21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations

« on: May 04, 2019, 12:34:15 PM »

For those FEers who care to see these equations in action, and do not want to bother learning anything, I found someone who programmed this all using BASIC, and hard coded the numbers needed to see it.

Now you can just run the code.

https://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/tutorial.html

Tom - I’ve made it as easy as possible for you, so no more absurd deflections or denials from you today.

We call this the end of the rope, mate.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sincere Question About Ice Wall...

« on: May 04, 2019, 12:23:35 PM »

Well, this whole ice wall thing strikes me as preposterous, and I’m not really convinced that FEers really believe it. I recognize that it’s on their wiki, but when proved about it, they usually don’t provide much of an effort to support it.

Humans are explorers. We send shit to the bottom of the ocean if we can’t make it there ourselves. We put folks in orbit. We visit the moon. If some giant ice wall stopped us from exploring undiscovered continents beyond we’d know this. It would be in all the textbooks we learn in school.

We’d have nations competing to get across the wall first - just like with every venture of that kind.

FEers aren’t stupid; I believe they recognize this argument is indefensible, but tolerate it as a necessary weak-point until they can replace it with something better.

We have science labs on Antarctica where cosmic rays are studied. I have colleagues way back from grad school that did post docs there. I Skyped with them. They were over there. There was a rope they had connected between buildings, and when you walked across, you better hold on to that fucking rope during a storm, cause if you let it go, you probably wouldn’t find t again, and you couldn’t see shit.

This is not some fantasy or conspiracy, people are over there right now. There is no wall...

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: May 04, 2019, 12:13:11 PM »

I prove gravity real in this topic:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14694.0

While I agree that your link establishes multiple points that FEers have so far not addressed, it is too ambitious to state that this “proves” the earth is round.

This is because your conclusion relies on an argument from ignorance fallacy: “it just doesn’t add up.”

One must demonstrate the impossibility rather than saying “I can’t think how it’s possible therefore it isn’t.”

I believe if you fleshed it out a bit more you’d have a very solid piece of argumentation there, as it already contains several strong points.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation

« on: May 04, 2019, 12:07:57 PM »

Your argument was that with UA that the weight of the atmosphere would constantly increase. This is wrong. There is no difference between a container filled with air accelerating upwards and a container being pulled down by gravity. See the Equivalence Principle. Your rebuttal of "but the earth is rotating!!" is quite odd, and incorrect. The rotation of the earth in RE does not prevent the weight of the atmosphere from constantly increasing.

Please justify your assertion.

This is moving backwards. We left the conversation having attended to this point already. Please review the conversation previously, and return here with an updated question.

The conversation was a week ago, so I suppose it’s possible you have just forgotten. Honestly, given your previous myriad diversionary discussion tactics, it is difficult for me to trust this is due to a poor memory rather than self-imposed selective amnesia intended to frustrate progress in the debate.

You seem to have no difficulty remembering old points that you believe support your position.

I’ll be here when you get back. I’m not going anyway.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Davis Model

« on: May 04, 2019, 11:55:32 AM »

/integral{2*pi*r*dr}=pi*r^2

Just a heads-up, we do provide an instance of mathtex, so you don't have to suffer with bad pseudo-latex

[tex]\int2\pi r\,dr=\pi r^2[/tex]

becomes

Bad-ass! Thanks Pete!

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations

« on: May 04, 2019, 02:53:01 AM »

A random source? Perhaps random for you, but not for us. The derivations and discussions contained therein are canonical. You can find them in just about every physics course and every textbook. The fact that they strike you as random underlines your naivety in this area, I suppose. The equations make a working heliocentric model in every appearance they make. That is their function.

Please quote for us where it has been used to make a working system.

Every graphing calculator that has ever plotted them. Try it. Don’t have one? They have em online - free to use.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation

« on: May 04, 2019, 02:50:06 AM »

Of course it does.  It's quite obvious that they're talking about the constant of gravitation (capital 'G').

There also has been a continuing interest in the determination of the constant of gravitation, although it must be pointed out that G occupies a rather anomalous position among the other constants of physics. In the first place, the mass M of any celestial object cannot be determined independently of the gravitational attraction that it exerts. Thus, the combination GM, not the separate value of M, is the only meaningful property of a star, planet, or galaxy. Second, according to general relativity and the principle of equivalence, G does not depend on material properties but is in a sense a geometric factor.

The article does not state that it is talking about a "big G" versus a "little g". The experiments are testing the acceleration of bodies in free fall or the attraction from external gravity.

We have discussed the equivalence principle before in the context of reconciling the lack of downward wind from a UA. You had incorrectly applied this principle to that situation as well, and I did you the courtesy of explaining your mistake, which you acknowledged by bowing out of the conversation

As I recall front that conversation you were backed into a corner, essentially claiming that if the earth was not rotating that the weight of the air would constantly increase on the surface of the earth. I don't see the need to engage with that.

If you believe that there would be a difference in a container of air accelerating upwards and "gravity", then I would suggest that you read up on the equivalence principle. It's the same. Your response was "but the earth is rotating!" The rotation of the earth does not keep the air pressure or weight on the surface of the earth from constantly increasing. Refrain from rediculous discussions.

I had assumed that you saw your error, but I guess not. Do please tell us all about how, if the earth were not rotating, that air pressure or weight would constantly increase on the surface of the earth.

A nice try. After your marble analogy failed, you floundered, and almost hysterically asked me how the two scenarios could possibly be different. I explained how a rotating earth is different than the inside of a rocket ship!

Which was quite easy to do, Tom.

I then proceeded to explain how that difference not only supported the equivalence principle, but also resulted in weather on our planet (you got that for free).

Then I finished by underlining step-by-step how, in fact, it was your scenario that violated the equivalence principle.

You then disappeared.

Welcome back though! I look forward to picking up where we left off! Have you found some new possible workarounds?

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations

« on: May 04, 2019, 02:42:12 AM »

You have yet to show that the moon can make even a single orbit around the earth without crashing into the sun, being pulled to orbit around the Sun, or being thrown out into space, per what often happens with the three body interactions from the sources we have read. Please provide reference to a source which suggests or shows that the heliocentric Sun-Earth-Moon system works at all.

That is another lie. I have provided the equations which show the moon makes tons of orbits. You just flatly (see what I did there - that was for you Tom) deny that the equations exist. But everyone can see them there.

Further comments denying what is clearly written ABOVE them seems to be low content posting to me. If you are not willing to discuss the equations like a gentleman, and just continue repeating this blanket denial, then I’m going to have to report you. Others may want to engage in a fruitful conversation about it, and you are derailing this thread now. Please don’t do that.

Equations from a random source you found is not a guarantee that they will result in a working system. Please quote where those equations have made a working heliocentric system.

A random source? Perhaps random for you, but not for us. The derivations and discussions contained therein are canonical. You can find them in just about every physics course and every textbook. The fact that they strike you as random underlines your naivety in this area, I suppose. The equations make a working heliocentric model in every appearance they make. That is their function.

So I don’t understand what it is you want. Do you want me to PLOT them for you? You want someone else to take them and show you the orbits they describe FOR YOU?

No. As I said before, you can do your own homework. Besides, even if I showed you the plots, you would just deny it anyway. I’m learning how you operate, you see, and that is your pattern.

No indeed! Plot them yourself. And see FOR YOURSELF, in true zetetic fashion, that they work.

I predict that you will not do so, because I believe that you know deep down that you have been caught. Hence, the only way to retain your fragile hold on your FE claim is to avoid discovering direct evidence at any cost. Hence, you will never, ever come within a mile of actually attempting to plot those equations. The victory you would earn by demonstrating them false is infinitely shadowed by your fear of proving them correct by mistake.

A shame really. If you actually applied yourself, then you might just learn something of value.

Plus, you never know, I could be mistaken.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Davis Model

« on: May 04, 2019, 02:28:29 AM »

Today I found this absolute masterpiece of misuse on the wiki, trying to "prove" that an infinite plane could have finite gravity:

https://wiki.tfes.org/images/e/ec/Infinite_Plane.gif

Let's start with statement (1). It appears to be invoking Gauss's law, but there are a lot of problems with it:

• S is a surface, you can't do a single integral over it
• Surface integrals are over dS, not dA
• You don't want flux, you want a triple vector integral

Just these problems are enough to reject this proof.

I’m afraid you are mistaken, it is possible to have finite gravity from infinite plane. The FES has depicted an accurate calculation.

Yes, I am surprised as well.

Your issues:

1. Surface integrals are often done this way in physics.

/integral{2*pi*r*dr}=pi*r^2.

I just computed the area of a circle with a single integral.

2. dS or dA are used interchangeably to denote a surface integral, depending on the textbook.

3. No. A triple vector integral makes no sense here. You want to compute a the flux of gravitational field lines through the closed surface, exactly how you would for an electric field.

The computation is correct and this is not a surprise. You can also have a finite electric field from an infinite plane of charge.

Many, many things on the wiki are incorrect physics or baseless unphysical claims, but this is not one of them.

• Sure, but most of those are shorthands just to skip single integrals. The use of dA indicates that this isn't so.
• Yes, I am aware of that.
• I'm not really following. The goal is the gravitational force on an arbitrary point, no?

You'll notice that I never rejected the claim, only the proof.

Ahh, quite true. Still though, the calculation seems fine to me. Gauss law for planar geometry with electric fields uses this same approach. The integral returns 2A, where A is the area or the Gaussian surface. You need the factor of 2 to close the surface.

The result indicates that the gravity is independent of 3D location. It is constant everywhere for an infinite plane. Which is exactly what you find for the electric field from an infinite plane of charge.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Davis Model

« on: May 04, 2019, 01:03:38 AM »

Today I found this absolute masterpiece of misuse on the wiki, trying to "prove" that an infinite plane could have finite gravity:



Let's start with statement (1). It appears to be invoking Gauss's law, but there are a lot of problems with it:

• S is a surface, you can't do a single integral over it
• Surface integrals are over dS, not dA
• You don't want flux, you want a triple vector integral

Just these problems are enough to reject this proof.

I’m afraid you are mistaken, it is possible to have finite gravity from infinite plane. The FES has depicted an accurate calculation.

Yes, I am surprised as well.

Your issues:

1. Surface integrals are often done this way in physics.

/integral{2*pi*r*dr}=pi*r^2.

I just computed the area of a circle with a single integral.

2. dS or dA are used interchangeably to denote a surface integral, depending on the textbook.

3. No. A triple vector integral makes no sense here. You want to compute a the flux of gravitational field lines through the closed surface, exactly how you would for an electric field.

The computation is correct and this is not a surprise. You can also have a finite electric field from an infinite plane of charge.

Many, many things on the wiki are incorrect physics or baseless unphysical claims, but this is not one of them.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation

« on: May 04, 2019, 12:55:56 AM »

If you couldn't find any experiments showing variations, it's because you didn't look very hard.  This is an experiment so simple that literally anyone with an accurate enough scale can perform themselves.  The Kern Gnome Experiment is one such experiment that has been presented and discussed several times.

Here is another experiment using a jewelry scale and a tungsten reference mass:
https://www.metabunk.org/codys-lab-how-weight-changes-with-location-and-velocity.t8783/

I believe that we have discussed this in the past. Those aren't professional experiments from mainstream science. In the gnome experiment a scale calibrated for one area and then sent around to members of the public. A similar occurrence is happening in the other link.



https://www.arlynscales.com/scale-knowledge/factors-can-affect-scales-accuracy/

    Factors That Can Affect Your Scale’s Accuracy

    ...

    Differences in air pressure – Scales can provide inaccurate measurements if the air pressure from the calibration environment is different than the operating environment.

In the scale experiments the scales are calibrated for one environment and taken to another. That the equator has a difference in pressure than the poles is well known.

Tom, that Britannica article is talking about capital 'G' (universal gravitational constant), not little 'g' (acceleration due to gravity).  The two are very different and should not be confused. 
https://www.nextgurukul.in/nganswers/ask-question/answer/What-is-difference-between-g-and-G/Gravitation/14878.htm

I disagree. The article makes no designation. The Universality of Free Fall and the Equivalence Principle says that gravity operates exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards at constant acceleration. If there was a difference in the speed of gravity as an object fell, it would be a violation of the Weak Equivalence Principle. The WEP is constantly tested, and violations at any range or sensitivity have been searched for over the last several hundred years.

There is no such thing as the speed of gravity, that sentence is unphysical.

We have discussed the equivalence principle before in the context of reconciling the lack of downward wind from a UA. You had incorrectly applied this principle to that situation as well, and I did you the courtesy of explaining your mistake, which you acknowledged by bowing out of the conversation.

I’m afraid in this context you are also incorrectly applying the principle, and in the exact same fashion.

It would be my pleasure to help you understand it better, so that future discussions are more fruitful for you.

To clarify, deviations in local gravity is not a violation of the equivalence principle. Your mistake is that you are implicitly transforming from one non-inertial reference frame to another non-inertial reference frame, without using the Lorentz transformation equations, so it makes sense that you would find a result that does not seem correct.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation

« on: May 04, 2019, 12:45:35 AM »

I dont have to reference any experiment.

Then it appears that you have no argument.

Please reference an experiment for your idea that gravity varies by altitude. A lot of that is based on theory.

A tremendous plethora of data exists such that the variations across the the entire earths surface have been mapped several times.

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/features/F_Measuring_Gravity_With_Grace.html

Gravimeters are seismeters and operate under the theory of "gravity waves" and "infragravity waves". It's not a direct measurement of gravity: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Also, that's not an experiment for gravity by altitude.

Measuring gravity waves is a direct measurement of gravity. The theory of gravity includes gravity waves, so your objection is nonsensical.

Well of course it measures gravity by altitude. Did you read it? It also measures gravity fluctuations by local density variants. It is a very sophisticated measurement, and done very well I might add!

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation

« on: May 03, 2019, 05:48:34 PM »

Please reference an experiment for your idea that gravity varies by altitude. A lot of that is based on theory.

A tremendous plethora of data exists such that the variations across the the entire earths surface have been mapped several times.

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/features/F_Measuring_Gravity_With_Grace.html

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: May 03, 2019, 04:57:46 AM »

Of course I could answer your questions, with pleasure.
Problem is, I am not here to waste my precious time (and I am old, no much time to waste) teaching physics, mostly just to show my knowledge, this is not a competition, sorry, the time of my life to show a bigger stick is gone long ago.  My intention here is to clarify issues about flat earth.  It is clear that this discussion will go on and on, and it is not the scope of this forum, so research yourself about space deformity by mass and sliding vectors. 
Gravity is not a force - Albert Einstein said that, who am I to go against it?
I wonder if someone could demonstrate force without energy being applied.

For the ones wanting to learn about sliding vectors, I present you Einstein's Field Equation formula:

Sorry moderators, I stop here.
Cheers.

Einstein also said “god does not play dice,” in objection to the destruction of determinism by quantum mechanics. He was wrong. In fact, it is quite clear the GR is either incomplete or incorrect. You will not find a professional physicist alive who fails to recognize this if prompted.

Readers: if interested, google a quantum theory of gravity, TOE, or grand unification.

I appreciate you at least posting “Einstein’s field equation formula,” but it is not singular, and in fact represents 16 coupled differential equations.

It is interesting that you have decided to stop “wasting your time” at the precise moment when I ask you basic questions regarding the knowledge you claim to have - but so far described it inaccurately. Especially when the answers you could have provided would have been to the educational benefit of readers.

Lastly, the field equations are not a good reference for those wishing to study sliding vectors. Clearly, you do not understand the role these objects play in GR.

Why don’t you leave the physics to me. I am happy to “waste my time” educating others. And it appears I may be better suited to provide it accurately.

Readers: if you are interested in learning about sliding vectors, then I recommend googling affine vector spaces, and then covariant and contravariant derivatives. Sliding vectors do not directly appear in Einstein’s field equations.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: May 03, 2019, 02:30:58 AM »

Thank you for the detailed summary. I look forward to learning more from your expertise. If I may, might I ask some follow up questions? I think what you wrote is all a bit over my head, and I’m hoping you can clarify some items for me

1. Can you please provide a mathematical definition for sliding vector? Just an equation, no words.

2. It seems to me that general relativity and Lagrangian dynamics are not mutually exclusive. I can take Einstein’s field equations, and under the weak field limit, derive lagrangian dynamics for an object in a gravitational field. So even though GR is more widely applicable than classical dynamics, it appears that Einstein’s very own equations support a force interpretation for gravity in the weak field limit. Hence, I am not contradicting Einstein. Here is my question:

Beginning with Einstein’s field equations, can you please demonstrate that lagrangian dynamics are in fact incompatible in this limit? This would be a proof by contradiction, and would provide evidence for your claim.

3. Carl Sagan believed the earth was round. Do you?

4. Beginning with Einstein’s field equations, it can be shown that parallel lines can either stay parallel, converge, or diverge depending on a particular term in the equations. Do you know what this term is and what it’s geometrical interpretation is?

5. Einstein’s field equations are absent of mass/energy only in a particular limiting case. In this limiting case a specific object in the equations is negligible. Do you know what this object is?

I look forward to your replies

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity: Supplemental

« on: May 02, 2019, 08:29:02 PM »

Are you claiming that every physicist on the planet is faking their cavendish experiments? Because even though a single video could be fake, stating that all demos are fake is quite a large claim.

Absolutely not.  There are countless true experiments being done and documented by video all over the planet.  No questions about that.
The problem is that some experiments, can suffer influence of the environment, or even on purpose by the ones that likes to force the results, even when the results could be natural.   Like I said, you can insert other objects in the video to eliminate some doubts.  As an example, in this video he used a simple analog clock to allow the viewers to have the sense of accelerated time during the movement of the masses.   So, based on the data information from the objects used in the video, mass of the balls and the objects suspended, distances, time, etc, one could even calculate the "gravity acceleration" between them.   I don't even eliminate the possibility of the static electricity being dispersed in the air, and attaching to the masses could cause this effect, considering everything is isolated from the ground (plastic cups) or string.  Everything is possible, the only way to really make sure, would be to repeat the experience in vacuum and suspended few foot from the floor, that would be more scientific.

Well I’m glad you see the foolishness of that hypothetical claim.

So then, you acknowledge the reality that physicists all over the world perform this experiment and the results are reproducible, confirm physics theory, and well understood.

Your only real complaint is that there could be factors that impact these results that the physicists are unaware of.

I highly doubt that this is the case. As I said, they are the best trained people in the world to identify “environmental factors.”

Do you think every physicist on earth who does this experiment is unaware of some factor, and that hidden factor exists in every experiment in the exactly the same way to somehow skew every result to imitate precisely what theory would predict?

I find this claim perhaps even more substantial than the conspiracy claim.

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: May 02, 2019, 06:26:06 PM »

Gravity is a force and arises from a potential. It can be generated, and this has been measured. It can be wasted - this has been measured too. Gravity certainly can be used - this is how we obtain energy in hydroelectric power plants.

Of course "gravity" can be generated, you can convert energy into mass, that mass will promote space deformation, thus, sliding vectors toward the center of such deformation, where space is less dense.   But that is it.

But sorry, you can not measure gravity, there is no over the counter equipment to do it, what you may be thinking is that we can measure the sliding vector of a mass towards another, using a common bathroom scale, that layman terms known as "weight".  That is not a gravity measurement device, sorry.  See, photons have no mass, but they have momentum, that can allow them to slide through the space deformation and change path.  You can use a zillion photons over the bathroom scale and obtain no measurement whatsoever caused by "gravity".   If I say to you that my "weight" is 80kg on the bathroom scale, how you calculate the "gravity force", or "gravity acceleration" from that number?  You can't.  You need to know my mass and my altitude first, and then what planet I am.  So, it is not gravity you are measuring on that scale, it is my mass sliding through the space deformation caused by the planet.  You need my mass in order to calculate the sliding vector, without it, you have no "gravity force" indication.   

The same as when you measure the blacksmith's hammer "hitting force" on the iron.  The hammer has no force or energy whatsoever, it is the arm of the blacksmith that applies mechanical motion vector to the hammer against the iron.  You can not use or say "hammer hitting force", because there is none, even that you can in fact measure it.

Sliding vector is a word you just made up.

There are other ways to generate gravity which we have measured.

Cavendish experiments can be made from over the counter equipment.

Weight is not a laymen term, it is a technical term in physics that is defined as the contact force between a massive object and the object which is applying a normal force against it.

Your weight is not 80kg, that is your mass. Your corresponding weight is about 800N. That is how you calculate it. It is the magnitude of the local gravitational force on you. The gravitational acceleration is found by taking your weight and divisions by your mass.

Look, all these things are taught in high school physics.

I’m trying to read your reply to give you credit for the correct things you’ve written. I am a little shocked, and not exaggerating here, that it doesn’t appear that anything you wrote is correct.

I have to wonder if you are trolling me right now. That is not sarcasm BTW, it is honest. Almost every FEer I speak with always says at least some things correctly.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity: Supplemental

« on: May 02, 2019, 06:18:23 PM »

The video should include some light feathers or easily floating stuff, as smoke, in the middle of the setup, so we will be sure there was no wind or air movement being forced into the center pieces.  I can make it even dance rumba back and forth. Oh, I forgot about possible magnets into the balls... silly me, smoke and feathers would not show them, but compasses could be put there to show no magnetic field change.  Silly me again, static electricity can make objects attracts or repeal each other, so a compass, feathers or smoke will not detect it.  Hmm, but what can detect it? EMI sensors.  We can be here 'til tomorrow, at the end will understand a video is just a video, nothing else, there are videos of aliens at Area 51.  I like the video when the right mass touches the ball, kick back and never approaches is again...   I am not saying the video is fake, I am saying it could be made fake with several different methods.

Well sure. And every single FE video could be made fake. Everything can be fake. I could be a clever bot (I suppose).

But riddle me this: the cavendish experiment is a typical demonstration used in physics classrooms. Physicists are the ones performing the demo. Which means professionals who have been trained better than anyone else to identify possible tricks, hidden variables, or poor methodology.

Are you claiming that every physicist on the planet is faking their cavendish experiments? Because even though a single video could be fake, stating that all demos are fake is quite a large claim.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Gravity: Supplemental

« on: May 02, 2019, 02:41:55 PM »

This seemed a bit off-topic for the gravity thread here, by relevant enough to link the threads by name.

The cavendish experiment is a long-hailed successful demonstration of the gravitational attraction between two massive objects.

Even though the gravitational force is by far the weakest force, careful setups can still produce definitive results.

The first link below is an identical setup to one I have built in the past. The second is a YouTube video demonstrating just how easy basic cavendish setups can be. Enjoy!

https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/video/vid_byunit.html?unit=3&vidNum=1

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: May 02, 2019, 01:29:39 AM »

Whoa, just hold on a second. You need to parse these ideas in smaller, more manageable discussable chunks. We can’t have a good online discussion otherwise - it becomes impractical to address everything as it tangents off from a wall of text.

Let me reorganise a bit, and please reply with your thoughts again.

1. Gravity as a force vs gravity as a deformation of space time.

Okay. The two don’t work in the same discussion together. We can talk about Newtonian gravity, which works well in the regime of the weak field limit. That is, GR reduces to Newton very well on the surface of the earth.

The normal force is the Newton’s 3rd law pair. When I stand on the ground, the gravitational force acts down. So why don’t I move down? Cause the ground is there. Obviously. But since f=ma and my a is zero when standing, there must be a force which counteracts gravity. That is the normal force. It is the force of the ground on me that stops me sinking through it.

What keeps you on your feet while standing over a concrete slab?  It is not any "normal force", it is purely density of mass holding your sliding toward the space deformation.   Of course that if you relax your muscles you will fall over the concrete, space deformation will slide you down, if the soil under the concrete slab becomes less dense, it will slide sinking into the soil (Florida have several sink holes to prove it).  The sliding vector is always present, trying to move you towards the stronger deformation, there is no way to avoid it.    There is no force at all, there is only space deformation, less dense property of the space.

There is no force holding the book over the table, the space deformation generated by the huge mass of the planet is trying to slide the book down, but the table is just holding it there.  A "force" require some energy in first place.  One explanation of force:  "strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement".  Now, think the whole planet and all over it, including the table and the book were in space floating, very apart, by molecules, and slowing all of it slide towards a common center with little space with less density, it took millions of years to do that. Where that huge "force" that pushed everything together comes from? what about the huge force that holds all the tectonic plates over the melting ball of lava comes from?  What generated such huge amount of energy?  It is much easier to think about a space density becoming smaller, mass sliding towards where it is less dense, some mass can't go ahead because something is in the way, a table for example.

"Force" is a simple and easy way to explain in layman terms what we barely understand.
I hear it everyday, "the force of gravity"... it is not.

Force is when I push a chair, there is a muscle mechanic action, based on energy, it promotes a new vector to the balanced space around the chair, it moves.  That is force, because it was not there before, it was generated, used and converted.  A car's engine piston moves by the force of the fuel exploding, such energy can be wasted.  Gravity is not generated, imposed, used or wasted, you can not, because it is not a force.   You can convert the potential energy stored in the hydroelectric water, but it is not a force offered by gravity. The solar energy evaporated all that water and transferred energy to it - well, not really, the water didn't change, you can not measure such energy, but it is there, in a "potential" way, it means, "it potentially can be used".  Gravity is just the slider where the water runs and allows the turbines and generators to extract such energy.  Gravity sliding action will still the same after the water energy is collected, before, while and after.  If it can not be changed, converted or wasted, it is not a force.

Cheers.

This does not accord with any accepted description in physics.

What keeps you on your feet in a space station that simulates gravity through centripetal rotation? The normal force.

Gravity is a force and arises from a potential. It can be generated, and this has been measured. It can be wasted - this has been measured too. Gravity certainly can be used - this is how we obtain energy in hydroelectric power plants.

Potential energy does not mean it potentially can be used. Potential energy is the energy associated with specific configurations within a system. Some potential energies are not accessible for mechanical work.

You will not find “muscle mechanic action based on energy” in any physics textbook on the planet. It sounds to me like you are making stuff up.