Nowhere in my words, wording, nor explanation does 'cancel out' nor the concept of cancelling out appear.
That is because I was not explaining that massess don't affect each other here on earth. They absolutely DO affect each other, even the 1g and 200g balls, but VASTLY less than they're affected by the larger mass of the PLANET.
Can you REALLY not conceptualize that? REALLY??
Okay so back to square one: please explain why an object 81x the size of another object, shows zero signs of any type of orbital movement, when on a flat plane. Please explain why the leaf is not attracted to the mountain at all. We are back to basics after this huge runaround you have given me. If nothing ' cancels out' anything else, then why dont massive objects display force here on Earth. Semantics are a great place to hide when you simply cant answer any of the questions I have posed from the very beggining of this thread.
It's not semantics.
LOL, I have answered your questions (the ones I did, anyway).
"please explain why an object 81x the size of another object, shows zero signs of any type of orbital movement, "
Because that scenario doesn't exist in isolation. That scenario exists on planet earth which has MASSIVE mass in comparison to the objectds in your example.
If oneof my arms is tied to a turtle that is pulling on the rope, and another arm is tied to a hinda civic that is pulling on the rope, the force the turtle is exerting is not cancelled out by the force of the car pulling on the rope, but it is NEGLIGIBLE. Either my car arm will get ripped off, or me and the rope and the turtle will get dragged down the road.
Because the force the car is exerting is LARGER than the force exerted by the turtle by a large magnitude. The turtle cAn"T pull my arm any more than it can, while the car can pull a billion times more.
SO the leaf isn't going to orbit the mountain because the force of the leaf and the mountain is NEGLIGIBLE in the context of the EARTH's force they live in.
What a bad example!
You are talking about a force acting in OPPOSITE directions.
Let me give you an example that is actually relevant to what we are discussing:
There is a leaf in a swiftly moving river. The river is 'gravity'.
There is a very slight wind coming from one of the river banks, moving in the direction of the other bank, perpendicular to the flow of water, or 'gravity' . The wind is the 'gravitational field' of some other massive object. Will the wind affect the leaf? YES.
Will the gravity of the mountain affect the leaf? NO.
GRAVITATIONAL MODEL DISPROVEN.
THE END
"This is my last attempt." "THE END"
LOL. Ok.
"GRAVITATIONAL MODEL DISPROVEN."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLx10x10
Not so much 'disproven' as.....LOLOLOLOLOL
Just no.
My example was opposite directions, but the directions DON"T MATTER to the topic. The point is there are different directions of gravitational attraction and there is no cancelling out.
"Will the wind affect the leaf? YES." That's what I've been saying all along. The leaf is affected by the wind and the mountain and the planet.
But the wind doesnt cancel out the river. And the wind is unlikely to move the leaf that's in the current of the river. A leaf on a still lake, maybe/probably if the wind is strong enough. But not a leaf in a river.
Because the flow of the river is stronger than the blow of the wind. Doesn't mean the wind has no force, it jsut means the wind doesn't have enough force to move the leaf that is in the current of the river. REGARDLESS of the direction of the wind or the river.
The gravitational fields affect the leaf, and the river, and the mountain, and and. But 'affecting' the leaf doesn't necessarily mean 'moving' the leaf.
The gravity of the mountain WILL also affect the leaf, but VERY VERY INSIGNIFICANTLY so will not move the leave while it's in the river.
Google the 'Schiehallion Experiment'. They tested for and found the gravitational pull of a mountain. Did they float and orbit the mountain because it has gravitational mass? Of course not, that would be silly. Just like it would be silly for a leaf to orbit a mountatin.