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.
No, that is the standard view of many (if not most) physicists. They may phrase it slightly differently, like that gravity (they mean gravitation) appears much like an acceleration or is "effectively" an acceleration - but the view above is the standard one.
My view (and that of greater humanity going back millennia) is that gravity is the phenomenon of falling - nothing more. It is caused by the weight of the object being greater than the weight of the media it displaces as described in archemides' principal. Unlike gravitation, this cause is experimentally verified and verifiable.
weight is the same as mass
I think we agree in concept, but i disagree with the verbiage. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. There is no mass, just like there is no gravitation (both mathematical fictions derived from real and measured weight). There is only matter, and its weight (though typically when we weigh things with a standard scale - we factor in the buoyant force, what i term "effective weight").
you shouldn't have an opinion if you cant understand that is meant by acceleration
I have a pretty solid grasp on traditional physics, i know what acceleration is and what is meant when physicists say "gravity is (like) acceleration".
and gravity, is not a force. so its totally, utterly unneeded and useless in every sense of the word
It is correct that gravity is not a force. Weight is the force. Gravity is a natural/scientific law (aka a phenomenon, i.e. the phenomenon of falling).
you explain that gravity was an invention by the freemasons ... isaac newton
Gravity was around far longer than them. Even the concept of gravitation was as well, and newton merely invoked it to solve an astronomical math problem. It is gravitation which is fiction, not the law of gravity (which is plain for all to see/demonstrate)!
so call it the laws of Aether. In dense Aether, you fall slow or not at all, Aether gets denser as you get father from the ground.
Interesting view. I myself am an aether proponent, but why/how would it become denser the further you get from the ground?
Even if everything you said were true, it would still not be a good reason to discard the law of gravity. There is certainly an educational challenge as you decouple gravitation from it, but that conflation is a mistake and an attack on science. It has to be fixed anyway if we want to fight against scientific illiteracy.
Wanting that to be the case is fine - if not natural. Declaring it so is religious zealotry. I'm sure several things you said are untrue (and vice versa).
For example, there is no reason to assume that aether would have greater density above us than at the surface (opposite to all other forms of matter) and there is measurement (vertical interferometers) showing that it doesn't. There is also no reason to assume that electrostatic/electrical charge differential between the sky and the ground has anything to do with falling (the measured charge differential fluctuates, but the phenomenon of falling is unaffected).
there is no reason to hold onto a fake law
I agree. Fake laws should be discarded. Gravity, however, is not a fake law. What goes up, must come down - and it is as true today as when the law was first observed and then formalized (and for the same reasons).
Laws are just consistently repeatable/demonstrable phenomena, nothing more. You don't disagree that things fall. We call that tendency to fall gravity, and have for thousands of years. Don't fix what isn't broken, and don't throw the baby (gravity) out with the bathwater (gravitation)!
not sure what you would need to hear to understand that there is no need for the word or concept of gravity or gravitation
If gravity were not real, that would be plenty and i'd agree with you. Gravity (the phenomenon of falling) is real and repeatably demonstrable (as all laws must be, as that is what makes them laws in the first place). It is gravitation (the supposed force that causes gravity) that is not real. Do you understand what i am saying / the distinction i am making? Gravity (thousands of years old) is NOT gravitation (a few hundred years old).
its the most unscientific term in science.
Gravitation, i generally agree with you (though "evolution" is a more unscientific term). Gravity is as scientific as any other validated and validatable law.
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.
No, that is the standard view of many (if not most) physicists. They may phrase it slightly differently, like that gravity (they mean gravitation) appears much like an acceleration or is "effectively" an acceleration - but the view above is the standard one.
My view (and that of greater humanity going back millennia) is that gravity is the phenomenon of falling - nothing more. It is caused by the weight of the object being greater than the weight of the media it displaces as described in archemides' principal. Unlike gravitation, this cause is experimentally verified and verifiable.
I think we agree in concept, but i disagree with the verbiage. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. There is no mass, just like there is no gravitation (both mathematical fictions derived from real and measured weight). There is only matter, and its weight (though typically when we weigh things with a standard scale - we factor in the buoyant force, what i term "effective weight").
I have a pretty solid grasp on traditional physics, i know what acceleration is and what is meant when physicists say "gravity is (like) acceleration".
It is correct that gravity is not a force. Weight is the force. Gravity is a natural/scientific law (aka a phenomenon, i.e. the phenomenon of falling).
Gravity was around far longer than them. Even the concept of gravitation was as well, and newton merely invoked it to solve an astronomical math problem. It is gravitation which is fiction, not the law of gravity (which is plain for all to see/demonstrate)!
Interesting view. I myself am an aether proponent, but why/how would it become denser the further you get from the ground?
Even if everything you said were true, it would still not be a good reason to discard the law of gravity. There is certainly an educational challenge as you decouple gravitation from it, but that conflation is a mistake and an attack on science. It has to be fixed anyway if we want to fight against scientific illiteracy.
Wanting that to be the case is fine - if not natural. Declaring it so is religious zealotry. I'm sure several things you said are untrue (and vice versa).
For example, there is no reason to assume that aether would have greater density above us than at the surface (opposite to all other forms of matter) and there is measurement (vertical interferometers) showing that it doesn't. There is also no reason to assume that electrostatic/electrical charge differential between the sky and the ground has anything to do with falling (the measured charge differential fluctuates, but the phenomenon of falling is unaffected).
I agree. Fake laws should be discarded. Gravity, however, is not a fake law. What goes up, must come down - and it is as true today as when the law was first observed and then formalized (and for the same reasons).
Laws are just consistently repeatable/demonstrable phenomena, nothing more. You don't disagree that things fall. We call that tendency to fall gravity, and have for thousands of years. Don't fix what isn't broken, and don't throw the baby (gravity) out with the bathwater (gravitation)!
If gravity were not real, that would be plenty and i'd agree with you. Gravity (the phenomenon of falling) is real and repeatably demonstrable (as all laws must be, as that is what makes them laws in the first place). It is gravitation (the supposed force that causes gravity) that is not real. Do you understand what i am saying / the distinction i am making? Gravity (thousands of years old) is NOT gravitation (a few hundred years old).
Gravitation, i generally agree with you (though "evolution" is a more unscientific term). Gravity is as scientific as any other validated and validatable law.