Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Matthew on February 01, 2022, 07:01:56 AM

Title: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Matthew on February 01, 2022, 07:01:56 AM
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.

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!"
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.

(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.)

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.

Just like scientists have never proven (in any experiment) that the Earth moves, they've also never proven or observed Gravity in any scientific 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?

Don't say "the planets started out as a spinning dust cloud orbiting the sun, and slowly coalesced into planets and moons..." because that's Evolution nonsense.

Remember, their theories about Gravity, the Earth, solar system, etc. ALL TIE IN CLOSELY with the Big Bang and atheistic evolution. The monkey typewriters typing the works of Shakespeare, given enough eons. That whole nonsense. Why should we buy into their nonsense at all?
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Ladislaus on February 01, 2022, 07:56:16 AM
(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.)

They tried to simulate the low gravity with the slowed-down film.  Hey, how about this?  I've always wondered about this.  Why wouldn't an astronaut just have jumped straight up as hard as he could?  He would have gone several feet into the air at 1/6th gravity (even taking the weight of the spacesuit into account).  If I can jump straight up 12 inches here, I should be able to launch myself 6 feet into the air on the moon.  Probably would have been one of the first things I tried on the moon.  Or else I would have taken a baseball and see how far I could launch it.  As they ran, they should have gone 3 feet into the air with each stride.  But instead you just get normal footage slowed down.  Speed up the film a bit and it looks exactly as if they're operating in normal earth gravity (which of course they are).
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Ladislaus on February 01, 2022, 08:01:02 AM
Even most top physicists don't believe in gravity as its own thing.  There are several competing theories about what it is.

Now, with the "density" explanation of gravity, there does still have to be some force that determines directionality.  Could be electromagnetism, could be flow of either (I think that's what Tesla held).  But gravity as an independent force, I don't believe that most top scientists believe in it anymore.  I've posted some video from a top physicist who said that on film.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Ladislaus on February 01, 2022, 08:04:40 AM
But this gravity is an amazing force, used as a deus ex machina to explain lots of things that otherwise don't make sense.  It has magical properties.  It holds things fast to the earth and yet the planets (allegedly) maintain a steady orbit around the sun.  You would think that over billions of years, this gravity that draws things TOWARDS it would have dragged all the planets into the sun.

If you send up a hot-air balloon, gravity makes it stick to the earth as if it were attached to the ground by an iron rod, dragging it around the planet at up to 1000MPH, without anyone feeling anything, and yet a butterfly can move effortlessly in either direction, either with or against the rotation of the earth.

Even if I believed the earth was a globe, I'd still hold gravity to be a load of nonsense.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Jupiter on February 01, 2022, 08:31:45 AM
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0212033.pdf
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: SperaInDeo on February 01, 2022, 08:48:24 AM
Isaac Newton was a freemason with a very impressive looking nose.

Why should we care what any of these guys say?
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Tradman on February 01, 2022, 08:56:02 AM
Isaac Newton was a freemason with a very impressive looking nose.

Why should we care what any of these guys say?
:laugh1:
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 01, 2022, 02:08:33 PM
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.

Density is nothing but more mass per volume. Gravity is the name for the reason why the denser apple falls in less dense air.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: gladius_veritatis on February 01, 2022, 02:52:03 PM
(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.)

Should not the (non-spinning) moon just sit in a kind of locked position, somewhere between the tiny (spinning) earth and massive sun, if not being dragged completely away from the earth by the sun?  [Assuming bogus cosmology, of course.]  How does it make any sense that it would orbit earth, apparently unaffected by the sun regardless of being closer or further from the sun than the earth is?
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Ladislaus on February 01, 2022, 02:54:36 PM
Density is nothing but more mass per volume. Gravity is the name for the reason why the denser apple falls in less dense air.

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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Ladislaus on February 01, 2022, 02:57:09 PM
Isaac Newton was a freemason with a very impressive looking nose.
 </end of thread>

What can anyone say about that?  :laugh1:
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: gladius_veritatis on February 01, 2022, 03:00:46 PM
I believe it's related to electromagnetism somehow.

Agreed.  This gentleman goes into the toroidal field that emanates from both the human heart and the center of creation.  Some of his ideas are questionable, to be sure, but he makes some excellent points, too.

https://illuminated-illusions.com/ewaranon/
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: josefamenendez on February 01, 2022, 03:09:44 PM
If it's still an (unproven) theory after 40, 50 or 100 years, it's not likely to ever be proven. Toss it
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 01, 2022, 03:14:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: gladius_veritatis on February 01, 2022, 03:21:13 PM
You're talking about how gravity works, thus implicity admitting that gravity exists. If it didn't exist, your comment were completely idiotic.

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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Tradman on February 01, 2022, 03:22:06 PM
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?    
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 01, 2022, 04:02:35 PM

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.



Please see the context, which is my comment quoted and commented on by Ladislaus.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Ladislaus on February 01, 2022, 04:53:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: DigitalLogos on February 01, 2022, 05:37:39 PM
Gravity is God's love holding His creation together, per St. Augustine :popcorn:
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 01, 2022, 06:07:53 PM
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?
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Ladislaus on February 01, 2022, 08:07:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 01, 2022, 08:12:04 PM
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.

You didn't.

The reason for the denser apple to fall in less dense air is commonly called gravity. So talking about density doesn't refute gravity. It's just FE nonsense talk.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Dankward on February 02, 2022, 02:53:49 PM
There are some experiments which support the theory of gravity and are not explainable with buoyancy or any of these other "explanations".

1. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka-Experiment
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Also, a scientific theory that holds any value has been repeatedly tested and verified in numerous ways according to the scientific method, it's not a made up fairytale that holds no water.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: cassini on February 04, 2022, 02:59:56 PM
Understanding Gravity: From the Latin gravitás, meaning heavy   

For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hidden. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived man, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” (Ecclus 3:21-26).

To say Newton solved the mystery of ‘gravity’ is ignorant or deceitful for no one other than God ‘understands’ what we call ‘gravity.’ We know the need for and effects of ‘gravity’ on Earth, but can mere human reason really comprehend the mystery of gravity? A stone will fall to the ground out of our hand. What causes this is called gravity. A vacuum can be created in a chamber. different objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum. So 'gravity' exists, whatever causes it.
   
There are, of course, many other known functions served by ‘gravity.’ Experience has shown us that without Earth’s 'gravity' men could not/cannot survive for very long. The ability of our bodily parts to function properly, for example, is totally dependent on the Earth’s perfectly created gravity, and it is this dependency that will make long-term space travel for humans almost impossible, without even considering the effects of radiation. Forget all that hype and nonsense written about men ‘conquering space.’ The truth is that in apparently gravity-absent (weightless) space the human body will eventually break down. First muscle tissue would start to degenerate for want of proper gravity-resisting exercise. Then the bones weaken, start to lose calcium and become brittle. The heart, no longer having to pump blood against the effect of gravity, loses strength and vigour. In time other physical defects would begin to show, such as bodily fluids shifting around causing swelling in various parts of our anatomy. Thereafter physical and mental stress as well as exhaustion would set in. Back on Earth no such problems exist, thanks to the Earth’s ‘gravity.’ All living creatures can exist on its surface where they belong with perfect health and mobility, and the weight of a glass of wine and cigar just perfect.


As we look out at the sky from our immobile Earth, we see that all celestial bodies have proper daily, monthly, annual and multi-yearly movements, that is, a daily rotation around the Earth, a monthly orbit for the moon, an annual orbit for the sun, and a multi-year cycle for the precession of the stars. Man has called the cause of these movements 'gravity.' The Earth’s motionless centrality was considered by Aristotle to be its gravitational ‘natural place.’ St Ambrose of Milan (†397), however, and other Fathers of the Church, like St Gregory of nαzιanzus (†390) and St Basil the Great (†379), attributed a geocentric Earth to divine Providence alone.

‘On the nature and position of the Earth there should be no need to enter into discussion… It is sufficient for our information to state the text of Holy Scriptures, namely, that “He hangeth the Earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7). There are many, too, who have maintained that the Earth, placed in the midst of the air, remains motionless there by its own weight, because it extends itself equally on all sides. [Obviously St Ambrose referred to a global Earth] As to this subject, let us reflect on what was said by the Lord to His servant Job…. Does not God clearly show that all things are established by His majesty, not by number, weight, and measure? For the creature has not given the law, rather he accepts it or abides by that which has been accepted. The Earth is therefore not suspended in the middle of the universe like a balance hung in equilibrium, but the majesty of God holds it together by the law of His own will, so that what is steadfast should prevail over the void and unstable…. By the will of God, therefore, the Earth is immovable. “The Earth standeth forever,” according to Ecclesiastes (91:4).’ – St Ambrose.

In addition to the Earth’s immobility, we could ask how are the movements of the cosmos caused and sustained. Aristotle proposed that the celestial bodies that have proper movement are maintained in motion by fifty-five ‘independent intelligences,’ immaterial substances or souls. St Thomas of course, taught that inanimate things have no soul, life or intelligence and thus have no means of producing or sustaining movement by themselves. But God, using His will alone, or with the assistance of His angels or secondary causes, moves celestial bodies. The simple fact that the sun, moon, planets and stars move with such unwavering regularity showed St Thomas a conscious and intellectual Being involved. How else could there be maintained a rhythm of perpetual motion and constant un-decaying order if not with the assistance of divine power or by His direct preservation of the laws of nature. Such metaphysical considerations however, came to an abrupt end with the Copernican and Newtonian revolution, when mankind was offered conjured-up rational natural causes for a heliocentric system, a way of thinking accepted eventually by Catholic churchmen and laymen alike.

    As to why the sun, moon and stars, which include the planets, do not fall to Earth, Aristotle held that they must be made of something other than the matter of the Earth, maybe of gas, thus remaining aloof in the sky.(Today’s cosmologists tell us that Jupiter and Saturn are actually gas giants). Galileo for one looked through a telescope and saw that the moon had hills, valleys and craters; indicating the moon, at least, was indeed made of rock and not something else as Aristotle speculated. 

Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Bonaventure on February 04, 2022, 03:29:23 PM
Isaac Newton was a freemason with a very impressive looking nose.

Why should we care what any of these guys say?

Newton is generally credited with his theory of gravity beginning around 1679, but Fr. Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598 - 1671) accurately measured the acceleration of falling bodies (i.e., gravity) nearly 50 years earlier.

Quote
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.

From: Giovanni Battista Riccioli (https://infogalactic.com/info/Giovanni_Battista_Riccioli)
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Dankward on February 05, 2022, 01:33:45 PM
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?

Saying that instead of gravity, it is FE that makes object fall down, just like that, is circular reasoning.

Quote
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!"
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.
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.

Quote
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)
This was more accurately verified later with lead balls by Henry Cavendish: Cavendish experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
There's also a more modern experiment which show how even photons undergo gravitational redshift: Rebka experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment)
And then lastly, there's a space probe which measures gravity very precisely: Gravity Probe A (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A)

Quote
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.

I'm afraid you're demonstrating a great deal of ignorance here - have you looked up beforehand any of the assertions and assumptions you make?
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Ladislaus on February 05, 2022, 04:33:44 PM
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.

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.

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.

Separate issue from flat earth per se, but it's clear that the earth is not rotating and not moving through space.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Dankward on February 06, 2022, 03:50:37 PM
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

Quote
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).

Same goes for water, it pushes up against anything in the water with a force equal to the weight of water displaced by the volume of the object.
The greater the displacement, the greater the force.
A ship's hull can displace more water than the weight of the ship, therefore the buoyancy force pushing up is greater than gravity pulling down.

Quote
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.

Separate issue from flat earth per se, but it's clear that the earth is not rotating and not moving through space.
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.

Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: cassini on February 07, 2022, 04:22:06 AM
How does density explain that objects fall down? Can you or someone else explain that or link to sources?

Pondering on the mysteries of gravity while looking at an apple on the ground, Newton said to himself: ‘according to my thinking that apple must have fallen to the ground because of a force pulling on it.’ The fact that it could have been pushed to the ground escaped him. Fine, Newton had a theory; he is allowed that, no harm done so far. And then it happened, eureka, that flash of genius that supposedly occurs in this field of science all the time. Newton then asked himself, ‘what if that attractive force I believe pulled on the apple reached to the moon; wouldn’t it pull the moon to Earth? So why doesn’t it?’ Trying to find an answer to this proposal he had thought up, Newton continued his pondering. ‘What happens when I throw an apple to the bottom of the garden? How does it move? It would remain in the air until it lost its motion or speed and was pulled to the ground by ‘gravity,’ just like Galileo found with his marbles. Now what if I threw it so hard that it never ran out of speed, what then? It would circle the Earth forever, wouldn’t it?’ Looking up at the moon, he asked: ‘what if the moon is just a big apple doing what my little imaginary apple with perpetual motion would do? Wouldn’t that explain the moon’s continuous orbit around the Earth?’ And that is how Newton used Earth’s gravity as an attracting force that reached the moon, by talking to himself and by agreeing with himself. As we know, Newton later proposed that the ‘gravity pull’ that got that apple to the ground, and the moon to orbit the Earth just at the right distance, and the planets to orbit around the sun, exists in the mass of content of each body, be they apples or planets, all working away like magnets, with the biggest one, the sun, holding all the other bodies under its spell, sorry, pull, as they orbited around it. Now given one cannot prove or disprove such an invisible ‘pull’ of universal ‘gravity,’ how did his theory become a Law, believed by most? Well, by describing what motion is in scientific terms, and he got most to believe these laws applied to his theory.

Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the squares of the distance between their centres of mass.

In other words, matter moves itself. This incredible theory was indeed one of the most diabolical ‘ideas’ in history, for it offered man a way in which the cosmos might operate independently under its own natural power, supposedly explaining why apples fall to the ground, why the moon stays orbiting the Earth, why planets orbit the sun, and why cosmic bodies act as they do around the universe, providing an equilibrium to the omnipotence of God Himself.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: cassini on February 07, 2022, 04:28:40 AM
Any Other Theories for Universal Movement:

Now if Newton's theory was/is the only theory that could account for the phenomenon of apples falling to the ground (or planets orbiting the sun), that would indeed have to elevate it into a ‘possible’ class. So, was his the only theory that could do so? Is the only way for an apple to fall to the ground if it is pulled down? We have put this simple question to many but rarely, if ever, did we receive the correct answer. The hard fact is, of course, apples falling to the ground might well be pushed to the ground. In other words, ‘gravity’ could well be a pushing effect rather than a pulling effect. And so we come to a pushing means for gravity instead of a pulling force. We introduce this section only as a way to further undermine the claim that Newton established the true and only possible cause for a falling apple and therefore his solar-system. The theories we shall now consider are almost certainly as big a load of moonshine as Newton’s and are not offered as a true alternative or falsification but only to show that scientific ideas for ‘gravity’ can be invented at will.

By 1781, the physicist George Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) had also completed an alternative thesis to the very same advanced level as Newton’s - a pushing force theory for moving celestial bodies. He proposed space is filled with countless infinitesimal particles termed ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ and these push planets in their orbits. These corpuscles, he posed, are in extremely rapid motion, analogous to molecules in a gas, and which tr¬averse in a criss-cross action in straight lines throughout the universe. The corpuscles move with tremendous speed in all directions, penetrating matter, but meeting some resistance in doing so. The consequences of this would mean the corpuscles are acting as a pushing force by colliding against all physical, material objects in the universe. The crucial factor in this theory is one of non-equilibrium, the positioning of cosmic bodies in the system relative to each other. If the pressure is the same on all the surface of a sphere, it goes nowhere. If, however, something shields the pressure of the ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ on any part of that sphere it would of course now move due to ‘non-equilibrium.’   

‘Non-equilibrium is a pre-requisite for movement in all its forms, and therefore a state of equilibrium is impossible in Nature.’ (Callum Coats: Living Energies, Gateway Books, UK, 1996, pp.65, 66.)


There then was René Descartes’s ‘vortex theory.’ This formulator of analytic geometry explained that planetary motion is the result of vortices or whirlpools sweeping the planets around the sun, not unlike Einstein’s surface curled space whirlpool theory we will see in due time. Indeed, Newton was at first attracted to this idea to serve his purpose but later dismissed the idea stating that: ‘Descartes’s vortex theory is in complete conflict with the astronomical observations, and instead of explaining celestial motions, merely confuses our ideas about them.’ So, what happened to these alternative theories? Well, there are two answers to this question, one at the ‘scientific’ level, and the other is ideological. One eliminates a scientific theory by falsifying it. In Le Sage’s case, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), who, like other eminent scientists, could find nothing wrong with the dynamics or the mathematics of Le Sage’s theory, postulated that the collisions between the hypothetical particles and solid matter would, over long periods of time, involve a heat transfer sufficient to melt plan¬etary objects. This was enough, and coming as it did from a Fellow and President of the Royal Society, the theory was treated as falsified. Later however, as is prone to happen in theoretical knowledge, Le Sage’s theory, they decided, is not untenable according to modern physics. The science now holds that such particle collisions can be ‘elastic’ on contact and thus avoid any degradations of flux energy to heat. So why wasn’t it readmitted then?
   
‘A rather wild theory was put forward by Le Sage… Professor de Sitter has tested the idea by examining whether there is any weakening in the Sun’s attraction on the Moon at a time when the Moon is in the Earth’s shadow. He does actually find some evidence of such a weakening, but it is too minute to be certain about. The fantastic nature of Le Sage’s theory is evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem. It is curious to reflect that we are still as ignorant of the nature of the force that draws a stone to the Earth as men were in the dawn of history.’(Dr. A.C.D. Crommelin: Diamonds in the Sky, Collins, London, 1940, p.49.)

As for Descartes vortex theory, well, that too was set aside so as to give Newton’s theory a free ride in anti-geocentric cosmology, but, as we shall see, Einstein later plagiarised that one for his theory of gravitation. What it all boils down to is that Newton’s theory sufficed to eliminate geocentrism as falsified.


‘This method, of which the germ was contained in the scientific revolution initiated at the turn of the seventeenth century by Francis Bacon and which has since been adopted by every branch of science and by countless pseudosciences such as politics, economics, the social sciences, and even art, religion, ethics and psychology, is as follows. Take a phenomenon that can be observed, produce a mathematical measurement for it that fits, concoct a hypothesis which, however far-fetched, could possibly account for the phenomenon, and finally call the hypothesis and the mathematical formula that supports it a law and regardless of whether or not there is any theoretical justification for it whatever, apply it throughout the universe. And that is all that the famous Law of Gravitation consists of.’ (N. M. Gwynne, Sir Isaac Newton & Modern Astronomy, p.16.)

Finally, there was Kepler, who once thought magnetism might account for the movements of celestial objects, but decided against exploiting the idea. Newton however, while taking advantage of its effects of attraction, was unable to show any connection at all between his theory and electromagnetism.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Ladislaus on February 07, 2022, 07:08:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: cassini on February 18, 2022, 07:36:41 AM
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.

On one discussion resulting from a Church Militant article on the Vatican having to answer for the 'vax deaths' resulting from the Pope's order that all Catholics shouds get one, there resulted in the discussion that Newton's theory of gravity is more of a truth than the Bible.
Here is the beginning of the exchange:

'With the Galileo affair being used as a line of attack against the Church as anti-science, you would think that the Holy See would have learned not to weigh in on disputed scientific questions, especially NOT on politicized ones like this pandemic. But, here we have the Church engaging in a Galileo x 10 here in the 21st century!'

I replied that the Galileo case was a metaphysical one (because of the relativity of the created universe), not one decided by science, and that it was never proven by science the Church got the Galileo case wrong.
Having got four thumbs down here is the first reply to this rejection of proof:

'As a physicist, I can assure you geocentrism has been proven wrong. In fact, everything known about physics proves it wrong, an infinite number of times over. Even basic Newtonian physics proves it wrong. Current lunatics, pretending to be scientists, going around thinking they are defending the Church by trying to defend geocentrism are only doing a grave disservice to the faith by confirming the idea in the minds of the anti-religious that the religious are lunatics.

I replied:
I will let other physicists answer your 'geocentrism is proven wrong' assertion Edward,

‘All modern cosmology stands or falls with this concept [heliocentrism] being correct, even though, to quote a text approved by Einstein: “We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment ever proved the Earth is in motion.”’ (Lincoln Barnett: The universe and Dr. Einstein, Dover Publications, 1948, p.73)

‘Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’ (Bertrand Russell: quoted in D. D. Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, p.18)

Richard Dawkins himself has admitted: ‘It is not actually provable that the Earth orbits the Sun, but it is perverse to deny it.’ (Richard Dawkins, speaking on gαy Byrne’s The Meaning of Life, RTE, 18th Oct. 2015.)

‘Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are often held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common of these concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief however, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to those for which there is less. Proofs are not the currency of science.’ (Satoshi Kanazawa: The Scientific Fundamentalist, published on Nov. 16, 2008. )

To which the physicist answered:
'You are quoting out of context. Making the point that a proof cannot be made on the basis of simple observation OBVIOUSLY means there needs to be OTHER MEANS THEN FROM STANDING STATICALLY ON EARTH. GOT IT?!!!!!!!!
AND THERE ARE. GOT IT?!!!!!!!!
And any "scientist" who claims there is no such thing as anything axiomatic in science, such as that that can be called proven, is flat out lying as a childish ego trip.

I replied: 'No, I have not got it Edward., I have not gone the way of Kaku like you seem to have gone with your geocentrism is proven wrong..

‘Nobody that I know of in my field of theoretical physics uses the “so called scientific method.”’ --- Michio Kaku; theoretical physicist at the City College of New York, a best-selling author, and a well-known populariser of science. (Wiki)

I follow the scientific method. The definitive problem for your heliocentric ‘proofs’ that the Earth revolves round the sun, came to a head in the wake of the famous Airy (1870-1) and Michelson & Morley (1887) experiments. Those tests showed a non orbiting Earth. It was Einstein who used his Special Theory of Relativity to rescue heliocentrism as one or two scientific possibilities, geocentric or heliocentric. That is where science is today on the matter. The Bible, that is God, on the other hand reveals the sun orbits a fixed Earth.'

He answered: 'The Bible makes no such assertion. It is not good to lie about the Bible. Making an observational comment with lyrical intent makes no definitive quantitative judgment of physical reality.
You clearly know nothing about science. Of course applied science and its methods of measurement are seldom used in theoretical physics, which is very abstract and speculative. So what? It doesn't need to be and theoretical physics is rarely used in Astrophysics, in which there are many attempts at calculation. You are absurdly wrong to suggest that Einstein's comments were meant to imply uncertainty about the status of a repudiated geocentric theory. He only meant that it is such an absurd theory, no further indisputable objective proof was necessary. Everything we know in physics repudiates it. As I pointed out previously, if you hypothetically created a solar system with the sun orbiting the earth, gravity would cause such a system to collapse instantaneously. That's where it stands now.

Finally I said:'"The Bible makes no such assertion. It is not good to lie about the Bible." Really Edward? Someone who holds this heretical belief is really not worth discussing this subject with. You deny what all of the Fathers held, When the opinion of all the Fathers agreed on a Biblical revelation then it must be considered an immutable, irreformable truth in virtue of the fact that this revelation had been constantly preserved and held by Church Tradition since the time of the Apostles.

You prefer Newton's THEORY of gravity as your blind faith, arguing as if it is a law that somehow proves your heliocentrism. When it comes to what the Bible reveals I will adhere to what all of the Fathers and the Council of Trent understood.

So Ladislaus, it seems Newton's theory is alive and well with Catholic physicists.


Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Seraphina on February 18, 2022, 08:04:53 AM
Jump off the Empire State Building. :jester:
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Matthew on February 18, 2022, 09:20:31 AM
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.

Best conclusion in this thread.

If the high priests of Scientism themselves admit there's no proof, then why do so many people go further than them, and act like it's dogma, and deniers of said dogma are heretics? It's because they believe in Scientism (a cult of "science") rather than true SCIENCE.

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." 

The angels (said high priests of modern science) dare not claim to have proofs of gravity -- but unemployed guys sitting in their mom's basement are quick to do so. How typical. That's why that saying was coined.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Matthew on February 18, 2022, 09:23:28 AM
There has to be some way to test "gravity" as it's understood -- if such a thing exists.

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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Bonaventure on February 18, 2022, 01:03:06 PM
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.

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.

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.

And you could also do this in "outer space" if such a thing existed. But they haven't done this, for some reason.

Potentially, yes, such experiments could be conducted in orbital space.  But arguably you'd still need a mass that's greater than the spacecraft itself, which borders on the impossible.

But then that would mean we have the ability to orbit the earth, and as everyone here knows.... that's impossible.  :confused:

Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: forlorn on February 18, 2022, 01:46:25 PM
How do you explain satellites without gravity? What's keeping them moving for months and years on end without refuelling?
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: curious2 on February 18, 2022, 02:00:24 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Bonaventure on February 18, 2022, 02:10:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: curious2 on February 18, 2022, 02:18:40 PM
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.)
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: cassini on February 18, 2022, 02:39:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: curious2 on February 18, 2022, 02:44:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: cassini on February 18, 2022, 02:59:36 PM
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.'

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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: curious2 on February 18, 2022, 06:01:00 PM
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.'

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.
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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Dankward on February 18, 2022, 08:19:33 PM
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKYpMl0gJGE

Another example, filmed with a hobbyist camera:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztwGVfC70Zw

These are the moons of Jupiter, same as with happens to our Moon. And Earth itself. And other planets in the system, and their moons, respectively.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Dankward on February 18, 2022, 08:24:47 PM
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.

Take away gravity, and total chaos ensues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpP-7dhm9DI
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Ladislaus on February 18, 2022, 08:30:03 PM
Density alone does not have a direction - so no vertical direction either. Gravity provides that orientation on earth.

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.

Gravity theory has completely broken down and is being abandoned, as it's proven so false that scientists had to invent the notion of dark matter to keep it on life support.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: cassini on February 19, 2022, 07:15:15 AM
I don't believe gravity exists. There is absolutely no evidence that objects are drawn together just by virtue of them having mass.

The term 'gravity' also covers the movements of the sun, moon and stars. What causes these movements is another question. Some Catholics attribute these movements to God's angels. However there is now evidence that electromagnetism cauises this 'gravity.' Einstein and physicists searched for such evidence but never found 'The theory of everythiong.' However Dominico Cassini (1615-1712), a geocentrist astronomer, hated by Newton's lot, found orbits were Cassinian ovals. He was unaware that such ovals are actually found in positive elecrtromagnet currents. Stellar aberration found that the orbital turning of the stars are fixed to the sun's orbit. Therefore even the stars turn in Cassinian ovals.
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.
Now given Cassini disproved evolution and Newton's elliptical orbits of Kepler false, his science is not wanted by churchmen or modern scientists. But you cannot deny the evidence.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2022, 07:59:56 AM
Science has been driven by an (openly) atheistic agenda since the "Enlightenment".  Newton was a Mason.  That's why people like Cassini were cast aside, since their work was not consistent with the agenda they were moving toward.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Dankward on February 19, 2022, 10:18:23 AM
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.

Quote
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).
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Dankward on February 19, 2022, 10:23:41 AM
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.

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.

Reference ellipsoid nameEquatorial radius (m)Polar radius (m)Inverse flatteningWhere used
Maupertuis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Louis_Maupertuis) (1738)6,397,3006,363,806.283191France
Plessis (1817)6,376,523.06,355,862.9333308.64France
Everest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Everest) (1830)6,377,299.3656,356,098.359300.80172554India
Everest 1830 Modified (1967)6,377,304.0636,356,103.0390300.8017West Malaysia & Singapore
Everest 1830 (1967 Definition)6,377,298.5566,356,097.550300.8017Brunei & East Malaysia
Airy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Biddell_Airy) (1830)6,377,563.3966,356,256.909299.3249646Britain
Bessel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessel_ellipsoid) (1841)6,377,397.1556,356,078.963299.1528128Europe, Japan
Clarke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Ross_Clarke) (1866)6,378,206.46,356,583.8294.9786982North America
Clarke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Ross_Clarke) (1878)6,378,1906,356,456293.4659980North America
Clarke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Ross_Clarke) (1880)6,378,249.1456,356,514.870293.465France, Africa
Helmert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Robert_Helmert) (1906)6,378,2006,356,818.17298.3Egypt
Hayford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fillmore_Hayford) (1910)6,378,3886,356,911.946297USA
International (1924)6,378,3886,356,911.946297Europe
Krassovsky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SK-42_reference_system) (1940)6,378,2456,356,863.019298.3USSR, Russia, Romania
WGS66 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System#The_United_States_Department_of_Defense_World_Geodetic_System_1966) (1966)6,378,1456,356,759.769298.25USA/DoD
Australian National (1966)6,378,1606,356,774.719298.25Australia
New International (1967)6,378,157.56,356,772.2298.24961539
GRS-67 (1967)6,378,1606,356,774.516298.247167427
South American (1969)6,378,1606,356,774.719298.25South America
WGS-72 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System#The_United_States_Department_of_Defense_World_Geodetic_System_1972) (1972)6,378,1356,356,750.52298.26USA/DoD
GRS-80 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRS_80) (1979)6,378,1376,356,752.3141298.257222101Global 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)6,378,1376,356,752.3142298.257223563Global GPS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System)
IERS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IERS) (1989)6,378,1366,356,751.302298.257
IERS (2003)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_ellipsoid#cite_note-5)6,378,136.66,356,751.9298.25642[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_ellipsoid#cite_note-IERS-4)

Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2022, 10:49:51 AM
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.

It's not necessarily "attraction" either; it could be something (e.g. ether pressure) pushing things toward one another.

It's the same with evolution.  Presented as proven fact to kids in school, but rejected by a lot of top academics.  There's an atheistic agenda at work here.  I saw an interview with a professed atheist academic who had the honesty to admit that only intelligent design makes sense, but then still couldn't pull the trigger on believing in God.  Yet school children are indoctrinated with evolution anyway, causing who knows how many to have lost the faith.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Dankward on February 19, 2022, 01:15:00 PM
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".
Your second sentence is also not true, do you know about quantum entanglement? Two spatially distant particles are still coupled to each other and will react to each other. We can't yet explain how that works. So saying "mass itself cannot act at a distance on mass" is just a claim.

Do you see a problem with just claiming things?

Your last sentence is also just a claim, could you post a reference to back up your claim?

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.

Another claim. Would you rather accept all of these "could be's" of yours which are mostly unsubstantiated, untested, not formalized nor peer reviewed by anyone, or the other possibility of well tested hypotheses, whose effects can be empirically observed?
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2022, 01:19:48 PM
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hByJBdQXjXU
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Dankward on February 19, 2022, 01:24:35 PM
Here's a simple classroom experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11sLusnVZwM

The fact that the Cavendish Rig can experience bidirectional rotation based on only one variable - moving the weights near the torsion bar assembly - eliminates air motion, “aether,” and electromagnetism as possibilities. The latter also is demonstrable that the effect is better observed based on density rather than how ferrous the weights are (I.e. it works better with lead than iron).

And another one, you might want to skip to 11:25min when he explains the results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbucRPiL92Q

Density can't be responsible for this motion.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Dankward on February 19, 2022, 01:37:35 PM
I've already posted a couple videos of top physicists rejecting gravity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hByJBdQXjXU
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.

I hope you understand the subtle difference between your claim and their claim? He explains that really well in his video with the temperature to gravity analogy.

You're using this theoretical physicist who works with quantum mechanics to show that gravity might not exist at all? That doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: curious2 on February 19, 2022, 02:03:23 PM
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.

Take away gravity, and total chaos ensues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpP-7dhm9DI
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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2022, 03:08:17 PM
:facepalm: ... not the classroom Cavendish garbage again.

This is the kindof stuff that completely discredits you guys.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: gladius_veritatis on February 19, 2022, 03:13:12 PM
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.

So, you're a heliocentrist and a heretic and not actually a Catholic?  Or do you even pretend to be a Christian of any stripe whatsoever?
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Dankward on February 19, 2022, 09:20:50 PM
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.

If you used such a boulder together with masses on a torsion bar - that works!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdGsTIOeJF0
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Dankward on February 19, 2022, 09:22:39 PM
:facepalm: ... not the classroom Cavendish garbage again.

This is the kindof stuff that completely discredits you guys.
So no actual methodical or factual criticism of the experiments.

Why do you refuse to be specific? Your standard of evidence for things that support your views is extremely low, while your standard for evidence that is contrary to your views seems to be extremely high.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 22, 2022, 01:31:04 PM
The Cavendish experiment isn't the only way attraction of masses has been measured. Numerous experiments show the attraction of masses. E.g. Italian scientists have put a gravimeter below a huge artificial lake between Bologna and Florence which is used by a pump storage power plant. The lake is emptied every day, and filled again every night.

The gravimeter is an accurate scales measuring the weight of a test mass.

While the lake is filled, the weight of the test mass reduces due to an additional pull upwards by the mass of millions of tons of water.

The experiment does not only detect the pull of the water, but the measurements are accurate enough to verify the inverse square distance dependency of gravity within a 0.17% level.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Federico-Palmonari-3/publication/235475100_Testing_Newton%27s_inverse_square_law_at_intermediate_scales/links/570d27aa08ae3199889bb973/Testing-Newtons-inverse-square-law-at-intermediate-scales.pdf?origin=publication_detail
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 23, 2022, 07:18:50 PM
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:

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.


Other observations:

These experiments don't allow to draw any conclusion about celestial bodies.
Newton's absolute space was debunked by Ernst Mach.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: curious2 on February 23, 2022, 08:01:23 PM
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:

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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Tradman on February 23, 2022, 08:12:53 PM
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.    
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 23, 2022, 08:26:41 PM
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 what? Do you think you're expected to?
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 23, 2022, 08:29:01 PM
Multi directional pull to explain gravity is pretty dumb.   

Why? How?
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: curious2 on February 23, 2022, 08:30:06 PM
I do expect to, if gravity is real.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 23, 2022, 08:35:57 PM
I do expect to, if gravity is real.

And why do you expect to, if gravity is real? Tell us more about your ideas of gravity you find unreal.

In the meantime, I was talking about Newtonian gravity not about unreal curious2ian gravity.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 23, 2022, 08:47:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Tradman on February 23, 2022, 09:00:42 PM
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?  
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 23, 2022, 09:05:37 PM
Highly accurate according to who? 

According to the industry producing them and their customers, who can and do verify the accuracy.

You could as well doubt that a Ford Fiesta can go 50 mph.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 23, 2022, 09:14:59 PM
These instruments are used by several billion dollar extractive/commodity industries, who make sure that their methods work.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 23, 2022, 09:17:31 PM
Multi directional pull to explain gravity is pretty dumb.   


Now you look pretty dumb. Not even able to answer questions.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Tradman on February 23, 2022, 10:16:19 PM

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. I would believe in it, but gravity as proposed by modern science is a graveyard. You got proof? Prove it.
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Marion on February 23, 2022, 10:22:38 PM
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". No reasons given, even after request.

:jester::facepalm:
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Tradman on February 23, 2022, 10:24:41 PM
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:
...
Title: Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
Post by: Dankward on February 24, 2022, 06:19:55 PM
The direction of gravity on earth is always vertical. But generally it just acts as a force, so it could come from multiple - any - direction (and even multiple at the same time, water being attracted the earth but also attracted by the moon, creating tides, shows exactly that).

But yes, plumb lines are not always straight in geodesy.
(https://i.imgur.com/JLdvxAw.png)