And everyone who has this off the wall theory that gravity doesn't exist, has yet to prove it doesn't exist....
Actually, you have it backwards. In science we have to prove it does exist first, but that isn't what happened with gravitation. Trying to disprove something that was never proven to begin with is a fools errand.
And all I need to do is throw a rock into the air, and when it comes back down, Proof Gravity does exist....
True. Gravity does exist, and has been a natural/scientific law for at least 2 millennia. It is merely the phenomenon of falling; "What goes up, must come down".
Gravitation on the other hand, the imaginary pseudo force believed and taught as the cause of gravity, is not proven and cannot be proven - because it is, and always was from its initial creation (a few hundred years ago), fiction.
Ask NASA’s top public relations ‘scientist’ to define gravity for you. If he can’t do it, then no one can.
Gravity is simply explained away by the principals of buoyancy and density. A rock falls because it is heavier than the atmospheric oxygen, the medium in which it finds itself in. However, if you through that rock into a pool of Jello, it would float. It’s not because the rock is now suddenly an anti gravity device, it’s because the medium, Jello, is now more dense than the rock. The rock becomes buoyant in that medium. Very simple science that does not require a spinning earth and a magical, physics-breaking force called gravity.
So far, the easiest explanation I have been given::
the other force is electromagnetism, with the air being negative and ground being positive, there is a flow of magnetism that flows from sky to ground.
And it is VERY Close, still the best though....
Look above, or below, to find the full comms on this....
Sure they do. They just are not destinations you can travel to or land ships on. They’re gaseous lights as far as modern telescopes can tell. They also wander, do not follow the same pattern as the rest of the stars.
In what way? Could you describe this contradiction? You seem to be under the mistaken, and common, impression that gravity and gravitation are the same thing.
I'd like to say the conversation was stimulating
You might if you tried having a conversation on the topic. I guess we'll never know will we?
But watching you jump through Mental Hoops
Why on earth did you capitalize "Mental Hoops"? Are you a bot?
I understand what you mean, and why you say this - but i disagree on semantic and scientific grounds.
Gravity is a scientific/natural law thousands of years old. It isn't going anywhere, and we shouldn't want it to. It is simply the phenomenon of falling; "What goes up, must come down."
The major modern problem with the word gravity is that is has been erroneously conflated with the cause for the phenomenon in the minds of many misled students. In science (and basic logic), the phenomenon cannot be the cause of itself. Teaching things like this is an attack on science.
that is determined by the electrostatic medium, the sky above is negative charge, the ground below is positive/neutral, and its a small force (1000x stronger than masses attraction, gravity) but it creates the flow from air to ground.
This is possible, but such speculation is usually not helpful - or necessary. Gravity is caused, as you said, when an object weighs more than the media it displaces. Weight is just an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
no, mass is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
Mass is fiction. It can't even be defined properly. It is a figment of the imagination, and exists only in equation. It is not a coincidence that when you combine it with the other fictional term, "gravitational acceleration", it returns to the real weight it began and was measured as in the first place :)
I feel much the same way about mass as you seem to feel about "gravity" (though perplexingly, miraculous perpetual acceleration applied to mass to create weight - which is gravitational acceleration / little g - doesn't seem to bother you).
Weight is the adjustment to mass caused by other forces, like buoyancy, your mass is the same, but you weight less in the pool.
It sounds like we have similar views on this. I use the terms "intrinsic weight" (weight without buoyancy) and "effective weight" (weight with buoyancy).
or by centrifical force, the mass is the same, but while spinning, the weight is much higher.
So you would say that someone weighs more when they land on the ground after jumping (and/or weighs less at the apex)? I would say they weigh the same and apply an impact force (as a parallel to your centrifuge example).
do you have other reason besides that?
I think that is reason enough, but the word is not just used by scientists. Long before the scientific method existed or scientists, the word gravity and the natural law of the same name was known and used by significant numbers of people. That very much includes today. There is no reason to get rid of a perfectly good word and sound concept. Otherwise we have to rename the law of gravity into something else (for starters), and this only causes more confusion among scientists and laypersons alike (most everyone we might speak with).
Gravity is NOT a force. its not what makes you fall.
True, and this is what needs to be clarified/corrected. Gravity is a natural law - the phenomenon of falling, known for millennia - nothing more. Natural laws do not and cannot include causes for themselves. That is what theory is for.
The theory (actually a pseudo theory erroneously billed as a law itself - the "force" - pseudo force in point of fact) is called gravitation. The law can never be conflated with the theory contrived to explain it, and to do so is an attack on science.
that is determined by the electrostatic medium, the sky above is negative charge, the ground below is positive/neutral, and its a small force (1000x stronger than masses attraction, gravity) but it creates the flow from air to ground.
But i can appreciate that you don't think of it as a speculation. The sky can often have a higher charge than the ground - but things still fall.
And I never said that gravity is caused when an object is more dense that the media it displaces
I thought you did when you said this :
its effected mainly by buoyancy; being denser than air
and this from another comment in this thread :
the reason a rock falls when you drop it is is two part, the stronger force is buoyancy. this is calculated using density relative to the density of the medium (air)
but gravity can just be replaced with acceleration and it's the same answer.
Gravity (little g) in equations is an acceleration - it's the same answer by definition. In my view, there is no mass whatsoever and the idea that there is some perpetual acceleration on all objects at rest is both stupid and a violation of many natural laws. Weight is intrinsic to the object.
The simple law of what goes up must come down has NOTHING to do with gravity.
It is the law of gravity, and has been for millennia. It has nothing to do with gravitation (a pseudo theory to ostensibly explain that law created a few hundred years ago).
It's misleading and you are just helping the assholes fool everyone by perpetuating it.
I've encountered many who share your view, however denying the law of gravity exists is silly as well as anti-historical and unscientific. It is an "overcorrection". Gravity (a scientific law millennia old), the name for the phenomenon of falling, is real. Gravitation (a few hundred years old) is the thing that doesn't exist.
If you are committed to a rebrand for marketing/outreach reasons, then what should the law of gravity (the phenomenon of falling) now be called? The law of falling, or law of density separation, doesn't have the same ring to it. I see no reason to wage an emotional and irrational war against a perfectly good and millennia old word.
Thanks for admitting Earth isn’t flat and gravity is an immutable measured constant.
Stop listening to the voices in your head. Having schizo conversations with yourself like this is always so embarrassing :(
You can go talk to yourself in a room, offline.
Also, no - even in the worldview you are supposedly playing apologist for - gravity is not an immutable measured constant.
So stop attacking me
Lol. When did i "attack" you (please provide quotes and/or links, or admit this is another one of your frequent lies)? Again, stop listening to the voices in your head - they're not your friends.
start proving your claims.
Proof is subjective (outside of mathematics). Only you can prove a claim for yourself, but i am happy to help if i can. What claim are you having trouble with?
Actually, you have it backwards. In science we have to prove it does exist first, but that isn't what happened with gravitation. Trying to disprove something that was never proven to begin with is a fools errand.
True. Gravity does exist, and has been a natural/scientific law for at least 2 millennia. It is merely the phenomenon of falling; "What goes up, must come down".
Gravitation on the other hand, the imaginary pseudo force believed and taught as the cause of gravity, is not proven and cannot be proven - because it is, and always was from its initial creation (a few hundred years ago), fiction.
Thank you for directly contradicting yourself....
I'd like to say the conversation was stimulating, but I'd be lying....
But watching you jump through Mental Hoops is rather entertaining....
Ask NASA’s top public relations ‘scientist’ to define gravity for you. If he can’t do it, then no one can.
Gravity is simply explained away by the principals of buoyancy and density. A rock falls because it is heavier than the atmospheric oxygen, the medium in which it finds itself in. However, if you through that rock into a pool of Jello, it would float. It’s not because the rock is now suddenly an anti gravity device, it’s because the medium, Jello, is now more dense than the rock. The rock becomes buoyant in that medium. Very simple science that does not require a spinning earth and a magical, physics-breaking force called gravity.
So far, the easiest explanation I have been given::
And it is VERY Close, still the best though....
Look above, or below, to find the full comms on this....
Finally we are getting somewhere....
Planets exist. You’re objectively wrong and clinically insane.
Sure they do. They just are not destinations you can travel to or land ships on. They’re gaseous lights as far as modern telescopes can tell. They also wander, do not follow the same pattern as the rest of the stars.
In what way? Could you describe this contradiction? You seem to be under the mistaken, and common, impression that gravity and gravitation are the same thing.
You might if you tried having a conversation on the topic. I guess we'll never know will we?
Why on earth did you capitalize "Mental Hoops"? Are you a bot?
Gravitas, Gravity, Gravitation....
Basically, they have commons....
Figure it out....
Yes, they have common roots. Yes, they all have different and distinct meanings. I guess, thanks for recognizing your error?
I guess i have. So the answer is, no. No you cannot describe any contradiction in my previous statements. Fair enough.
Yes, and the act that you had to point it out is just proof that I didn't lose....
Contradiction is a bitch, and you used it perfectly....
I understand what you mean, and why you say this - but i disagree on semantic and scientific grounds.
Gravity is a scientific/natural law thousands of years old. It isn't going anywhere, and we shouldn't want it to. It is simply the phenomenon of falling; "What goes up, must come down."
The major modern problem with the word gravity is that is has been erroneously conflated with the cause for the phenomenon in the minds of many misled students. In science (and basic logic), the phenomenon cannot be the cause of itself. Teaching things like this is an attack on science.
This is possible, but such speculation is usually not helpful - or necessary. Gravity is caused, as you said, when an object weighs more than the media it displaces. Weight is just an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter.
Mass is fiction. It can't even be defined properly. It is a figment of the imagination, and exists only in equation. It is not a coincidence that when you combine it with the other fictional term, "gravitational acceleration", it returns to the real weight it began and was measured as in the first place :)
I feel much the same way about mass as you seem to feel about "gravity" (though perplexingly, miraculous perpetual acceleration applied to mass to create weight - which is gravitational acceleration / little g - doesn't seem to bother you).
It sounds like we have similar views on this. I use the terms "intrinsic weight" (weight without buoyancy) and "effective weight" (weight with buoyancy).
So you would say that someone weighs more when they land on the ground after jumping (and/or weighs less at the apex)? I would say they weigh the same and apply an impact force (as a parallel to your centrifuge example).
I think that is reason enough, but the word is not just used by scientists. Long before the scientific method existed or scientists, the word gravity and the natural law of the same name was known and used by significant numbers of people. That very much includes today. There is no reason to get rid of a perfectly good word and sound concept. Otherwise we have to rename the law of gravity into something else (for starters), and this only causes more confusion among scientists and laypersons alike (most everyone we might speak with).
True, and this is what needs to be clarified/corrected. Gravity is a natural law - the phenomenon of falling, known for millennia - nothing more. Natural laws do not and cannot include causes for themselves. That is what theory is for.
The theory (actually a pseudo theory erroneously billed as a law itself - the "force" - pseudo force in point of fact) is called gravitation. The law can never be conflated with the theory contrived to explain it, and to do so is an attack on science.
I think you did when you said :
But i can appreciate that you don't think of it as a speculation. The sky can often have a higher charge than the ground - but things still fall.
I thought you did when you said this :
and this from another comment in this thread :
Gravity (little g) in equations is an acceleration - it's the same answer by definition. In my view, there is no mass whatsoever and the idea that there is some perpetual acceleration on all objects at rest is both stupid and a violation of many natural laws. Weight is intrinsic to the object.
It is the law of gravity, and has been for millennia. It has nothing to do with gravitation (a pseudo theory to ostensibly explain that law created a few hundred years ago).
I've encountered many who share your view, however denying the law of gravity exists is silly as well as anti-historical and unscientific. It is an "overcorrection". Gravity (a scientific law millennia old), the name for the phenomenon of falling, is real. Gravitation (a few hundred years old) is the thing that doesn't exist.
If you are committed to a rebrand for marketing/outreach reasons, then what should the law of gravity (the phenomenon of falling) now be called? The law of falling, or law of density separation, doesn't have the same ring to it. I see no reason to wage an emotional and irrational war against a perfectly good and millennia old word.
Unironically jump off a cliff, paid shill.
Unironically, the "paid shills" are the ones who respond like you do. Also, as you know - this is a violation of rule #1 here.
Those that can't attack the thought, attack the thinker instead out of desperation. Do better if you can.
Thanks for admitting Earth isn’t flat and gravity is an immutable measured constant.
What, gravity? No, no. Gravity is rule number 4 of the Universe itself. You can’t violate it. You’re powerless.
So stop attacking me, you worthless piece of shit, and start proving your claims.
Stop listening to the voices in your head. Having schizo conversations with yourself like this is always so embarrassing :(
You can go talk to yourself in a room, offline.
Also, no - even in the worldview you are supposedly playing apologist for - gravity is not an immutable measured constant.
Lol. When did i "attack" you (please provide quotes and/or links, or admit this is another one of your frequent lies)? Again, stop listening to the voices in your head - they're not your friends.
Proof is subjective (outside of mathematics). Only you can prove a claim for yourself, but i am happy to help if i can. What claim are you having trouble with?