Unsourced copied text is highlighted in yellow. Citations/notes with sources from which the highlighted text is taken are in lightblue.

This document lists the uncited original sources for Garrett's gravity challenge submission.

The content below (excluding notes/citations) is the submission by one Gregory Garrett to MCToon's \$10,000 Flat earth gravity challenge. I have not edited the actual text in any way. The layout has been marked up to reasonably match that of the original document.

The original does not include any source citations whatsoever; all citations/notes (denoted by "[Note: ... ]" and highlighted in lightblue) were added by me (Throwaway AVClubber) and are not in the original text; these sources were found as a result of searching for key phrases. These citations follow the text (highlighted in yellow) for which they are the source.

It is possible that the sources I found are not the exact ones used, but have the same content. It is also possible that un-notated sections are taken from sources which I could not find.

If there are any errors, please let me know. Submit a pull request or something, I guess.

# MCToon Flat Earth Gravity Challenge Submission from Gregory L. Garrett

## The Acceleration of Falling Objects in Relationship to the Atmospheric Pressure and Molecular Density of an Enclosed Pressurized System According to The Second Law of Thermodynamics

### Speeding up While Falling Down

Heliocentrists claim that Gravity is a force that pulls objects down toward the ground. Additionally, when objects fall to the ground, they assert that Gravity causes them to accelerate. Acceleration is a change in velocity, and velocity, in turn, is a measure of the speed and direction of motion. The idea is that Gravity causes an object to fall toward the ground at a faster and faster velocity the longer the object falls. An object falls at 9.8 m/s2.

By 1 second after an object starts falling, its velocity is 9.8 m/s2.

By 2 seconds after it starts falling, its velocity is 19.6 m/s (9.8 m/s + 9.8 m/s).

[Note:

Verbatim except for such dubious additions as "Heliocentrists claim that" etc.

Source only calculates to 2 seconds; Garrett supplied 3-5 secs on his own, so I guess he can do math. ]

By 3 seconds after it starts falling, its velocity is 29.4 m/s (9.8 m/s + 9.8 m/s + 9.8 m/s).

By 4 seconds after it starts falling, its velocity is 39.2 m/s (9.8 m/s + 9.8 m/s + 9.8 m/s+ 9.8 m/s).

By 5 seconds after it starts falling, its velocity is 49.0 m/s (9.8 m/s + 9.8 m/s + 9.8 m/s+ 9.8 m/s+ 9.8 m/s).

### Terminal Velocity

Falling objects eventually reach a maximum speed, which is called "Terminal Velocity", when falling, even though, theoretically, in a vacuum an object would continually accelerate in its free fall. Yet, due to atmospheric pressure, falling objects reach a "constant velocity" due to the restraining force of air. We call this restraining force "drag". This force caused by air resistance increases the faster the falling object fall until Terminal Velocity is reached.

### The Gravitational Explanation for Terminal Velocity

According to modern physics, the two forces acting upon a falling object are the gravitational force and the drag force. When an object reaches terminal velocity, it means that the gravity and drag forces are equal and in opposite directions.

### The Drag Force is as Follows:

Fd=CApV2/2

• C - Drag coefficient dependent on geometry and surface finish
• A - Reference Area of falling object (front facing area like the cone tip of a missile)
• p  - density of air (lower at higher altitudes)
• V - velocity (of the object through air)
[Note:

Taken verbatim, except he didn’t format the equation. ]

### The Atmospheric Pressure of a Medium and The Acceleration of Falling Objects

The molecular density of the air through which an object is falling, has an influence on the amount of air friction that is present. We can think of this molecular density, in part, as a function of Atmospheric Pressure. The higher the altitude, the less the atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric pressure literally decreases with increasing altitude. The pressure at any level in the atmosphere may be interpreted as the total weight of the air above a unit area at any elevation. At higher elevations, there are fewer air molecules above a given surface than a similar surface at lower levels. For example, there are fewer molecules above the 50 km surface than are found above the 12 km surface, which is why the pressure is less at 50 km.

[Note:

Taken verbatim. ]

From the formula, Fd=CApV2/2, we can see that with a higher density, the drag force will also be higher. However, determining the relationship between falling objects, atmospheric pressure, and molecular density is a bit more complicated.

### The Ideal Gas Law and its Relationship to Atmospheric Pressure and Atmospheric Density

The Ideal Gas Law, also called The General Gas Equation, is the Equation of State of a hypothetical ideal gas. [Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law Verbatim.] In physics and thermodynamics, an Equation of State is a thermodynamic equation relating state variables which describe the state of matter under a given set of physical conditions, such as pressure, volume, temperature (PVT), or internal energy. Equations of State are useful in describing the properties of fluids, mixtures of fluids, and solids. [Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state Verbatim.]

The Ideal Gas Law is a good approximation of the behavior of many gases under many conditions, although it has several limitations. It was first stated by Benoît Paul Émile Clapeyron in 1834 as a combination of the empirical Boyle's law, Charles's law, Avogadro's law, and Gay-Lussac's law. The Ideal Gas Law is often written in an empirical form: PV=nRT

…where P, V and T are the pressure, volume and temperature; n is the amount of substance; and R is the ideal gas constant. It is the same for all gases. It can also be derived from the microscopic kinetic theory, as was achieved by August Krönig in 1856 and Rudolf Clausius in 1857.

[Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law Nearly verbatim.

Air does not behave exactly like an Ideal Gas but the relationship is similar. Here we can see that if we can control the pressure exclusively, the density will be affected in the same way. Realistically, when the pressure is increased, the temperature will also increase but not quite enough to keep the density constant. Therefore it’s fair to say that with air, an increased pressure will result in an increased air density, which will then increase the drag force.

Perhaps the question is a bit ambiguous because it asks what the effect of air pressure is on a falling object’s velocity. We know that with a change in Pressure, there will also be a change in Temperature. If we want to know what the effect of exclusively changing the pressure is, we can look at an experiment inside a vacuum chamber:

1. If we have a feather inside a vacuum chamber at room temperature and atmospheric pressure, we then let the feather go and take the time it takes for the feather to drop.
2. We then reset the feather and activate the vacuum pump and allow the pressure to drop to half atmospheric pressure. We keep it at this pressure for a couple of minutes to allow the temperature inside the chamber to normalize back to room temperature. (now we have effectively changed only the air pressure)
3. If we now release the feather and clock the time it takes to drop, we find that the feather drops much faster.
4. The feather’s mass and geometry has remained the same but the effect of the lower air pressure has decreased the drag force.
5. By having a lower pressure at the same temperature, the density of the air has decreased and has therefore also decreased the drag force.
6. An increase of the pressure alone will also increase the drag force.

And so, we can see that it is not merely the atmospheric pressure that dictates the rate at which objects fall, but also we must factor in the molecular density and temperature of the pressurized medium in which they fall.

### We Live in an Enclosed Pressurized System According to The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics establishes the concept of entropy as a physical property of a thermodynamic system. Entropy predicts the direction of spontaneous processes, and determines whether they are irreversible or impossible despite obeying the requirement of conservation of energy as expressed in the first law of thermodynamics. The second law may be formulated by the observation that the entropy of isolated systems left to spontaneous evolution cannot decrease, as they always arrive at a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, where the entropy is highest.

[Note:

Verbatim, as noted by FE Peer Review. ]

In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings. An isolated system cannot exchange any heat, work, or matter with the surroundings, while an open system can exchange energy and matter. [Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system#In_thermodynamics Verbatim.] If the earth was an open Thermodynamic system, the atmosphere would leach out into space in seconds, due to the immense theoretical vacuum of fictional Outer Space, and kill all life on Earth.

Thus, we know that we live in an enclosed pressurized system according to The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

### Examples of Open, Closed, and a Fully Enclosed Systems

Open System: An open system is a system that freely exchanges energy and matter with its surroundings. For instance, when you are boiling soup in an open saucepan on a stove, energy and matter are being transferred to the surroundings through steam.

Closed System: Putting a lid on the saucepan makes the saucepan a closed system. A closed system is a system that exchanges only energy with its surroundings, not matter. By putting a lid on the saucepan, matter can no longer transfer because the lid prevents matter from entering the saucepan and leaving the saucepan.

[Note:

Verbatim. ]

Fully Enclosed System: The Earth with its containment apparatus known as The Firmament. The necessary antecedent to gas pressure is containment. The Earth has atmospheric pressure, and so, our pressurized air must be contained by The Firmament, much like a sauce pan lid.

## Free Fall and the Misleading Terminology of "Acceleration of Gravity": Elephants and Mice

The acceleration of a falling object on Earth is 9.8 m/s/s. This value, known as "the acceleration of Gravity", is the same for all falling objects regardless of how long they have been falling, or whether they were initially dropped from rest or thrown up into the air. [Note: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/The-Big-Misconception Nearly verbatim.] Nevertheless this variable, 9.8 m/s/s, does not literally or actually describe gravitational acceleration, but rather, it merely describes the rate at which objects fall. Extrapolating that this descriptive variable is connected to Gravity was the masterstroke of deception by Alchemical Wizard and High Freemason, Sir Issac Newton, in order to bolster up a Heliocentric Model of The Cosmos, complete with a Big Bang, billions of years of Evolution, and the possibility of alien life.

And so, remember, as we move forward, that although Newton’s mathematical descriptions do apply to falling bodes because the math "works", this does not imply that the causal force behind Newton’s mathematics is necessarily Gravity.

In fact, more empirically speaking, objects fall or rise due to the relationship between:

1. Object Density
2. The Index of Buoyancy of an Object
3. Dielectric Forces
4. Electromagnetic Forces
5. Aerodynamic Resistance
6. Thermodynamic Exchange
7. The Result of an Object in a Particular Atmospheric Medium
8. At no point is an imaginary attractive force emanating from the center of the Earth either necessary or beneficial for predicting or calculating Newtonian motion.

At no point is Gravity necessary nor advantageously mechanically descriptive in order to calculate and describe physical bodies in motion. Newton’s math describes physical behavior, not causal forces. All of Newton’s Laws of Motion, including the math behind them, work perfectly fine without complicating matters with the idea of a fictional force pulling objects towards the center of the Earth.

### Mass Versus Density

The term, "mass" is used to mean the amount of matter contained in an object. Density alludes to the closeness of the atoms, in substance, (i.e. how tightly atoms are packed). Mass is the measure of the amount of inertia, which is the tendency of an object to continue in the state of rest or of uniform motion. Conversely, density is the degree of compactness.

[Note:

Verbatim, minus `<li>` tags. ]

### Newton’s Second Law of Motion

That situation is described by Newton's Second Law of Motion. According to NASA, this law states, "Force is equal to the change in momentum per change in time. For a constant mass, force equals mass times acceleration."

This is written in mathematical form as F = ma.

F is force, m is mass and a is acceleration.

[Note:

Verbatim. ]

### What is force, mass, and acceleration?

• A Force is a push or pull upon an object resulting from the object's interaction with another object. Whenever there is an interaction between two objects, there is a force upon each of the objects. When the interaction ceases, the two objects no longer experience the force. Forces only exist as a result of an interaction.
• Mass is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration (rate of change of velocity with respect to time) when a net force is applied. In physics, an object's mass is said to determine the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies. [Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass Nearly verbatim but for "In physics", "is said".] Obviously, this aspect of mass is a fictional description.
• In mechanics, Acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity of an object with respect to time. Accelerations are vector quantities (in that they have magnitude and direction). The orientation of an object's acceleration is given by the orientation of the net force acting on that object. [Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration Verbatim.]

### The magnitude of an object's acceleration, as described by Newton’s Second Law, is the combined effect of two causes:

a. The net balance of all external forces acting onto that object — magnitude is directly proportional to this net resulting force.

b. That object's mass, depending on the materials out of which it is made — magnitude is inversely proportional to the object's mass.

[Note:

Verbatim. Continues uninterrupted from above. ]

Newton’s First Law of Motion predicts the behavior of objects for which all existing forces are balanced. The First Law, sometimes referred to as The Law of Inertia, states that if the forces acting upon an object are balanced, then the acceleration of that object will be 0 m/s/s. Objects at equilibrium (the condition in which all forces balance) will not accelerate. According to Newton, an object will only accelerate if there is a net or unbalanced force acting upon it. The presence of an unbalanced force will accelerate an object, changing its speed, its direction, or both its speed and direction.

[Note:

Verbatim.

Possibly from another source which shares with this one. ]

### Free-Fall: The Elephant and The Mouse

Given all this, a

"Doesn't a more massive object accelerate at a greater rate than a less massive object?"

Would not an elephant fall faster than a mouse due to its far larger mass?

This question is a reasonable inquiry that is probably based in part upon personal observations made of falling objects in the physical world. After all, nearly everyone has observed the difference in the rate of fall of a single piece of paper versus a whole textbook. The two objects clearly travel to the ground at different rates, with the more massive book falling faster.

But why?

The answer to our particular question, "Doesn't a more massive object, like an elephant, accelerate at a greater rate than a less massive object, like a mouse?", is absolutely not. That is, absolutely not if we are considering the specific type of falling motion known as Free-Fall. Free-Fall is the motion of objects that move under the sole influence of alleged Gravity, irrespective air resistance, as in a vacuum.

[Note:

Nearly verbatim. "alleged" not in the original.

The sentence following ("More massive objects...") is exactly contrary to that given in the source. ]

More massive objects will fall even slower if there is an appreciable amount of air resistance present. But in a vacuum, a single piece of paper will fall at the same rate as a whole textbook, and an elephant will fall as fast as a mouse, due to the lack of atmospheric resistance for both objects.

Hence, if Newton's Second Law were applied to the falling motion of an elephant and a mouse, and if a free-body diagram were constructed, then it would be seen that the 1000-kg baby elephant would experiences a greater force of Gravity than a mouse due to its larger mass. This greater force of Gravity would have a direct effect upon the elephant's acceleration. Thus, based on force alone, it might be thought that the 1000-kg baby elephant would accelerate faster. But acceleration depends upon two factors: force and mass. The 1000-kg baby elephant obviously has more mass (or inertia). This increased mass has an inverse effect upon the elephant's acceleration. And thus, the direct effect of greater force on the 1000-kg elephant is offset by the inverse effect of the greater mass of the 1000-kg elephant; and so each object accelerates at the same rate - approximately 9.8 m/s/s. The ratio of force to mass (Fnet/m) is the same for the elephant and the mouse under situations involving Free Fall.

[Note:

Nearly verbatim. ]

### Newton’s "Gravitational Acceleration of Gravity" is Misleading Terminology

The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to force and inversely proportional to mass. Increasing force tends to increase acceleration while increasing mass tends to decrease acceleration. Thus, the greater force on more massive objects is offset by the inverse influence of greater mass. Subsequently, all objects free fall at the same rate of acceleration, regardless of their mass.

[Note:

Again. Verbatim. ]

In other words, the acceleration of the object equals the gravitational acceleration of alleged Gravity, in terms of Newtonian Mechanics. The mass, size, and shape of the object are not a factor in describing the motion of the object. So all objects, regardless of size or shape or weight, free fall with the same acceleration. [Note: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/ffall.html Verbatim but for "of alleged Gravity, in terms of Newtonian Mechanics".] And yet, again, Newton’s "gravitational acceleration" variable still only describes motion, but not the cause of it. Newton’s "gravitational acceleration" variable is an example of misleading terminology, and one should be wary of its misapplication in the calculation of falling bodies.

In summary, using Newton’s equations are beneficial for describing physical motion, as well as quite accurate, but implying that a magical, unproven force called Gravity is behind these equations is an unnecessary and unscientific leap of religious faith into fictional pseudo-science.

## The Role of Relative Density and the Atmospheric Medium on Falling Bodies: Clouds, Oceans, and Apples

Why do clouds, with millions of tons of water vapor mass, hang effortlessly in the air, while tiny little, comparatively massless, apples plummet to the ground? And meanwhile, the oceans, with billions and billions of tons of water mass, stick to the surface of an imaginary ball spinning at 1000 mph. How does mass play a role in these apparent enigmas where massive bodies appear to either float or sink without rhyme or reason, while smaller massed objects virtually free fall? If mass was the reason behind falling or rising bodies, certainly the larger the mass of a body, the more assured it would be to fall, right? But, this is not the case. And, it seems rather counterintuitive when you consider how heavy things fall from your hand to the ground so easily, but then clouds, weighing millions of tons, remain suspended in air.

To solve this apparent riddle, we must figure out what force is holding heavy massed objects like clouds in the air to "defy Gravity", while comparatively massless apples fall to the ground, knowing that we cannot explain this apparent contradiction using mass.

Recall that this situation is described by Newton's Second Law of Motion. According to NASA, this law states, "Force is equal to the change in momentum per change in time. For a constant mass, force equals mass times acceleration." [Note: https://www.livescience.com/46560-newton-second-law.html Verbatim. Second time he’s pasted this exact passage.] And so, we must always insert the variables, Force, Mass, and Acceleration into the equation, F=ma, in order to solve for such paradoxical behavior. At face value, clouds have a great mass, and so they should virtually free fall to the ground.

### Mystery Solved: The Hidden Variables of Density and the Atmospheric Medium

However, though increasing force tends to increase the rate of acceleration, increasing mass tends to decrease acceleration. Thus, the greater force on more massive objects is offset by the inverse influence of greater mass. Subsequently, all objects free fall at the same rate of acceleration, regardless of their mass. [Note: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/The-Big-Misconception Nearly verbatim. Second time he’s pasted this exact passage.] In this case, the force acting upon the clouds is the atmospheric pressure. The atmospheric pressure of The Earth is acting upon the greater mass of the water vapor, resulting in clouds that float instead of fall. You could look at atmospheric pressure as a force of resistance acting upon the clouds.

### Bobbing for Apples: Density and Buoyancy

Apples, on the other hand, are very small and so their relatively small mass is not influenced nearly as dramatically by the atmospheric medium it is falling within. Change the atmospheric medium to water, and the apple will float. It’s that simple. Gravity never comes into play. Far more can be explained by object density, and the relationship between any given object and the atmospheric medium it is acting within, than object mass and Gravity. Naturally, I am referring to the relationship between density and buoyancy, and how the atmospheric medium tends to dictate motion, whether up or down.

### The Mass Versus Density of Clouds and Apples

Recall that the term, "mass" is used to mean the amount of matter contained in an object. Density alludes to the closeness of the atoms, in substance, (i.e. how tightly atoms are packed). Mass is the measure of the amount of inertia, which is the tendency of an object to continue in the state of rest or of uniform motion. Conversely, density is the degree of compactness. [Note: https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-mass-and-density.html#keyd Verbatim. Second time he’s pasted this exact yadda yadda yadda.]

And so, in the situation where clouds are far more massive than apples, with more weight in kilograms, they do not possess much atomic density due to the nature of water vapor. And this is why clouds are said to "defy Gravity" and stay aloft. It is their relatively sparse atomic density, compared to the meaty flesh of an apple. It is the atmospheric pressure above The Earth that holds millions of pounds of massive clouds in midair. Afterall, more massive objects will fall even slower if there is an appreciable amount of air resistance present acting as a Newtonian "Force" upon an object.

### The Relative Density of the Oceans Do Not Require Gravity to Lay Flat

Relative density is the ratio of the density (mass of a unit volume) of a substance to the density of a given reference material. Specific gravity usually means relative density with respect to water. The term "relative density" is often preferred in scientific usage. It is defined as a ratio of density of particular substance with that of water.

If a substance's relative density is less than one, then it is less dense than the reference; if greater than 1 then it is denser than the reference. If the relative density is exactly 1 then the densities are equal; that is, equal volumes of the two substances have the same mass. If the reference material is water, then a substance with a relative density (or specific gravity) less than 1 will float in water. For example, an ice cube, with a relative density of about 0.91, will float. A substance with a relative density greater than 1 will sink.

[Note:

Nearly verbatim. Possibly from a different source; he is apparently not the only one to plagiarize. ]

But, Gravity has nothing to do with this situation. It is literally the relative density of objects, and their relative index of buoyancy in a particular medium that dictates all this vertical motion. The oceans stick to the ground because of their relative density, and not because of any imaginary force pulling them towards the center of an imaginary ball Earth.