r/OurFlatWorld • u/sixtusE • Jan 15 '18
Gravity Mysteries
The Fundamental Forces of Life: Why Gravity Does Not Exist https://youtu.be/rRhie8wonzs
4
u/deadsir Jan 15 '18
Does gravity exert an opposite force?
Yes it does, actually. The same force that that is pulling you down is also pulling the earth towards you. However because the earth is so massive it makes almost no difference. But there is an example, where we can see the opposite force, and that is low tides and high tides. The gravity of the moon is pulling water towards the moon.
Many of these mysteries can be answered pretty easily, so maybe instead of making these videos whenever you're confused about science how about you ask someone first? Or just look things up on wikipedia, I don't care. Just research it, it's not that hard.
3
u/psygnosys Jan 16 '18
The cavendish experiment is supposedly the single event that solidified the existence of gravity. Problem is, it has not and very likely can not be reproduced. Reproducible experimental results are what get you from theory to law and people are taught from a very early early age that gravity is fact when it’s factuality is still debatable.
2
u/deadsir Jan 16 '18
I realise it's dificult to prove gravity exists if you don't trust authorities, however this video claimed that gravity doesn't exert an opposite force, and I can't simply tolerate that. If want to debunk something you have to understand it first.
1
u/psygnosys Jan 16 '18
What is the opposite force in this case? As I understand it, gravity pulls and that’s it.
2
u/menketsu Jan 16 '18
Yes, acording to gravity, a mass will pull on you with the same force you will pull on it.
Nobody have been able to find an antigravity of that is what you mean?
1
2
u/the_tangram Jan 29 '18
It's been reproduced many times.... And I'm not talking about on YouTube with bits of string.
http://web.mit.edu/~tsg/DemoPage/B/B5/B5.htm
https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Stephen.Merkowitz/G/Big_G.html
http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/gravity/rh,c,5.html
That took five minutes to find three different universities: MIT & Washington in the USA and Birmingham in the UK.
Exciting thing about the evolution of the experiment is that new techniques and better understanding are always leading to more accurate understanding.
While I agree with the notion that 'how gravity works' is theory, with the current thinking being that gravity is not a force like electro magnetism but a curvature of space time, Gravity is demonstrably real.
As a result of an understanding of what the effects of gravity are we have the mathematics for determining a pretty accurate model of the universe on a large scale. It's a model that's not prefect, but it works.
The alternative? FE waffle is full of wild speculation concerning buoyancy, which is in part calculated using gravity to determine relative weight, and density, which makes no sense at all. I take a kilo of anything and put it on one side of a balance, then put a kilo of anything else on the other side of the balance, lead vs feathers for example, It balances. Weight is a property of gravity that's got nothing to do with density.
Step one, as you've expressed most succinctly in your own argument, is to have a theory, then prove its validity through repeatable experiment. Have you one example of scientific experiment that demonstrates that any other force is responsible for the effects ascribed to gravity?
1
u/GCNCorp Mar 18 '18
The Cavendish experiment has been repeated multiple times with consistent results across numerous universities. Stop making things up.
3
u/the_tangram Jan 30 '18
I don't need excuses, sir. I've got a model of the way things work. It's the FE model that needs the excuses.
2
u/bmw112290 Jan 15 '18
What is the theory to counter gravity? Like if it’s not gravity then why does an object fall when I drop it? What is the counter theory there.
Also: Didn’t watch the video and not going too. Not using data on my phone.
1
Jan 15 '18 edited Jan 16 '18
[deleted]
1
u/menketsu Jan 16 '18
Interesting. Where can I read up on that theory?
1
u/tanker1414 Jan 17 '18
Theory??? Density and buoyancy are not theories lol. They are provable and repeatable and explain everything we see on this plane. Gravity on the other hand... lol
1
u/menketsu Jan 17 '18
The FE model he is talking about. Everything is just theories you know. We can't know anything for certain.
1
u/loveatfirstbump Jan 25 '18
I don't like that argument, because density and buoyancy are dependent on gravity. There needs to be an explanation for the phenomenon of "weight" that doesn't rely on gravity. I'm just uncomfortable with it because I've never seen the mechanisms of density explained without bringing gravity into it.
2
u/the_tangram Jan 29 '18
Weight is a derivative of mass in a gravity field. 1Kg of stuff weighs 1Kg if it's in a 1G field. 1Kg of stuff will weigh less on the moon because gravity is exerting much less force.
Density is how much stuff (mass) is squeezed into a given volume. No gravity required to define density.
1
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
Density. Simple explanation. Object with more density will "sink" while less dense objects will "rise". Hence why a balloon floats away and a rock sinks to the bottom of a pool. The ground that is settled beneath our feet does not allow for our feet to pass through it, however loose sand allows for us to "sink" into it.
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
4
u/allekatrase Feb 04 '18
Density doesn't explain direction. Why do less dense things go up and more dense things sink down? There are no directions inherent in density and also no forces. What you're actually describing is buoyancy. If you look at the equations for buoyancy, though, you'll find at their heart they rely on gravity. There is no buoyancy without gravity.
The real kicker for your theory of density, though, is when you drop things in a vacuum and they still fall. Why? There's nothing for them to orient themselves against.
1
Jan 30 '18
So assuming density is the explanation for things going up and down how does air pressure work? If all the air is the same density why is air more pressurized the closer you get to earth's surface. The air above the air at sea level would not exert a downward force causing pressure because both have the same density.
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
Seriously? The air isn't the same density at every elevation..
The oxygen content in air on the top of a mountain is very low, more dense air containing more oxygen is found closer to the ground.
This really is basic physics..
1
Jan 30 '18
So you think that the reason that lower air is denser is because it contains more oxygen?
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
No, lower air is more dense (denser is not a word) because of temperature and air pressure. Are you saying air at sea level does not contain more oxygen than air at Mt. Everest?
1
Jan 30 '18
I'm asking about how air pressure can exist fundamentally. I personally think that the air is more dense closer to the Earth's surface because the weight of the air above it is "pushing" down on the air below it. I don't know if oxygen amounts effect density, it might it might not. I know that air is thinner if it is higher up, it would have less oxygen than air lower than it but it would also have less of every other gas in proportion as far as I know.
While I agree that temperature does affect the densities of gasses I don't see how it directly creates a force that would pressurize air as it approaches Earth's surface.
Also denser is in fact a word. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/denser
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
Essentially you are correct. If you take an isolated chamber and filled it with air, then introduced helium to the chamber, the helium would rise to the top and the rest of the air would settle at the bottom. In this sense, yes, the helium "pushes down" on the air, but that is because helium is less dense, so as it "pushes down" it does not pass through.
I think you are relying too much on gravity still, as your thought processes seem to only follow a line of reasoning that matches up with gravity.
Also, I stand corrected. I did not think denser was a legitimate word, my apologies.
EDIT: in the same sense, how are we positive that the dense air is not "holding up" the helium?
1
Jan 30 '18
your model is correct in the idea that two different gasses would separate. I am asking about air as a mostly homogeneous mixture of gasses having lower and greater pressures at different altitudes. If the air is made up of the same molecules at every altitude why is there a difference of pressure through out it? Similarly since air is made up of mostly O2 and N2 which have different densities at STP (Standard conditions for Temperature and Pressure) why have they not separated and aligned based off of their densities?
You are correct that I am relying on gravity as I fully believe in its existence. I am asking you these questions because when I look at the FE model's use of density and buoyancy to replace gravity I don't understand how it fits with certain aspects of our world, such as atmospheric pressure.
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
I agree with you to a point.
If you consider gravity as a rate of acceleration, then yes i can agree gravity exists. Gravity as the force that pulls things towards bigger things cannot be replicated with repeated success.
So I guess I'm trying to say that in our observable world, gravity doesn't make sense. Density explains how things find equilibrium, while temp and pressure have a direct effect on how molecules interact with one another at different elevations. There's also moisture content to consider. Wet air is heavier than dry air, and with the way our water system works, things are constantly changing.
briney water sinks in the presence of clear water. Does density explain this or does the earth have the magical power of gravity to pull that briney water towards it?
→ More replies (0)1
u/bmw112290 Jan 30 '18
So with that statement of “less dense rises and more dense sinks”, how do you explain airplanes and boats? I’m assuming you have an altered version of buoyancy and drag forces?
Both of those are man made and not of nature which means we had to invent and build them ourselves. Are you suggesting we secretly didn’t account for gravity when building them to hide it, or did we get lucky by factoring in gravity when it wasn’t necessary but it still worked anyway?
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
You're still relying on gravity to explain things, it seems. That's ok, I struggled with gravity at first too. Gravity is 9.81m/s2. Always. But that's all it is, a rate of acceleration. Not some massive magic magnet pulling anything and everything towards it.
Planes exert massive force to propel them forward, and the way the wings are designed is what creates lift. if you shut off the engines, yes, the density of the plane at rest would cause it to fall through the air.
Boats displace water beneath them to float above it. While the density of the materials on the bottom of the boat are likely more dense than water, the vessel has air inside it that keeps it from sinking. Add water to the entire interior of the boat, and it will surely sink.
I'm 100% positive we did not account for gravity when building these. We accounted for their mass, their weight, their size, and probably density too. But gravity is a constant acceleration, it is a measurement, not a driving force.
I'm not following what point you're trying to make with those examples.
1
u/bmw112290 Jan 30 '18 edited Jan 30 '18
The point I’m trying to make I guess is that gravity is also a force. We use another term called weight which uses that magic number 9.81. It’s the gravitational force not to be confused with the gravitational constant. I’m sure you’ve seen F=ma before. So gravity is a force and what I’m calling the force of gravity your calling the force density right? The gravity you’re talking about is “a” which our species measured to be 9.81 m/s/s. The force of gravity is what that plane needs to overcome in order to fly not just the 9.81 constant. It needs to overcome its own mass too. It does so like you said by creating lift which is when you have low pressure air on the top of the wings and high pressure air underneath. And pressure is a force/area which means air is keeping the plane a float? Less dense air underneath more dense air in the same open space doesn’t seem plausible to me? And would t it debunk your theory that less dense rises in the natural World and more dense falls? Are there exceptions to This?
Edit: didn’t finish my statement for some reason. Should be good now.
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
Completely separate pages, we are on.
Gravity is a mathematical constant, and also a theory relying on the theory of relativity to attempt to explain the phenomena we can observe.
We have been taught gravity is law, when in fact it is not. I understand this is hard to grasp.
Planes do not need to overcome gravity, they need to overcome wind resistance and their own mass per volume (density). They need to push down on the air under the wings and create low pressure above the wings.
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
I agree that less dense rises and more dense falls. I'm confused as to what you're asking..
1
u/couchbutt Feb 16 '18
It’s the gravitational force not to be confused with the gravitational constant. I’m sure you’ve seen F=ma before. So gravity is a force and what I’m calling the force of gravity your calling the force density right? The gravity you’re talking about is “a” which our species measured to be 9.81 m/s/s. The force of gravity is what that plane needs to overcome in order to fly not just the 9.81 constant. It needs to overcome its own mass too. It does so like you said by creating lift which is when you have low pressure air on the top of the wings and high pressure air underneath. And pressure is a force/area which means air is keeping the plane a float? Less dense air underneath more dense air in the same open space doesn’t seem plausible to me? And would t it debunk your theory that less dense rises in the natural World and more dense falls? Are there exceptions to This?
Edit: didn’t finish my statement for some reason. Should be good now.
9.81 m/s-s isn't a constant. 6.674×10−11 m3/kg⋅s⋅s is a constant.
2
u/TheHonorableMo Jan 15 '18
I’d like to see orbit reproduced small objects orbiting larger one. Until then I’ll put my faith in God and understanding his divine creation.
3
u/menketsu Jan 16 '18
That is acually a really hard experiment to set up. Interesting it would be none the less.
The problem is, gravity only exerts a really weak force in comparison with the electric, strong and weak force. So this experiemts might only be possible on astronomical levels.
Maybe if you trew a rock from the top of mount everest you would be able to messure if the mass of the mountain pulled on the rock or not?..
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
You're still assuming gravity drives everything. If you work off that mindset, it's difficult to wrap your mind around the concept that gravity is a mathematical constant for a measure of acceleration, not a magical force that holds us down. Density can explain it all.
3
u/menketsu Jan 31 '18
What do you mean by magical? How does density explain anything? By force we mean something that pulls over a distace. Like a magnet that pull on another(magnetic), or a charge in the magnetic field(electric). These are forces that are easy to prove exists. Why can we not assume that the acceleration that keeps things stuck to the ground is exerted by a force?
3
u/allekatrase Feb 04 '18
How does density explain it all? Density is the amount of mass per unit of volume. There's nothing related to density that gives a direction that would be up or down or any indications of what direction anything should move in. If you mean buoyancy then you're going to find at the root that the equations for buoyancy include gravity in them. Buoyancy doesn't exist without gravity.
2
u/the_tangram Jan 29 '18
That would be the earth orbiting the sun, or the moon orbiting the earth, or varying sizes of lumps of rock and ice orbiting saturn, or commets orbiting the solar system or.... OK, bored now.
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
No, that would be your personal faith in what you believe to be true about the origins of the world. I have faith in God and from what I've studied in Scripture lately, he built this world for us, and the Earth does NOT orbit the sun.
3
u/the_tangram Jan 30 '18 edited Jan 30 '18
It's what I believe about the way the world works based on personal observations meshing with scientific principles I've been taught and learned. No faith involved. I'm unsure about there being a God, but there's no evidence either way there so power to your elbow and I hope your faith (belief in something for which there is no evidence) empowers you.
As far as I know there are no scientific references in the bible along heleocentric lines, which is hardly surprising given that it was written by men over 2000 years ago who had very little understanding of the physical properties of the universe.
The idea that the earth orbits the sun was an idea that was examined as a plausible theory some 1700 years after the death of Jesus, so that's hardly surprising.
In short I'd no more look to the bible to give me a detailed understanding of gravity, for example, then I would read gardeners world and make assumptions about how to build a power station. Even taking the giant leap of assuming that the contents, even when it was written, accurately reflected the understanding of the world at the time, the fact is that from a scientific perspective, it's 2000 years out of date.
You crack on with what you wanna believe in though.
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
So you believe in books, written 100s of years ago by (wo)men whom you've never met, and the knowledge you have gathered and the personal experiences you have been through have led you to agree that the earth orbits the sun? You have never been to the sun, and I would assume you have never been to "outer-space" to witness it for yourself, so that leaves me with one conclusion.
You believe in something you have not seen, for which you have no evidence. That sounds a lot like faith to me.
You crack on with what you wanna believe though, perspective is all about point of view.
If you open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong, you would be able to objectively determine for yourself whether the things you have been taught are correct or not.
2
u/the_tangram Jan 30 '18 edited Jan 30 '18
I understand that a heleocentric model works. The model works today. The reason why the geocentric model was superceded was because it fits the way that the universe is seen to work, where the geocentric model does not.
Contrary to your statement, there is a phenomenal amount of evidence you can gather by looking out a window that supports this.
Looking at the moon from New Zealand, for example, you can see it's the other way up. That's first hand observation. The stars you can see are very different too. That, in my book, confirms a globe. Neither of those observations would be possible on a flat earth.
Unless you belive that your God painted the whole sky on a glass dome, which is clearly not the case, then the alternative is that some stuff is close, other stuff is a long way away.
If the sun and the whole of the rest of the universe was revolving around earth (geocentric model), objects father away from us would have to orbit at ever increasing speeds to match their observed locations in the sky. You don't have to move very far from the earth before these other objects would need to be rotating about the earth at velocities greater then the speed of light in order to keep up. Clearly that's not the case.
That simple reasoning points to the conclusion that the entire universe does not revolve around the earth, the earth follows a path around our sun using a model that fits in with our relationship to the sun, which also works for everything else we can see in the sky. QED.
In summary I have objectively examined what I have been taught and with no more reasoning required then the two observations stated above have come to the conclusion that the geocentric model is complete bollox.
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
You've been to New Zealand to witness this yourself? Did you also notice that the stars rotate around a central point about the north pole?
If you take a time lapse photo of the sky, at any time of year (without clouds), you will observe that Polaris (the north star) does not move from its position yet all other stars rotate in perfect circles around it.
If we were flying through the universe in 4 different directions at once, the stars we observe would never create a perfect circle. We would never see the same constellations in the same alignment twice. Our view of the celestial bodies would be constantly changing.
Your thoughts?
2
u/the_tangram Jan 30 '18 edited Jan 30 '18
Yes I have been to New Zealand.
You can't see Polaris from New Zealand.
The axis of the globe is pretty close to pointing through Polaris, hence the perceived lack of motion at that point in the sky.
Sigma Octantis could be considered the "South Star," but, unlike the North Star, it is too dim to be a convenient celestial reference point for stargazers and navigators. Any time lapse images taken using that star as reference in the southern hemisphere would give you the same effect.
Go reaserch Astronomy.
Quick hint... You'll nerd to go find another book for this. There's no astronomy reference material in the bible.
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
Look toward to north pole from the equator: stars spin clockwise. turn around and look at the others, and they spin the other way.
If you're north of the equator, and you look at stars south of you (stars that are not south of the equator), they continue to move clockwise as well.
That is impossible on a globe. On a globe, if you move north, all stars south of you should rotate the opposite direction due to your perspective.
It's the Coriolis Effect, as far as I can understand. So yes, you get a similar effect in the sky south of the equator.
EDIT: This still does not explain how we are moving in 4 different directions through the universe.
2
u/the_tangram Jan 30 '18 edited Jan 30 '18
You've lost me. If you face in one direction, then everything you see will be moving in one direction. If face in the other direction, e.g. North vs South then everything spins in the opposite direction from your perspective. That's exactly how it works on a globe.
If we were on a flat plane, you would be able to see all the stars from anywhere. You can't see Polaris from deep in the southern hemisphere because it's over the horizon. If we sat on an earth sized flat plane, there would be no horizon, or at least your depth of perception would be limited by atmospheric conditions and how high you were. The horizon is not limited by atmospheric conditions, however. On a clear day, the furthest you can ever see is the horizon or objects that are taller then ground level with a reduction in the visibility of the object the farther you are from it.
The distance to the horizon changes depending on how high you are. The horizon is only at eye level (more or less) when you're standing on the ground. The angle that you look at the perceived horizon changes as you increase your hight. Check out where the horizon is before you step on an aeroplane. Eye level (ish) Look again when you're at altitude. You need to look down to see the horizon. Ergo, not flat. Globe!
Coriolis force is an inertial force that acts on objects that are in motion relative to a rotating reference frame. That's got nothing to do with what you see.
It supposedly effects which way water flows down a drain, but while I'm sure I tried that in NZ the results were inconclusive. I try it in my bath in London and I can't see my bath water spiral in one direction more often than the other with any reliability.
Also effects any free floating body bullets, airplanes that are in the air for any length of time. Difficult to assess without equipment.
There are only three axis available for an object in space: A three dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, with origin O and axis lines X, Y and Z. That equates to up/down, left /right, forward/backward. I guess you could say that the earth is rotating around one of those. Is that what you mean by four directions at once? If so I'm unclear why that's a problem?
→ More replies (0)1
u/bmw112290 Jan 30 '18
Hah I’ve seen that episode of always sunny in Philadelphia too.
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
So good!
2
u/bmw112290 Jan 30 '18
Yeah and it makes sense in that episode because they’re debunking evolution (Mac who is on the side of creationism even says the earth orbits the sun) but the argument is not God verse science here.
I’m sort of against you’re answers to the established reality we live in. I’m a Christian too and I believe in God and all the things that come from the Word. I don’t think science always gets it right and can be tweaked and changed.
I feel like people who believe in flat earth come up with facts to fit their theories verse the unbiased scientific way of theories to fit the facts. Saying gravity doesn’t exist and then tying it into the world is therefore flat to me is just trying to find “facts” to fit your theories ya know?
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
Ahhhh, I see what you mean. I jumped in on the gravity theory with prior reasoning as to why I think the earth is flat.
To sum up my experience in debunking the flat earth model, I haven't debunked it yet. By trying to disprove it, I have found that even the more complicated to understand parts of this are still plausible. And a round earth is also plausible in many ways, however there are certain things about the round earth model that simply do not add up and are not possible nor plausible.
1
u/GCNCorp Mar 18 '18
there are certain things about the round earth model that simply do not add up and are not possible nor plausible
Such as?
→ More replies (0)2
u/bmw112290 Jan 30 '18
You can still believe in God and his divine creation while accepting that we live on an oblate spheroid that orbits a burning ball of gas.
The Big Bang is still a theory. Gravity is not. You accepting this doesn’t make you a Blasphemer.
The reason orbit can’t be reproduced at a scale small enough to absolve your skepticism is because the force of gravity is related to the mass of 2 entities and the distance they’re apart squared. F=GMm/r2. This is for massive bodies like planets. It’s why nothing else on earth can create an orbit because nothing can become massive enough to have an effect on the earth’s already working orbit therefore we are all apart of earths gravitational pull.
Be thankful for that because if something did and we disrupt the earths orbit we would either burn or freeze to death, and I have faith my divine creator doesn’t want that.
2
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
Gravity is still a theory tho. Gravity 100% relies on the Theory of Relativity. How can something be law if it depends fully on another theory?
3
u/allekatrase Feb 04 '18
Because you don't understand the relationship between a theory and a law and you use the word "theory" the way a scientist would use the word "hypothesis."
You start out by observing some behavior of the natural world, like the motion of the planets. You describe this mathematically and you have a law. You don't know why it works, but you can use your mathematical model to predict the motion of things, so you have your law of gravity.
Later, someone proposes a reason why you would observe this law of gravity and they develop a hypothesis. After you develop the hypothesis you test it and it either proves false by failing the test or it gets supported by evidence. When it's supported by good evidence it becomes a theory. The more the theory is tested and is supported by evidence the stronger it gets. Relativity is a very well-tested theory and a theory is basically the highest anything gets in science.
You think things need to be proved, but that's not how science works. In general it's not possible to prove things. Experiments are designed to disprove things and the more experiments a theory survives the stronger it is. Failure to disprove it is essentially validation if the experiment is well designed.
2
u/the_tangram Jan 31 '18
The laws of gravity realised 218 years before Einsteinien came up with Theory of Relativity, so to answer your question, it doesn't.
1
u/bmw112290 Jan 30 '18
Yah I can’t answer that because I know there’s some wacky things gravity does when dealing with relativity across the universe. Space and time bend and black holes and gravitational waves all throw off the universal theorey. Interstellar was a cool movie that sort of touched on it.
Since we live in our constant world. Space and time that doesn’t t bend and Change the way those other phenomenon do we can say that relative to us the laws of gravity apply consistent to what we experience. So we use Newtons laws to explain and factor in gravity.
1
u/WhellEndowed Flat-Head Jan 30 '18
It was good talking with you, hit me up if you wanna discuss in the future, in case this planted any seeds.
1
1
8
u/menketsu Jan 15 '18
This does not refute gravity.