You really just dont understand, do you.
This will be my last attempt.
'IF a leaf did orbit a mountain, the leaf would be being pulled DOWN towards the mass of the mountain. Which would be lateral only in relation to the downward pull of the earth.'
You can NOT, simply can NOT show one example of this 'force' called 'gravity' operating in any function like you described here.
"Sun pulls on all planets (that is straight down). Planets pull on moons (straight down) WHILE said planets and moon get pulled towards their sun (also straight down, but obviously 'down' is all directions."
You can not use the hypothetical attractive forces of the Sun and Moon in this example because they are not in the realm of observable physics, like - HERE ON EARTH! THIS IS THE CONCEPT WE ARE DEBATING, STUPID! BUT EVEN IF the Sun and Moon had attractive force, the weights on EARTH would fluctuate with the rising and setting of the Sun, esp. at New Moon - BUT THEY DO NOT! AND THEY SHOULD. So Even if we WERE to include this as a acceptable context, IT STILL DOESN'T WORK AS ADVERTISED.
But you can NOT, I am absolutely confident, show me one example ;of 'gravity' working as advertised here on EARTH!!!! Not in the orbital theory of satellites that we are debating, but HERE ON EARTH.
This is so stupid. We are debating whether or not 'gravity' allows for the ability of orbital function and your proof is to look at an object in the sky (which is exerting no amount of measurable force) and say - there is my proof - a satellite. Moronic. Face-palm to infinity and beyond.
Yes I understand that to you, 'down is all directions', probably because you just watched Star Wars for the 100th time.
But on EARTH, down is exactly perpendicular to the absolute level of water, in all cases, without exception.
According to the math a bullet/leaf/person/tennis ball/grain of sand/ anything at all SHOULD BE ATTRACTED TO ALL OTHER OBJECTS CONTAINING MASS, THE LARGER THE MASS THE GREATER THE PULL..
THERE IS NOTHING - I REPEAT NOTHING - IN THE GRAVITATIONAL MODEL THAT SAYS A FORCE IN ONE DIRECTION WILL CANCEL OUT ANOTHER FORCE DIFFERING BY ANY DEGREE.
So there is no reason - again NO REASON - for an object to not be attracted to a mountain's sheer face, no reason for an object to not get lighter in an airplane, no reason for the sun and moon rise to pull an object towards the horizon.
However- you, nor anyone else can provide a single shred of evidence for these forces that should be observable every day- do you know why? Because 'gravity' is a farce, a joke, a myth. But imbeciles like you would rather do mental gymnastics and point at the sky as your 'proof', when there is literally NOTHING in the observable physical world here on EARTH (ie PHYSICS!!!!) that can support these asinine claims.
Dang, dont you realize that the SUNS 'gravity' should constantly be pulling the MOON out of it's near perfect 'orbit' around the EARTH?!?!? 'Gravity' is ultra selective it seems - rather convenient.
All you give me is Sci Fi and 4th grade textbooks for your logic and theories. I asked you previously to THINK - but you refuse, so I will stop posting unless you actually have some sort of debate for me - and you have none. If your ideas had any merit, all of this should be easy to prove to me, there would be countless Youtube videos of average Joes witnessing the forces of gravity. I am actually someone who has sat down and crunched the numbers on how much the mass of the sun and moon would affect the weight of a 1 kg object at sunrise, along with many other calculations that absolutely disprove the gravitational model, so I am kind of done arguing with Star Trek fanboys, especially when the 'proof of brains' seems to be slowing to a trickle.
Anything else?
"THERE IS NOTHING - I REPEAT NOTHING - IN THE GRAVITATIONAL MODEL THAT SAYS A FORCE IN ONE DIRECTION WILL CANCEL OUT ANOTHER FORCE DIFFERING BY ANY DEGREE.'
You're right, there's nothing in the model that says that. In this thread, you're the only person that's brought it up. Repeatedly, even after it's been pointed out that nobody has made that argument.
" nobody in this thread said anything about 'force in one direction cancelling out anther force (different direction)', except you."
So- what is this then:
"Rolling the 1g across the table from the 81g doesn't affect the trajectory of the 1g because they're both A. in the MUCH larger gravitational pull of the planet and B. do not have enough mass or velocity to break free from the planet's gravitational pull nor to to affect the 1g or 81g ball because they'd have to have more horizontal pull than the planet has vertical pull."
A quote from YOU, trying to explain why masses don't affect each other here on EARTH. So your're taking both sides of an opinion, now?
Your FINAL point even contradicts itself. Nice job. Way to think, guy.
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.
I'm really really glad that was your last attempt.
Enjoy your crayons as you 'crunch the numbers'.