I mean...hold a glass of water up and pour it out. Where does it go? Downward. That's the pull of gravity. There aren't any natural situations where this doesn't happen. Water will flow downward as gravity pulls it. I'm genuinely not sure what situations are where water isn't acting in this way.
Let's try an exercise: if you never knew about gravity and you were told that things fall down because, well, that's what they do, would you then try to refute that [by saying there's a force that "pulls" objects towards the ground]?
What if I told you there's a force that pushes things towards the center of mass (instead of pulling it)? Given what we observe, isn't that just as likely?
Why is an invisible force, that no one can quite put their finger on, required to explain what we observe?
Theoretically, yes! If I had not known anything about gravity, then I would imagine there would be open to interpretation whether an object is pushed or pulled. But, of course, the cause of that force would require some sort of explanation.
Why is an invisible force, that no one can quite put their finger on, required to explain what we observe?
People constantly seek answers to the "why." Why the sky is blue, why grass grows, why it's easier to machine aluminum than titanium. Since the era of enlightenment man has sought out answers and explanations to why things behave the way they do. Because, ultimately, the more we learn how these forces and world works, the better we are at utilizing its resources most effectively.
Ancient romans sought explanations in force, gravity, and engineering to build aqueducts, giving us some of the earliest examples of modern plumbing. The ability to construct something like that requires the explanations of the things we observe. It requires a knowledge on how gravity and, subsequently, waterflow works to create that sort of system.
It's perfectly fine to accept things as "just is." Especially in the modern age, it's quite easy to get by without having every little thing explained. But exploring those forces, the shape of the earth, the reasons why the sun rises and falls, give us greater knowledge to harness the power to build great things.
the cause of that force would require some sort of explanation.
Agreed, I have issue with this as well. The downward bias of things cannot be fully explained by density. Sure, denser objects will fall perpendicular to the ground because what lies beneath them is less dense, but that is not the case in a vacuum, yet objects still fall as one would expect.
Excluding the theory of gravity, there are two ways (that I'm aware of) in which the downward bias could be explained (and demonstrated!):
Incoherent Electrostatic Acceleration
This is the idea that the Earth is negatively charged and positively charged particles are drawn to it. I can't do it justice in writing, so it's better you watch this two-part exposition:
This one is simple: the ground is accelerating upwards at a constant rate. Pretty ludicrous, yet, to my mind, still not as ludicrous as what the globe model proposes. Here's a demonstration (4m) of how this works.
If this were the case, why aren't negatively charged particles (such as electrons) repelled by the earth?
This explanation to me is incredibly ludicrous. Wouldn't planes have to continually rise in altitude when they take flight? What is propelling the ground to be rising at such a rate?
Honestly, for me, both of these explanations produce more questions than answers.
I understand your explanation, and yes it's absolutely the case that the water is more dense than the air, hence why it goes down. Gravity though is the reason why the more dense water goes down instead of up. Density is a property, but it doesn't fully explain the reason why and object is pulled downward.
I mean...hold a glass of water up and pour it out. Where does it go? Downward. That's the pull of gravity. There aren't any natural situations where this doesn't happen. Water will flow downward as gravity pulls it. I'm genuinely not sure what situations are where water isn't acting in this way.
Let's try an exercise: if you never knew about gravity and you were told that things fall down because, well, that's what they do, would you then try to refute that [by saying there's a force that "pulls" objects towards the ground]?
What if I told you there's a force that pushes things towards the center of mass (instead of pulling it)? Given what we observe, isn't that just as likely?
Why is an invisible force, that no one can quite put their finger on, required to explain what we observe?
Theoretically, yes! If I had not known anything about gravity, then I would imagine there would be open to interpretation whether an object is pushed or pulled. But, of course, the cause of that force would require some sort of explanation.
People constantly seek answers to the "why." Why the sky is blue, why grass grows, why it's easier to machine aluminum than titanium. Since the era of enlightenment man has sought out answers and explanations to why things behave the way they do. Because, ultimately, the more we learn how these forces and world works, the better we are at utilizing its resources most effectively.
Ancient romans sought explanations in force, gravity, and engineering to build aqueducts, giving us some of the earliest examples of modern plumbing. The ability to construct something like that requires the explanations of the things we observe. It requires a knowledge on how gravity and, subsequently, waterflow works to create that sort of system.
It's perfectly fine to accept things as "just is." Especially in the modern age, it's quite easy to get by without having every little thing explained. But exploring those forces, the shape of the earth, the reasons why the sun rises and falls, give us greater knowledge to harness the power to build great things.
Agreed, I have issue with this as well. The downward bias of things cannot be fully explained by density. Sure, denser objects will fall perpendicular to the ground because what lies beneath them is less dense, but that is not the case in a vacuum, yet objects still fall as one would expect.
Excluding the theory of gravity, there are two ways (that I'm aware of) in which the downward bias could be explained (and demonstrated!):
Incoherent Electrostatic Acceleration
This is the idea that the Earth is negatively charged and positively charged particles are drawn to it. I can't do it justice in writing, so it's better you watch this two-part exposition:
Upward Acceleration
This one is simple: the ground is accelerating upwards at a constant rate. Pretty ludicrous, yet, to my mind, still not as ludicrous as what the globe model proposes. Here's a demonstration (4m) of how this works.
I'm personally leaning towards 1).
If this were the case, why aren't negatively charged particles (such as electrons) repelled by the earth?
This explanation to me is incredibly ludicrous. Wouldn't planes have to continually rise in altitude when they take flight? What is propelling the ground to be rising at such a rate?
Honestly, for me, both of these explanations produce more questions than answers.
I understand your explanation, and yes it's absolutely the case that the water is more dense than the air, hence why it goes down. Gravity though is the reason why the more dense water goes down instead of up. Density is a property, but it doesn't fully explain the reason why and object is pulled downward.
So if I jump, am I making myself more buoyant in the air? And then when I fall back down, is it because my density is increasing?