravity is only where the gravity is in effect

And

i want to correct myself

Gravity does decrease downwards

I already disproved that Citizen and how you proved a constant of 9.81m/s(2) whilst not proving as to what causes this

Citizent are you trolling and mocking me

while you censor others for doing the same?