Gravity Does Not Exist!

Fritz,

I don't think that you are an irritant and I hope that I have not been one. I implored you to consider and decide for yourself.

You stated, "Yet it exists." I interpreted that statement that you are comfortable with Gravity as the chief mechanical property of a universe model.

I simply disagree.

Respectfully.

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:
The entire basis of the term, "gravity" is that Mass-attracts-Mass.  Helium has mass.  A rubber balloon has mass.  The ground has mass.

An empty balloon will fall to the ground.  That same balloon filled up with helium, even though it now has more mass, will fly away.  This shows a clear flaw in the idea of gravity.

I'd disagree.
I don't think all these impressive/visual demonstrations are suitable for clearly falsifying gravity, because it can always be counter-argumented that another physical effect (buoyancy) is simply stronger and overlays the so called mass attraction or even conversely --> "mass attraction" > density (free fall).
So followers of gravitational theory can claim the physics of buoyancy/density can coexist with gravity.
[EDIT] So you can see purely theoretically buoyancy/density as something additive to gravity. [/EDIT]
Even if gravity seems to be useless and superfluous, it is not yet been disproved.

Furthermore, like Copernicus, followers of the idea of gravity can also argue that the atmosphere and all the objects it contains simply rotate with it. Because air particles are also under the influence of hypothetical gravity.

So the force of air pressure* (weight of air) acting in all directions is the only true falsification of the theory of gravity. Right?
*Link



And I am plagued by the question:
How can we define weight? What is the definition of it?

Or one can say: as with air, the "force" of weight acts on any objects in all directions, but in contrast is overlaid by the higher density than air? Weight should be a force then, right?


 

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:Heavy-stuff falls down and floatie-stuff floats up, indeed, but not because of mass-attracting-mass.

You have been told that gravity is a vector, a force that points in a certain direction; moreover, the bigger something is, you have been told it will have even More Gravity.

If the Earth and Sun were truly big heavy balls and gravity was truly a vector, then balloons filled with helium at sunset should then fly sideways toward the setting sun.

Please consider.

Reasonable argument but I think it may be a little bit complicated for a dispute talk.
I hope I'm not being unpleasantly preachy/personally (sorry for that) but I've just come up with a tip on how best to behave in robust debates not only on flat earth but on complex issues in general.

If you think into the wrong world of thoughts of the other side (ball-earth) in order to argue for your own right cause, you practically always get entangled in such a spider web.
Because the other person can talk your complicated thought to death. Such a spider's web is created by those who either a) have not yet understood a topic correctly themselves or b) want to manipulate or c) often both are the case.

It is better here to clearly distinguish oneself from the confusion of falsity --> focus on setting own landmarks (for instance 'air pressure') and to be the conductor of the discussion by arguing clearly and as short as possible.

Again, it is up to you to decide. I appreciate your thoughts on how I should behave in a debate -- but this is not a debate forum.

"Gravity Does Not Exist" is a statement. It is not a complicated thought or a landmark in a discussion. You need not be plagued by the question, "what is the definition of weight?"

The plague of contradictions is with Newton's definition of Gravity. Newton says that every particle in the round-earther universe is invisibly attracted to each other and wants to stick together to form even bigger blobs of matter forever and ever.

It does not match what we see, feel and experience everyday, with our own senses. I trust my own senses more than I trust Newton.

I trust Eric Dubay more than I trust Newton. That is my decision.

Decide for yourself.

FR wrote:
... and overlays the so called mass attraction or conversely --> "mass attraction" > density (free fall).

In this simulation of a debate with a gravitationalist, I only wanted to present some possible weird gravitationalist assertion. Tried to simulate a consistent gravitationalist to the point of falsity  

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:
It does not match what we see, feel and experience everyday, with our own senses.  I trust my own senses more than I trust Newton.  

It is true that there is not a single practical proof for the theory of gravity. But with this correct statement you have NOT falsified this theory.

Of course, I am aware that whoever claims something must also provide the proof. That's common sense.
And because a spherical shape of the earth deviates from the observation of nature, gravitationalists are obviously in debt here.

But I am just interested in challenging thoughts and unassailable argumentation against the theory of gravity and for the flat earth.

Perhaps you should look into the experimental work , on pendulum behavior during syzygy . of professor Maurice Allais - research the Allais effect plus the related JRA effects (professors Jevardin, Ratu , Antonescu ) .
Absolutely falsifies current mainstream cosmological/gravitational view of the universe .

You could also look into the work of the surveys of the 17th century carried out by astronomers which proved Newtons theories of gravity plus the Copernican/Galilean globe fiction were wrong . Start with G. Cassini's surveys across France .

The bullet points are from the 1st video below:

Gravity is described as an inverse square law to centre mass (1).

A: You cannot have a gravitational constant with an inverse square law (2).

B: Plum bobs are parallel and perpendicular to a level. Parallel lines do not intersect. Never. Therefore centre mass cannot be substantiated (3).

C: It is unreasonable to ask someone to falsify that which has no proof (4).

D: The theory of gravity is a corruption of the laws of motion. The laws of motion can be observed. Gravity cannot and corrupts the laws (5).

E: A falling slinky shows 100% of the time that the slinky is pushed down or resisted from the top down. This shows conclusively the earth is not pulling on anything (6).

F: Gravity is a filthy retarded concept to justify how things can stick to a spinning ball. Utter childish stupidity. An idiot test. Anyone who made the slightest effort to apply the laws of motion would know they cannot consist alongside gravity. When we discard this silly theory the laws are restored.

G: To understand the laws of motion and apply them you cannot do it until you first accept you are not on the exterior of a spinning sphere. To believe in a spinning sphere you must believe in gravity. Two unprovable things justifying one another.

H: The scientific method applied disqualifies the theory of gravity. Gravity is religion not science. It is an idiot test. If you cannot apply the scientific method you are an idiot and it is laughable you think you are a scientist. Accreditation is even more laughable. Moronic debt slave (7).



(1) "The inverse square law proposed by Newton suggests that the force of gravity acting between any two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the separation distance between the object's centers." https://tinyurl.com/vpwltzz

(2) "In Newton's law, it is the proportionality constant connecting the gravitational force between two bodies with the product of their masses and the inverse square of their distance." https://tinyurl.com/kvczx7g

(3) Perpendicular to the plane, at any point along the plane (this alone proves earth is established on a plane).


(4) Falsifiability - "Informally, a statement is falsifiable if some formal observation might show it to be false. For example, 'All swans are white' is falsifiable because 'Here is a black swan' shows it to be false." https://tinyurl.com/q3bfjl7

(5) "Observation consists of receiving knowledge of the outside world through our senses, or recording information using scientific tools and instruments. Any data recorded during an experiment can be called an observation." https://tinyurl.com/vr7oeg7

(6) In the synopsis to the below video we find, "it [the slinky] appears to defy gravity but...." Turn volume off and simply observe the slinky:



(7) "The scientific method is a systematic way of learning about the world around us and answering questions. The key difference between the scientific method and other ways of acquiring knowledge are forming a hypothesis and then testing it with an experiment." https://tinyurl.com/y8ksqyze

Hi Guys, don’t really know where to ask so I ask here. Could somebody help me understand about typhoons/tornadoes. One fellow asked me why they turn in opposite side in the south atmosphere and I don’t know how to answer. Thanks in advance for your help

It is a myth that toilets or tornados spin only one way in one hemisphere and the opposite way in the other:

I see.. thanks man

alright, there are a few things I got conceptually wrong (I'm quite new this). So let me paraphrase the things I said above.
We know two things cannot move through one another unless space is given for them to move. It doesn't matter if you put a small amount of air below water or a piece of metal above water, they air won't go up or the metal won't go down unless the water is given space to allow them to move (or vice versa). The effect of gravity seems to be completely nullified here. Let's use this fact to explain each theory.
In density theory, if you give all these materials space to move, the air would on top of water due to its nature to spread around the most, the water would be in the middle due to its nature to spread less, and the solid object will be at the center all of them due to its nature to stay in a fixed shape. In our world, where the solid object stays, we perceive it as down and the air as up. Why things fall can be simply explained as the result of objects in different states interacting with one another. There is no reason for craziness such as "consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass" to exist here.
In gravity theory, the same fact stated above exists, except things now fall down because of this force attracting them towards the earth. What I said in my previous comment about heavier objects shouldn't be able to fall through lighter due to gravity affecting everything the same is wrong, because even if two objects have same mass, the denser object is being pulled down more strongly by gravity because it occupies more mass in the same volume, so it makes sense that when space is available,  it would go through a lighter liquid or air due to gravity. Except, now if a lighter object is allowed to be pulled down through a heavier (liquid/gas) object due to space being available, there is no reason for it to move upwards when freed, cause said space is still available. Gravity is pulling everything downwards so It can either go only downwards or stay where it is.
This should be enough to explain why gravity is nothing but an illusion created to deceive the masses.
'...........................................
Youtube just deleted this comment of mine. What a bunch of tw****ts

Im not sure.
But wouldn't the Earth, and really anything with orbit classify as a perpetual motion machine?
If gravity is just a virtue of mass and whatever you put into orbit magically floats around without anything needed.
Then it wouldnt be logical to use that force to generate energy?

'If you had a very huge magnet and it pulled a nail across a table - then - that nail hit a marble as it was moving, the nail itself would be providing force, much like objects moving to seek their proper density level (with respect to height) are now providing force. If a rising helium balloon hit a mosquito, the rising balloon is the provider of force that causes the mosquito's trajectory change in and of itself, with respect to the two items. If it helps your thoughts, you can give it a name: - it is just another phenomenon like magnetism is a phenomenon. In the magnet example, magnetism causes motion. In the density example, being too dense or not dense enough compared to the surrounding medium is the phenomenon providing the force. Since everyone can agree that objects DO seek their relative density level, perhaps it is a good idea to call it "Densitism." Just saying in general. Call it or don't call it what you want or don't want." - Chris Pierman

"If one really wanted to get into it, a very sensitive weight scale can be attached to a ceiling, the face of it down. Fill a balloon with x amount of helium, i.e. this will become one unit and let it go against the scale. Whatever the scale reads is the measurement of "Densitism" force provided by one unit of helium. Then, all other objects can be compared to this standard, thus making all of it a standard itself. "We are going to need xxxx units of Densitism force to sink the submarine to a depth of y, Captain." So on and so on. I suppose the balloon's material, and properties should be recorded as part of the standard - or - find an even better way to make a standard of it all." - Chris Pierman

Morning wrote:Im not sure.
But wouldn't the Earth, and really anything with orbit classify as a perpetual motion machine?
If gravity is just a virtue of mass and whatever you put into orbit magically floats around without anything needed.
Then it wouldnt be logical to use that force to generate energy?

ummm.... You say you're not sure. That's quite telling and shows you're on the right track. Things are more simple, mystical 'science' tries to obfuscate.

Everything seeks it's relative density with the medium surrounding it and that is all. A feather and an anvil will both fall but at different rates because one is radically denser than the air while the other is not. This debunks the supposed uniform speed of acceleration due to "gravity," 9.8 m/s/s which would more accurately be labeled something like the max acceleration towards density equilibrium. As long as something has enough mass and is aerodynamic enough to negate the air resistance of the fall, things will fall at the same rate of approx. 9.8 m/s/s When in a vacuum chamber, the factor of air resistance is removed completely so everything, even feathers, balloons and dandelion seeds etc. will fall at the same rate.

Apologies if this has been addressed before, but I can't seem to find anything about this specific point that I'm having trouble with: It seems to me that having buoyancy/density account for this idea of "gravity" still requires some kind of downward force causing objects to fall to begin with - it's just that FE doesn't agree that this force is due to relative masses exerting a force of "gravity" on surrounding objects, but there is some force pulling objects down - am I correct?

I would very much appreciate somebody clarifying this point for me. Thanks!

What "downward force" determines the direction that a helium balloon falls? It falls up due to relative density. A helium balloon is not pulled to the ground, as there is no mythical pulling force, nor is there a downward directional bias. Everything seeks it's relative density with the medium surrounding it and that is all.

Admin wrote:What "downward force" determines the direction that a helium balloon falls?  It falls up due to relative density.  A helium balloon is not pulled to the ground, as there is no mythical pulling force, nor is there a downward directional bias.  Everything seeks it's relative density with the medium surrounding it and that is all.

Thanks for the reply. What I'm confused about is why the helium balloon - or anything less dense than the surrounding medium of air - "falls up" and not "down." Or "left" or "right," for that matter. That is, if I understand buoyancy correctly (and maybe I don't), why does the more dense medium of air displace the less dense object of the helium balloon in a specifically "upward" direction all the time?

Does it make sense what I'm having trouble with? I haven't seen this specifically addressed beyond Eric Dubay writing: "The fact that light things rise up and heavy things fall down is simply a natural property of weight," but I'm still wondering why or how that can be without some kind of downward force (even if it isn't "gravity") making heavy things fall down, specifically, after which I can conceive of buoyancy making sense of the rest.

I don't know, I'm new to all this - just trying to make sense of it.
Thanks!

EDIT: I'm looking closer and seeing that @fritzdekatt had the same questions I'm having. Apologies if I'm just re-hashing what's already been brought up.

The surrounding medium of air has a pressure gradient.  The helium balloon will rise until it reaches equilibrium with the surrounding air . It won't go left or right unless a force acts upon it.

Have you not heard of electromagnetic force ? An extremely powerful force . My opinion is that buoyancy and the electromagnetic force ( from the dome ) is all that is needed to explain why objects fall and rise . No need for the unicorn of gravity.

RedorBlue wrote:The surrounding medium of air has a pressure gradient.  The helium balloon will rise until it reaches equilibrium with the surrounding air . It won't go left or right unless a force acts upon it.

Have you not heard of electromagnetic force ? An extremely powerful force . My opinion is that buoyancy and the electromagnetic force ( from the dome ) is all that is needed to explain why objects fall and rise . No need for the unicorn of gravity.

Thanks for chiming in @RedorBlue - I was starting to consider that something (like you say, maybe electromagnetic force) might account for the pressure gradient, but I don't know enough about the subject. Have you any further ideas on that? Specifically on how it might influence matter in a way to produce the pressure gradient? It'd be great at some point to have some plausible enough theory to actually experiment, test, and verify it - or at least parts of it.

If you were starting to consider other explanations then why not develop your own ideas ? Develop your critical thinking.

Ask yourself why you accept "gravity" as an explanation when mainstream science is unable to provide any proof of it's existence - no idea of the how or why mass is supposed to attract through the supposed vacuum of space .

Will be interesting to see your thoughts.

The Fall of Gravity presentation is a collaboration between University of California Davis Electrical Engineer Vahid Ebrahimi and Head of the International Flat Earth Research Society Eric Dubay.

Email Vahid Ebrahimi: gsxbuickgnx@gmail.com

Why Things Rise or Fall is a collaboration between NCEES Certified University of Alberta Chemical Engineer "Aerodyname" and Head of the International Flat Earth Research Society Eric Dubay.

Download and read the full PDF of "Why Things Rise or Fall" including appendix and advanced mathematics here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xxom60j5qyby538/Why%20Things%20Rise%20and%20Fall.pdf?dl=0

The ball-Earthers claim “gravity,” defined as acceleration, dictates that the earth must be ball-shaped. And sure, that might have been true if the earth once had been all molten lava, but polonium halo rings in granite rocks would not be there had the rock (earth) been formed from a molten state. All granite would have been ordinary lava stone with no halos therein.

https://youtu.be/6hPZ6077ruQ?t=221
https://youtu.be/7azFUP4B-BU?t=615

- This little piece of real science disproves evolution, and thereby also the Big Bang since that is part of the same stupid theory of evolution. This is likely why the funding for this research was dropped the second the powers that be realized the consequences of it.

long and quite boring, A baller too.