(The Moon doesn't count, of course, because we haven't been there and CAN'T go there. The evidence we haven't been there is legion.)
Isaac Newton was a freemason with a very impressive looking nose.:laugh1:
Why should we care what any of these guys say?
All the so-called "evidence" such as apples falling on your head while lost in thought under and apple tree, could be explained by density, a Flat Earth, etc.
(The Moon doesn't count, of course, because we haven't been there and CAN'T go there. The evidence we haven't been there is legion.)
Density is nothing but more mass per volume. Gravity is the name for the reason why the denser apple falls in less dense air.
Isaac Newton was a freemason with a very impressive looking nose.</end of thread>
I believe it's related to electromagnetism somehow.
Gravity is a myth that mass per se can create a force between two objects ... at a distance. There's something else causing this, whether it's electromagnetism or some other real force that has been measured.
I'm not 100% satisfied with the density explanation as there's something missing there in terms of what causes the directionality, but it's precisely the same elusive "force" missing in the quest to find gravity. I believe it's related to electromagnetism somehow.
You're talking about how gravity works, thus implicity admitting that gravity exists. If it didn't exist, your comment were completely idiotic.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0212033.pdf:laugh1: Do you really think flat earthers haven't seen the theory? That we somehow haven't suffered the tedium of indoctrination for years in high school and college? That a paper written by some nobody or by some government scientist is going to bring us back to the idea that earth is a sphere?
He is clearly using the term because it facilitates the discussion, especially when speaking with children.
As he stated, "Gravity is a myth that mass per se can create a force between two objects ... at a distance. There's something else causing this, whether it's electromagnetism or some other real force that has been measured."
He is talking about the cause of the force of attraction/repulsion between objects, something people like you call gravity -- which he clearly called a myth.
His comment is crystal clear and could only be misread by an idiot of bad will.
You're talking about how gravity works, thus implicity admitting that gravity exists. If it didn't exist, your comment were completely idiotic.
As gladius indicated, I use the term loosely to describe the "phenomenon" that is observed and has been called gravity. I posted a video from a top physicist who made the exact same distinction, calling it "gravity" in terms of the phenomenon but indicating that he doesn't believe it exists with mass being a cause. His theory is that it has to do with the laws of thermodynamics somehow.
What about commenting on what I said instead of deviating from the topic?
We did respond to your comment. Evidently you're too much of a dolt to understand what we're talking about, to the answer went over your head because you didn't get it.
Isaac Newton was a freemason with a very impressive looking nose.
Why should we care what any of these guys say?
Riccioli is credited with being the first person to precisely measure the acceleration due to gravity of falling bodies.[10] Books 2 and 9 of the New Almagest Riccioli included a significant discussion of and extensive experimental reports on the motions of falling bodies and pendulums.
He was interested in the pendulum as a device for precisely measuring time. By counting the number of pendulum swings that elapsed between transits of certain stars, Riccioli was able to experimentally verify that the period of a pendulum swinging with small amplitude is constant to within two swings out of 3212 (0.062%). He also reported that a pendulum's period increases if the amplitude of its swing is increased to 40 degrees. He sought to develop a pendulum whose period was precisely one second – such a pendulum would complete 86,400 swings in a 24-hour period. This he directly tested, twice, by using stars to mark time and recruiting a team of nine fellow Jesuits to count swings and maintain the amplitude of swing for 24 hours. The results were pendulums with periods within 1.85%, and then 0.69%, of the desired value; and Riccioli even sought to improve on the latter value. The seconds pendulum was then used as a standard for calibrating pendulums with different periods. Riccioli said that for measuring time a pendulum was not a perfectly reliable tool, but in comparison with other methods it was an exceedingly reliable tool.[11]
With pendulums to keep time (sometimes augmented by a chorus of Jesuits chanting in time with a pendulum to provide an audible timer) and a tall structure in the form of Bologna's Torre de Asinelli from which to drop objects, Riccioli was able to engage in precise experiments with falling bodies. He verified that falling bodies followed Galileo's "odd-number" rule so that the distance travelled by a falling body increases in proportion to the square of the time of fall, indicative of constant acceleration.[12] According to Riccioli, a falling body released from rest travels 15 Roman feet (4.44 m) in one second, 60 feet (17.76 m) in two seconds, 135 feet (39.96 m) in three seconds, etc.[13] Other Jesuits such as the above-mentioned Cabeo had argued that this rule had not been rigorously demonstrated.[14] His results showed that, while falling bodies generally showed constant acceleration, there were differences determined by weight and size and density. Riccioli said that if two heavy objects of differing weight are dropped simultaneously from the same height, the heavier one descends more quickly so long as it is of equal or greater density; if both objects are of equal weight the denser one descends more quickly.
For example, in dropping balls of wood and lead that both weighed 2.5 ounces, Riccioli found that upon the leaden ball having traversed 280 Roman feet the wooden ball had traversed only 240 feet (a table in the New Almagest contains data on twenty one such paired drops). He attributed such differences to the air, and noted that air density had to be considered when dealing with falling bodies.[15] He illustrated the reliability of his experiments by providing detailed descriptions of how they were carried out, so that anyone could reproduce them,[16] complete with diagrams of the Torre de Asinelli that showed heights, drop locations, etc.[17]
Riccioli noted that while these differences did contradict Galileo's claim that balls of differing weight would fall at the same rate, it was possible Galileo observed the fall of bodies made of the same material but of differing sizes, for in that case the difference in fall time between the two balls is much smaller than if the balls are of same size but differing materials, or of the same weight but differing sizes, etc., and that difference is not apparent unless the balls are released from a very great height.[18] At the time, various people had expressed concern with Galileo's ideas about falling bodies, arguing that it would be impossible to discern the small differences in time and distance needed to adequately test Galileo's ideas, or reporting that experiments had not agreed with Galileo's predictions, or complaining that suitably tall buildings with clear paths of fall were not available to thoroughly test Galileo's ideas. By contrast, Riccioli was able to show that he had carried out repeated, consistent, precise experiments in an ideal location.
All the so-called "evidence" such as apples falling on your head while lost in thought under and apple tree, could be explained by density, a Flat Earth, etc.How does density explain that objects fall down? Can you or someone else explain that or link to sources?
It's not as though we've BEEN to any other planets where "Gosh! We're 1.5X heavier, due to the increased mass of the planet relative to Earth!"The good thing is that you don't have to believe these figureheads, but can test most things yourself, or see how others verified what has previously been theorized, over and over again.
Yes, I've heard thousands of times talk about different planet densities, how much you'd weigh on this or that exo-planet, etc. That's all over the Discovery channel, the mouths of lying scientists like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye, NASA, etc. -- but THEY ARE ALL PROVEN LIARS so everything they say has to be thrown out. But more importantly, it's just their say-so, the argument of authority, the bandwagon fallacy, etc. They can't point to any experiments! You know, SCIENCE.
Gravity (defined as "large massive objects attracting smaller, less dense objects towards it) has not been observed in any experiments. You could take a 1-ton hunk of LEAD or other super-dense metal, and it wouldn't deflect the path of a speck of dust floating in the air -- or give the slightest tug on a helium/CO2 balloon, made to float statically in the air (neither sinking, nor rising). Obviously the Earth would dwarf the 1 ton block's gravity -- in the vertical direction. So OK, don't fight the Earth. How about try to move the speck of dust or balloon the slightest amount LEFT or RIGHT. Surely the Earth doesn't "tug" an object left or right? That's why wheels work so well. I can push a car forward with my own power, as long as it's on wheels.Except that what you intuitevly and correctly described does in fact work: Schiehallion experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment)
For that matter, why does gravity pull some things down towards it (like humans and every other object, on a Globe Earth model) but other times gravity just causes things to "orbit" the large object instead?Escape velocity. When the the centrifugal speed (centrifugal means "fleeing the center") of your mass is equal than the gravitational pull (centripetal force), it will stay at a precise orbit around the other mass. When you then increase the speed you escape the gravity well of the other mass.
How does density explain that objects fall down? Can you or someone else explain that or link to sources?
The good thing is that you don't have to believe these figureheads, but can test most things yourself, or see how others verified what has previously been theorized, over and over again.
Density works as an explanation other than for what imparts the directionality to it. That's a missing ingredient. But then mainstream science can't explain "gravity" either.So you are aware of this huge problem in the "density replaces gravity" talking point of FE? Because if it wasn't for gravity, it would stop giving direction to density (or buoyancy rather). Total mess ensues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpP-7dhm9DI
Strangely, while density is acknolwedge as active in liquid, it's ignored by modern science with regard to objects moving through the air (which also acts like a liquid in many ways ... a much less dense liquid. In liquid/water it's density, but in air it's gravity. Density trumps "gravity", as we see massive ocean liners that float on top of the water and are not pulled to the bottom of the ocean. Density can just as easily explain the dynamics of objects falling through the air, or of helium balloons that defy gravity and drift higher. But you rarely hear talk of this because evidently density only exists in water and then when you get into air it's suddenly gravity.It isn't ignored by modern science - a helium balloon will rise up because the force of buoyancy trumps the force of gravity (the sum of the forces will result in an upward vector).
Gravity is not strong enough to keep a helium or hot-air balloon on the ground, and yet it can hold onto it as if it were attached by an iron rod as it drags it around the planet at upwards of 1000 MPH. None of this adds up.It is clear from your previous sentence? That's just wrong. Actually we can measure that centrifugal force of the rotating earth at the equator, it's called the Eötvös effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect.
Separate issue from flat earth per se, but it's clear that the earth is not rotating and not moving through space.
How does density explain that objects fall down? Can you or someone else explain that or link to sources?
I don't know why we're even arguing about this. Most of the top mainstream physicists admit that 1) there's no proof for gravity as formerly understood and 2) there must be some other (as yet elusive) explanation for the phenomenon.
I don't know why we're even arguing about this. Most of the top mainstream physicists admit that 1) there's no proof for gravity as formerly understood and 2) there must be some other (as yet elusive) explanation for the phenomenon.
Take a huge massive ball (or rough chunk) of lead and see if it can deflect a speck of dust EVEN A LITTLE BIT. And if the Earth is skewing the results, being so many orders of magnitude more massive? Just focus on a different direction, where the Earth is neutral -- such as HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT -- left to right. The earth doesn't care whether a dust speck drifts east or west. See if a massive chunk of lead can divert that speck of dust EVEN THE SMALLEST MEASURABLE AMOUNT.
And you could also do this in "outer space" if such a thing existed. But they haven't done this, for some reason.
Taking the bolded above, the problem is, you can not simply ignore the gravitational pull created by earth, which is MAGNITUDES greater than any object you'll be able to get your hands on to compare to that speck of dust. This will also affect the east/west or left/right horizontal aspects t0o, because gravity will always be pulling perpendicular to such movement. And then there's the electrostatic forces of the dust particle, which most likely carries a charge.According to Newtonian mechanics, the normal force cancels out gravity in the north-south direction on the surface of the earth so the only net force would be east-west.
Also, you'd need something the size of the earth positioned orthogonal thereto to compete with that speck of dust on a 1:1 ratio on a horizontal basis. But let's say you wanted to recreat something that would be akin to the gravitational forces the earth exerted on a 1 kg ball of metal. Let's also say that that speck of dust has a mass of 1.1 x 10-13 kg. You would then need a ball having a mass of 7.22 x 1011 kg in order to compete on a 1:1 ratio with the earth--for comparison, the mass of the Titanic was 4.2 x 107 kg. Even you halved that, quartered it, etc., you still wouldn't be able to get a mass large enough to overcome the earth's gravitational pull.
According to Newtonian mechanics, the normal force cancels out gravity in the north-south direction on the surface of the earth so the only net force would be east-west.
I may have mis-stated this part, but my overall point is that not only must such experiments be carried out in a vacuum, preferably in a weightless environ, but the amount of mass needed to show even an appreciable amount of pull on something as small as a dust particle makes such experiments virtually impossible to do.And my point was that the gravitational pull from the earth is irrelevant as it is negated by the equal and opposite normal force acting perpendicular to it on the y-axis. So if you could get two giant boulders side by side, the only net force acting on them should be their gravitational attraction to each other (acting horizontally, on the x-axis.)
The wording of this subject should have been 'There is no proof for Newton's theory of gravity.' What we call gravity exists, but what causes it is unknown. Anyone can offer a theory for gravity but that is all it is, a theory. Newton based his universal theory of gravity on Kepler's ellipse for the paths of planets. Domenico Cassini falsified Kepler's and Newton's compromise geometry when he measured orbits as Cassinian ovals. In other words Cassini falsified Newton's theory. But Cassini was a geocentrist so his astronomy is ignored.I don't believe gravity exists. There is absolutely no evidence that objects are drawn together just by virtue of them having mass.
I don't believe gravity exists. There is absolutely no evidence that objects are drawn together just by virtue of them having mass.
You don't think gravity exists? You then say there is no evidence that mass causes gravity. Are you sure that what you really meant to say is 'I don't think Newton's version of gravity exists.'Apples fall to the ground because they are denser than the air and less dense than the ground. This also explains why helium balloons float in the air and why giant cruise ships don't sink in the ocean. No need to posit an imaginary attractive force between the earth and physical objects.
Gravity exists or apples do not fall to the ground from apple trees. What most on this subject say is that Newton's theory of gravity is a load of rubbish.
I don't believe gravity exists. There is absolutely no evidence that objects are drawn together just by virtue of them having mass.Mass circling (orbiting) around greater mass:
Apples fall to the ground because they are denser than the air and less dense than the ground. This also explains why helium balloons float in the air and why giant cruise ships don't sink in the ocean. No need to posit an imaginary attractive force between the earth and physical objects.Density alone does not have a direction - so no vertical direction either. Gravity provides that orientation on earth. The pressure gradient in large liquid and gas systems like bodies of water, the atmosphere and so on, shows that matter is dragged down towards a center of mass, thus ordering itself.
Density alone does not have a direction - so no vertical direction either. Gravity provides that orientation on earth.
I don't believe gravity exists. There is absolutely no evidence that objects are drawn together just by virtue of them having mass.
First sentence is correct. Second sentence is highly disputed even by mainstream scientists, with many holding that it's a function of thermodynamics. Could also be electromagnetism causing matter to clump and our perception of "down" is based on the greatest area of density. Could also be due to the flow of ether.These are a lot of "coulds" - none of these theories nor their components (ether? thermodynamics cause acceleration towards masses?) has been substantiated into a hypothesis with falsifiable predictions and on first glance sounds a bit like a collection of fancy words.
causing matter to clump and our perception of "down" is based on the greatest area of density.You're getting pretty close to how gravity is described here, did you notice that? "Mass attracts mass", so great masses will have a great force of attraction. Or according to Einstein, mass bends the spacetime continuum, thus traveling through space in such a gravity well will appear to pull you towards the center of mass (acts as a force).
But Cassini's findings - never challenged or disproved - included the fact that Newton's 'bulge' of the Earth does not exist. Newton's bulge was attributed to the evolution of the Earth.The ellipsoid nature of earth's shape - also called reference geoid in surveying, has been measured over and over again.
| Reference ellipsoid name | Equatorial radius (m) | Polar radius (m) | Inverse flattening | Where used |
| Maupertuis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Louis_Maupertuis) (1738) | 6,397,300 | 6,363,806.283 | 191 | France |
| Plessis (1817) | 6,376,523.0 | 6,355,862.9333 | 308.64 | France |
| Everest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Everest) (1830) | 6,377,299.365 | 6,356,098.359 | 300.80172554 | India |
| Everest 1830 Modified (1967) | 6,377,304.063 | 6,356,103.0390 | 300.8017 | West Malaysia & Singapore |
| Everest 1830 (1967 Definition) | 6,377,298.556 | 6,356,097.550 | 300.8017 | Brunei & East Malaysia |
| Airy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Biddell_Airy) (1830) | 6,377,563.396 | 6,356,256.909 | 299.3249646 | Britain |
| Bessel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessel_ellipsoid) (1841) | 6,377,397.155 | 6,356,078.963 | 299.1528128 | Europe, Japan |
| Clarke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Ross_Clarke) (1866) | 6,378,206.4 | 6,356,583.8 | 294.9786982 | North America |
| Clarke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Ross_Clarke) (1878) | 6,378,190 | 6,356,456 | 293.4659980 | North America |
| Clarke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Ross_Clarke) (1880) | 6,378,249.145 | 6,356,514.870 | 293.465 | France, Africa |
| Helmert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Robert_Helmert) (1906) | 6,378,200 | 6,356,818.17 | 298.3 | Egypt |
| Hayford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fillmore_Hayford) (1910) | 6,378,388 | 6,356,911.946 | 297 | USA |
| International (1924) | 6,378,388 | 6,356,911.946 | 297 | Europe |
| Krassovsky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SK-42_reference_system) (1940) | 6,378,245 | 6,356,863.019 | 298.3 | USSR, Russia, Romania |
| WGS66 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System#The_United_States_Department_of_Defense_World_Geodetic_System_1966) (1966) | 6,378,145 | 6,356,759.769 | 298.25 | USA/DoD |
| Australian National (1966) | 6,378,160 | 6,356,774.719 | 298.25 | Australia |
| New International (1967) | 6,378,157.5 | 6,356,772.2 | 298.24961539 | |
| GRS-67 (1967) | 6,378,160 | 6,356,774.516 | 298.247167427 | |
| South American (1969) | 6,378,160 | 6,356,774.719 | 298.25 | South America |
| WGS-72 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System#The_United_States_Department_of_Defense_World_Geodetic_System_1972) (1972) | 6,378,135 | 6,356,750.52 | 298.26 | USA/DoD |
| GRS-80 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRS_80) (1979) | 6,378,137 | 6,356,752.3141 | 298.257222101 | Global ITRS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Terrestrial_Reference_System)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_ellipsoid#cite_note-IERS-4) |
| WGS-84 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System#A_new_World_Geodetic_System:_WGS_84) (1984) | 6,378,137 | 6,356,752.3142 | 298.257223563 | Global GPS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System) |
| IERS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IERS) (1989) | 6,378,136 | 6,356,751.302 | 298.257 | |
| IERS (2003)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_ellipsoid#cite_note-5) | 6,378,136.6 | 6,356,751.9 | 298.25642 | [4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_ellipsoid#cite_note-IERS-4) |
These are a lot of "coulds" - none of these theories nor their components (ether? thermodynamics cause acceleration towards masses?) has been substantiated into a hypothesis with falsifiable predictions and on first glance sounds a bit like a collection of fancy words.
You're getting pretty close to how gravity is described here, did you notice that? "Mass attracts mass", so great masses will have a great force of attraction. Or according to Einstein, mass bends the spacetime continuum, thus traveling through space in such a gravity well will appear to pull you towards the center of mass (acts as a force).
Yes, most of science is still "theory" and yet it's presented as fact. No, mass doesn't attract anything. Whether it's electromagnetism or nuclear forces or ether pressure, mass itself cannot act at a distance on mass, and that's acknowledged by many in mainstream science.That's first statement a false statement. Most of science consists of well tested and verifiable hypotheses with falsifiable predictions. The foundations are very strong. Only theoretical science and bleeding edge research can be called "still theory".
It's not necessarily "attraction" either; it could be something (e.g. ether pressure) pushing things toward one another.Ether pressure is completely unsubstantiated - neither is ether demonstrated to exist, nor is there any form of pressure that would work similar to gravity.
Your last sentence is also just a claim, could you post a reference to back up your claim?
I've already posted a couple videos of top physicists rejecting gravity.He isn't questioning the effect of gravity, how it acts as a force on all matter and how it causes vertical acceleration on earth. The point in contention here is the cause of gravity, which neither Newton nor Einstein could fully explain yet. The "illusion" part is that it appears to be a force, yet actually you are moving along a curved line (geodesic) in spacetime which is bent by mass. So all current theories gloss over certain details, they don't explain the full cause yet, but are still the best explanations we have.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hByJBdQXjXU
Density alone does not have a direction - so no vertical direction either. Gravity provides that orientation on earth. The pressure gradient in large liquid and gas systems like bodies of water, the atmosphere and so on, shows that matter is dragged down towards a center of mass, thus ordering itself.Question for you: If you put two giant boulders a foot apart, would you expect them to move even a fraction of a centimeter toward each other, even given an unlimited time frame? I would assume that with masses this large, their gravitational attraction should be large enough to induce motion.
Take away gravity, and total chaos ensues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpP-7dhm9DI
Earth is a depressed spheroid. The usual explanation is the centrifugal force of the rotating earth, but I've also heard Geocentric explanations for it, although not very convincing.
Question for you: If you put two giant boulders a foot apart, would you expect them to move even a fraction of a centimeter toward each other, even given an unlimited time frame? I would assume that with masses this large, their gravitational attraction should be large enough to induce motion.Compare this to the Cavendish experiment - the force of friction between the ground/surface and the boulders will be much greater than the acceleration that the gravity between them produces.
:facepalm: ... not the classroom Cavendish garbage again.So no actual methodical or factual criticism of the experiments.
This is the kindof stuff that completely discredits you guys.
| • | Bodies are not only pulled (or pushed or both; for simplicity I'll just mention pulled in the text ahead) down to the ground or to the center of the earth. They also are pulled in other directions where other bodies are. |
| • | Newtons formulas are correct to at least some digits of accuracy. The pull is proportional to the mass of the test body, proportional to the mass of the other body, and proportional to the inverse squared distance of the bodies. |
| • | Flat earther's claims that "gravity doesn't exist" are hilarious anyway, since everybody feels it, and all humanity of all times has used scales to measure the gravity of e.g. bread or gold. The Romans called it gravitas, and St. Thomas Aquinas explains Aristotle using that same Latin word. |
| • | Newton didn't present a "theory of gravity" in the sense of an explanation how gravity works. On the contrary, he said he didn't have any, and philosophers should think about one. In one copy of his own Principia he wrote a comment showing himself quite impressed by the theory of Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, which was half a decade later re-presented by Georges-Louis Le Sage. But even Fatio, who later owned the copy, said that Newton believed that the cause of gravity was simply "the will of God". |
| • | Newton did present a "theory of gravity" in the sense that he contradicted Aristotle and St. Thomas, who believed that gravity was a property of bodies which makes them tend to their "natural place" at the center of the earth (and the universe). Galilei had said that bodies are inertial (tend to keep up rest or constant rectiliear movement). Newton said that, in addition to Galilei, gravity acts as if all bodies mutually attract each other. |
| • | As far as I know, Newton was the first to come up with the idea of mutual mass attraction. The experiments support his idea. |
| • | Einstein's gravity reduces to Newtonian gravity given circuмstance on earth (or even within the solar system). Under such circuмstance, Einstein contradicts himself. The usual speed limit c breaks down to converge to Newton's gravity which instantaneousley acts at a distance. |
| • | These experiments don't allow to draw any conclusion about celestial bodies. |
| • | Newton's absolute space was debunked by Ernst Mach. |
Some observations concerning the above mentioned experiment with millions of cubic meters (tons) of water, as well as related experiments are pertinent with respect to the topic of this thread:I feel no attraction to the chair across the room, or to any object, however massive. If you put my corpse next to a cruise ship, it would not move a fraction of a centimeter in a million years.
• Bodies are not only pulled (or pushed or both; for simplicity I'll just mention pulled in the text ahead) down to the ground or to the center of the earth. They also are pulled in other directions where other bodies are. • Newtons formulas are correct to at least some digits of accuracy. The pull is proportional to the mass of the test body, proportional to the mass of the other body, and proportional to the inverse squared distance of the bodies. • Flat earther's claims that "gravity doesn't exist" are hilarious anyway, since everybody feels it, and all humanity of all times has used scales to measure the gravity of e.g. bread or gold. The
I feel no attraction to the chair across the room, or to any object, however massive. If you put my corpse next to a cruise ship, it would not move a fraction of a centimeter in a million years.So funny, but so right. Nobody needs to use their head strictly as a container for their teeth. Multi directional pull to explain gravity is pretty dumb.
I feel no attraction to the chair across the room, or to any object, however massive. If you put my corpse next to a cruise ship, it would not move a fraction of a centimeter in a million years.
Multi directional pull to explain gravity is pretty dumb.
I do expect to, if gravity is real.
My statement was, that a highly accurate scales can measure the pull of millions of tons of mass; not that curious2 can feel the pull of a few thousand tons of mass of a cruise ship.Highly accurate according to who?
Highly accurate according to who?
Multi directional pull to explain gravity is pretty dumb.
You're begging the question. The premise that gravity comes from several directions is retarded. I would believe in it, but gravity as proposed by modern science is a graveyard. You got proof? Prove it.
Now you look pretty dumb. Not even able to answer questions.
You're begging the question. The premise that gravity comes from several directions is retarded.
You just repeat your unfounded claim. I had asked you to explain how and why. But you're too retarded to even follow the flow of comments....
I think CI readers comprehend that you're not able to substantiate your claims. Your line of argumentation is well known on CI. It has been "Railroad tracks are adaptable to any curvature of terrain, but not to that most slight curvature of the round earth". It now is "gravity comes from several directions is retarded".
:jester::facepalm: