Does Gravity Even Exist?

The reason we take these for granted today is that they were proved over hundreds of years. In the case of the Earth orbiting the Sun, Galileo was persecuted by the church for even suggesting such a thing.

Time zones are human constructs to account for the sun rising at different times in different places of the world. I know people who don't believe this, but it is pretty easy to test, just call someone in a different time zone.


But this isn't true is it. If you blow up a balloon and let it go, it falls to the ground. The balloon only floats if you put something lighter than air into it like helium or hydrogen. That should be a big hint.

Gravity is not "bypassed", it is countered. If I see a box on the floor and I pick it up, I am not bypassing gravity, I am countering it and if I stop countering it, the box will go right back to the floor. Animals who fly or glide are not bypassing gravity, they are expending energy to momentarily counter it.

No, gravity is not the strongest of forces unless you have huge masses involved.

By expending huge amounts of energy to counter gravity. Stop putting out the energy and the plane falls

Understanding buoyancy requires an understanding of gravity. There is not buoyancy without gravity.

Exactly, there are forces countering gravity. The empty space inside is insignificant since it is filled with the same stuff that is on the outside (air), but yes, there are a lot of forces working together to counter gravity.

The Bible doesn't concern itself with physics. It's really funny you reference amusement park rides designed by engineers with knowledge of physics to try and say physics doesn't work.

No, and no. Galileo's trial concerning heliocentrism did not actually go down like you hear in most accounts (which act like he was hounded for twenty years. He was accused of heresy, and later called the whole thing an idle fancy of youth.
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-truth-about-galileo-and-his-conflict-with-the-catholic-church

As for the first point, the reason you believe this is because from early childhood onward, you get spammed by pictures of a round Earth. So you think that the science must be settled, and you buy the narrative.

Universal Studios logo

Pictures on magazines and posters of a round earth.

Globes

These are all very nice, but the fact is that you're told over and over from even when you're a child (perhaps you've seen those kid's planet models above cribs) what the solar system looks like and how it behaves. So atheist types get after Christians for supposedly "brainwashing" children, but this is hardcore.



...No. They had to do with the time being minutes off at every train station. It used to be that there were clocks at each one, but they decided to set a synchronized time by hourly zones. This is the effect of centralized government. And if they can get you to believe that five miles across a time zone is really an hour apart, they can get the public to cooperate with or accept anything.

I am assuming the gas in it is lighter than air. But that's kinda exactly the point. Lighter than air. We are not talking about a "force" that pressed down on things. We are talking about density verses layers of air pressure. Most vehicles are not suited to reaching the stratosphere because they are (1) too dense and (2) there isn't upward propulsion enough to overcome this.

It's bypassed. Birds should not be strong enough with their fragile bodies to fly past something that is supposedly strong enough to hold the ground together while the Earth is spinning at over 1000 mph ( btw, there isn't such a thing as perpetual motion, we are told that day in and day out, the Earth spins on its axis but if a human were to spin on their axis for even an hour, they would become dizzy and violently ill, an inanimate object likewise would begin to rip off chunks of itself). But they are, easily, simply by having light bodies. Shouldn't a powerful force be difficult to overcome?

No, it is explicitly stated that the reason water doesn't fall off the Earth is because of gravity and rotation. But this is not duplicated in any micro-level test. I went to a science museum, and they are trying to convince you that water is staying on this big metal globe. Actually, it's constantly falling off, and the water that seems to be going to the top is only doing so because they have a strong pump underneath the globe pushing water upwards to turn the globe. If the globe was turned by air pressure instead, all water would settle to the bottom. In space, constantly rotating, this is exactly what would happen.

Right. It uses forces like propulsion to lift itself. But there is also the factor of being largely hollow inside, and having wide aerodynamic wings. But if gravity is as much a thing as you seem to think it is, it shouldn't glide much less fly, not at any speed. Its weight is roughly 910,000 lb.
https://www.flightdeckfriend.com/ask-a-pilot/how-much-does-a-747-weigh
The more something weighs, the more gravity should exert pressure on it to fall. Instead, this jumbo jet flies from North America to Europe to Africa.

There is no "gravity" without buoyancy. Everything about "gravity" relies on the exact forces of density and buoyancy, propulsion and other laws of attraction. These are not separate forces. "Gravity" is buoyancy.

This is not countering, this is outright defying. An object that large and awkward is the effective equivalent of a dragon flying. But I read a rather long argument that said basically mythological dragons shouldn't be able to fly, because it was basically a flying brick. The larger they are, and the heavier, the more impossible it is for an already impossible creature to do that. Yet here we have an equivalent object, and you're all like, sure no problem just use alot of energy to counter it.

It's not funny at all. In our science class, we went on an amusement park, and they showed us that most of these rides use real physics. So the best test of real physics, is from observation by experience. I was on said ride.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitron

After spinning at 24 rpm, we are lifted aloft.
So how has is 24 rpms? Well it depends on the radius. I have here this handy calculator.
https://lucidar.me/en/unit-converter/revolution-per-minute-to-miles-per-hour/
But we need the radius. So how big is it?

This means its diameter is 50 ft (or less, given it has to fit inside the rack). This means the radius is 25 ft or 7m. In fact, it did seem to be about 25 ft away from center to edge, so that's about right. So, let's calculate.

As you can see, even if we were to say the diameter was the radius, we are not looking at an astounding speed, only about 39 mph. We are told that the Earth is rotating at a shocking 1024 mph (which given this RPM calculator, is not that fast in RPMs, considering the entire radius of the Earth is supposedly about 20856000 ft (I had to convert miles in radius into feet to make the calculator work), certainly not enough to spin anything aloft but also not enough to hold water in place). But since gravity is so weak as to overcome it with far less than 100 miles for a human, and only 184 mph for a fully loaded 747...
https://nasilyapilir.info/at-what-speed-does-a-boeing-747-take-off/
...if it does exist, its effect is so weak as to be insignificant.

The SpaceX flight is a hoax, right?

Here's an explanation to little kids about flat Earth (which by extension relates to the "law" of gravity). As you can see, it's good enough to fool little kids, and they are hoping what when you become an adult, you'll stop asking questions.



"Evidence 1": If the Earth were constantly in motion, we could not reliably see the same stars every night. We'd be further along in our orbit throughout the year, and at different times we'd be facing away from the sun at different angles. In fact, every 6 months, we would be 180 degrees from our original. I tried this with a table. At the 180 degree position while constantly orbiting and rotating, when I could turned at a steady speed around the table, it went behind me. This is important. While the light of the sun will always cast on the near side, at every six months, it should invert the days. That is, the sun at 6 am should be like 6 pm and vice versa. This never happens. The scientific community explains this away by inventing sidereal days. Which also never happen. You can look at the sunset day after day (I have a number of windows at my back porch), and never notice anything odd.

"Evidence 2": Uhhhhh, what? 'According to physics, everything around us is a sphere'? What physics would this be? I'm sitting inside. Supposedly according to physics, the planking that made the boards that hold up my house are really spheres, and that's why they neatly fit together in board-shaped spaces to create a perfectly flat deck, which is then paved with perfectly spherical tiles. "What's you're seeing isn't really what you're seeing. Trust us." Even if we extend this to planets, we've already figured out that for the most part we can trust our eyes more than we can trust scientists. Moving on.

"Evidence 3": No. They are out of the line of sight because of vanishing point, the point of horizon that objects disappear. Having climbed mountains, I have never ever seen any curvature. I have seen objects become taller as I approached and more distant as I moved away In fact, people tested with a freaking telescope on a river to see this so called curvature. They saw the objects again at several miles away. Then they calculated based on the distance point where there would supposedly be curvature (and thus found nothing at all).

https://youtu.be/EHfgpYX24mU?t=577

"Evidence 4": First off, I have trouble believing that this is the case. But even if true, this can be accounted for by the fact that a shadow has an epicenter. At the summer solstice, the brightest part of the year, the sunlight shows directly over the pyramids, and is cast at a different point thanks to the angled surface of the pyramids. I fail to see how this proves anything is round.

"Evidence 5": You seem to be at a misunderstanding about something. When people say the Earth is flat, they do not mean square. The Earth as a domed atmosphere, much like this.



Why is this important? Because when you see planes fly, you do see a sort of curvature, same for objects in space. When you look at the horizon, there is a perfectly straight line in all directions (this happens only with regard to a disc, and unlike a globe, a disc holds water). Casting a curved shadow, however, does however mean that the entire world is round, only that the atmosphere is a dome. And we no from architecture that exceedingly long bridges or roads would need to account for this curvature. There is horizontal curvature (I have noticed this from walking straight in a fairly curved road and nonetheless not having to turn in any major way), but mountains and hills have definite elevation that can be felt even by a casual walker.



I have no problem with space travel, actually. Lemme show you another of my terrible drawings.



We have two space shuttle models, the Martian saucer variety, and the Earth-based pencil variety.

As you can see, this is a like the story of the fox and the crane.

https://storyrack.in/stories/the-fox-and-the-crane.html

These two spaceship models have completely different strengths. In a round planet with thin atmosphere, a saucer shape is best suited for flying because it will not fall over as the planet orbits and can balance easily at any point of the planet due to its low center. In a flat planet with a thick atmosphere, you need a pencil shape to cut through layers of atmosphere. Such a thing can only balance properly if Earth's rotation and orbit is completely still. Conclusion? If we are to believe the space travel is possible and not faked, then based on rocket shape, aerodynamics insists that the Earth must be flat. As for whether I think it is possible or not, probably so. However, I wouldn't put it past companies like NASA to run an enormous scam to gain money. Why bother going to outer space when you can just do doctored photos and pocket the extra cash?

You don’t need gravity if electromagnetism is at play at the macro and micro levels.

Balanced “toggling” +/- forces hold matter together.

You don't seem interested in understanding and apparently you think the Earth being round is a NASA plot even though the Greeks knew the Earth was round and had computed its circumference with pretty good accuracy in around 250BCE, so one question before I leave you, an experiment for you to try out in your backyard. If your model of the Earth is correct, you should able to go out tonight and find the famous North Star (Polaris) and the equally famous constellation The Southern Cross. According to us round Earth types, you can see Polaris at all times in the Northern Hemisphere, but you can only see the Southern Cross in the very south of the US and only by looking south at just the right time of night. Conversely, if you are below around 35degrees south of the equator, the Southern Cross never sets and is in the sky at all times, but Polaris never rises. This is a very simple experiment that you can do. Per your model, all on Earth see the same stars. Good luck.

I think it's a pagan plot actually (I just happen to think NASA stands for Nazi-Antichristian-Satanist Alliance more than National Aeronautics and Space Administration, based on its actions).

Specifically, the godless Masonic pagans, and their round Earth models, have been trying to brainwash people and pave over the actual world with the so-called "real" world. Such people wish to pave over the actual world to run a great delusion on the people, specifically "God doesn't exist, sin is lawful and eventually moral behavior will be unlawful, and life has no purpose because we are just tiny specks (rather that the center of a grand universe meant for our exploration and the only sign of life among numerous other planets that are almost just right)." This is what heliocentrism and other such theories teach, we don't matter we aren't important. These are sciences that dehumanize, because they are written by people who like the idea that humans are a plague. See also, Smith from the Matrix and his speech about humanity. In fact, when we strip away all the "real world" theories, we realize that this world is supposed to not make sense. It's a false world meant as an interim for our life in the Afterlife. But those Masonic and other groups want us to believe this world is round and has gravity and that it is just one of many planets rather than a very special planet which has life (there are other Earthlike planets, but one is tidally locked, and only has a thin strip of land that isn't burning or freezing. I forget about the others). And so they come up with theories.

Lie after lie, excuse after excuse.

We need gravity to explain how a fast rotating world holds itself together. We need sidereal days to explain why an Earth rotating and orbiting at a constant speed wouldn't have days that start at a different time (I am not talking about summer and winter, as Earth gets forward in position to the sun, the days would progress in relation to its position, meaning at 6 months, it's about 12 hours different for day night cycle, and every month it would be 15 degrees or one hour different; instead we have fixed day and night, only adjusting for season), but all is okay because the Earth "wobbles". Rules about special relativity and quantum physics, and dark matter. All of these are excuses to pave over a world that our eyes can see clearly and which isn't supposed to make sense.

They "knew" huh. Has it ever occurred to you that some math is tautological? Ask someone how to get pi. They tell you that it's derived from finding the area of a circle. Well how do we get the area of a circle? You use pi r sq. Similarly, you find the circumference of the Earth, you start with the assumption that the Earth is a sphere! So how much travel do you think these Greeks did? Because by all accounts, they hadn't been to Antarctica, they hadn't been to Australia, they hadn't been to North & South America. How accurate could such circumference be when it was missing 2/3 of the world? In fact, I will venture that this is enirely based on the shadow made by the sun, which supposedly determines some measurement of the Earth (ummmm no, it's the shadow made by the sun), and alot of calculation in your head. You've got to be careful of such calculations, they aren't much different from delusions. And when you haven't traveled the entire world, how can you even test your measurements?

No, I can't. Because we have a Northern and South Hemisphere. In a disc shaped Earth this is possible by having a two-sided coin shaped world (or simply because of perspective, but I'll get to that after ruling out both a coin shape and a sphere). But in a truly spherical world, we would have not only constellations that can be seen in the North and Southern Sky but also the Eastern and Western sky. There are stars that seem to be seasonal, but if stars have orbits, which they do under geocentrism, then this can be accounted for without adding extra horizontal dimensions and explaining away why people who are sideways or upside down have no ill effects. If you stand on your head, you quickly realized that human beings don't function when upside-down, as blood rushes to you brain. Supposedly gravity lets people hang like bats in different hemispheres. But while we get jetlag there is no similar magnetic pole adjustment or gravitic alignment adjustment. There is also elevation adjustment, but again no adjustment for change in gravity. Nothing like that happens ever. No temporary blood rush while gravity pushes things back to normal, you're just tired from being off-sync. This can be remedied by switching food and sleep times, but a gravity adjustment would be serious enough that planes would be out.

So let's dispense with the two-sided coin model. Even if the Earth is only one-sided, the hemispheres can account for vanishing point. That is, in a flat domed Earth what we see is always based on the curvature of the sky, not the curvature of the Earth. That is our perspective is based on the horizon we can see, which is based on vanishing point. If we use a spyglass or telescope, this vanishing point changes. Draw a flat circle, and put all continents that are in the southern hemisphere on one side, and all the northern hemis on another side. Draw a line for the equator and lines for Cancer and Capricorn. Now here's the thing. A domed Earth faces half the stars to its south because the dome faces outward, and half the stars to the north because half of the atmosphere is facing away from them. Because of our perspective, we cannot see the entire night sky. We can only see from our position on Earth.

Btw, human beings can only see a matter of miles even on a clear day. Yet somehow we can see stars light years away. Either there is a "curvature of the Earth" which doesn't show up even when I am on top of a mountain and staring for miles accounting for this issue, or we just can't see that far into the horizon. But again, somehow we can see stars from a great distance. You know how this could be true? Well I make video games, and there is something called a parallax. It's the same sort of idea as when they want to have people riding in cars at high speed or people supposedly on top of a building. It's a screen. It shows us what we are supposed to see, looking for perspective. This is why you can drive all day and never get closer to an object in space.

We look at maps, and we see rounded representations of Earth, and we think "Ah, it must be round."

Because we're stupid.

These representations are shorthand for "this area is looped or warped."



This is not the same thing as a round world. A flat world can be nonetheless looped (you can keep going east and you'll arrive west) or warped (you keep going east and you wind up north or south). Personally, I think it's warped around the edges, based on several plane trips and heading around the North Pole in order to go to China. This is completely different from multi-directional gravity resulting from an actually round world. One of these is perfectly plausible. Another runs afoul of multiple discrepancies with slope, air motion, and many many other things.

I noticed that you are extremely concerned about being thrown off the earth due to it's rotation. Let me put your mind at ease. The acceleration of an object against gravity due to centrifugal force is V^2/R. Per your numbers, the velocity of an object on the equator is 1024 mph or 1502 ft/sec. The radius of the Earth you posted earlier is 20856000 ft, so V^2/R is 0.11 ft/sec^2. Gravity at the Earth's surface is 32ft/sec^2, so you don't have to worry about anything flying off. Gravity is 300x stronger than the centrifugal force.

No, not "being thrown off." Although any gravity generated by this Earth is insufficient to hold humans even to a simple Gravitron ride. Based on w hat we saw of its speed, it is not that great.

What I'm more concerned about is the food processor effect. Where things in constant motion tend to be pulverized into mush. I don't buy that a planet can rotate at a constant rate of over 1000 mph and and orbit speed of close to 66600 (see what I did there?) mph, and not be shattered to bits millennia ago. Buy a cradle, place a child in it, and set it to rock constantly. I am pretty sure the child will not "get used to it" but rather suffer extreme sleep deprivation and die from it. Life needs steadiness in order to live and grow. The sun rising and setting is perfectly explainable by the sun going around the Earth overhead like a pendulum (setting when it heads to the other end of the Earth). By the way, this motion is duplicated on a micro-level. The science museum in Richmond has just such a pendulum, and over the course of a day, it knocks over all points. On the other hand, the globe outside doesn't begin to retain water.

Gravity is supposedly stronger than both its orbit and rotation and the tendency of water to leave rounded surfaces, but so weak that leaves can leave the ground, and humans themselves can be pitched aloft by a simple carnival ride. You won't impress me with maths, if you can't understand this contradiction.



This is the layering effect of matter by density (buoyancy). Things provable in a micro-level are true in a macro-level. And in a micro-level, unless it is a sponge, a globe will not let water cling to it. Btw, if it absorbs water, gravity should pull all water to the core. Like so.


If it doesn't, water should be falling off, much like the end of the earth in The Gods Must Be Crazy.

Meanwhile, in the micro-level, we have an example of things that do hold water. They are all basin-shaped. Not round.

We have a distorted space disc or cylinder, with a domed sky. Not a round world.

The Gravitron generates a huge amount of force. I gave you the formula, you can calculate it for yourself. The Gravitron generates 1000x time the centrifugal force from spinning than the Earth does.


If you could understand the math, you would see there is no contradiction.

Refer to the calculations I made.



It's a relatively small ride going not that fast. This is not an atom splitter, this is a ride going under 50 mph. Good old gravity should say "Nuhhh" to this whole thing until it is travelling at least three times this amount. But instead, it takes about the speed of driving to the store, aside from it being in a tight circle.

Why I'm not impressed by the math is that it's used to explain away rather than explain. It's an excuse. There is centrifugal force, but the rotation of the Earth seems non-existent as a counterforce. Maybe because it IS nonexistent? Seriously? Only 39 mph? Now, according to the weather service, this is gale force speed, but it still should not be enough to lift a room filled with people imto the air.

https://www.weather.gov/pqr/wind

Likewise that jumbo jet should not be able to fly at any speed, much less only a 184 mph. It weighs about 100+ tons. Newton says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A big heavy object attempts to fly, equivalent force to its weight should hold it down in place. Nope, it flies, and if it had a solar engine capable of generating enough propulsion, it could conceivably fly all day. What comes up must come down? If it had a futuristic energy source, that 100 ton object could be held aloft indefinitely.

Newton "discovered" gravity by an apple falling near him or whatever. How scientific! But similar to these ancient Geeeks who "discovered" that the Earth was round, they did not abide the scientific method. They did not have a control group. They did not test the apples at different altitudes and air pressures to see if it indeed was "gravity" or an extension of buoyancy, or something else entirely. Newton assumes it's gravity, and you go along and buy it, just like you buy a round earth that rotates.

We are told that we are not really seeing the sunrise and sunset because the sun stays put, and we rocket along at 1000 mph rotation. I'd like to test this theory. Get inside the Gravitron! Now, I'm gonna set it to 1000 mph, but this time make it big as the Earth and install windows. And you're gonna watch outside at the sun. Try not to hurl. Or this would be like saying that the fan overhead is not really spinning, I've been turning around all this time and haven't noticed. Amazing! It's so interesting how being inside a spinning room is quite different sensation from watching one, but I was so blind as to confuse the two. Or maaaaybe... this is a gaslighting exercise, and in fact I know what the hell I'm seeing.

Btw, I was in a tower (I think it was in a train station in Dallas, Texas) where they had a room that was spinning as much as the Earth supposedly moves. It was not very noticeable, but it was noticeable. I've been in helicopters and planes and all sorts of perspectives, I think at some point, I would have been able to watch the ground slowly moving when off the ground. But you're expecting me of course to believe that they are also being rotated even though not tethered to any earth.

Look it's simple. Go to an airport and ask them to estimate the trip from China to Los Angeles. Then ask them to estimate the return trip. In a nonmoving Earth, they should be the same. They are, barring turbulence. In a rotating Earth, a guy falling from a parachute from the upper atmosphere should wind up in a quite different place as he enters rotation. But such a test was done, and rather than being displaced hundreds of miles, he was only off by the amount that simple wind could drift him.

I was in the pool yesterday evening, and some leaves had sunk to the bottom. With only a small anount of effort (foot propulsion), I got them to rise to the top. Buoyancy behaves this way, lighter and heavier objects doesn't matter if they are stirred up enough. Waterlogged leaves will sink, but also spin to the top. Yet gravity is supposed to behave differently. Only, it doesn't.

See for yourself.

https://www.howmanyhours.com/mobile/fly.php?from=China&to=Los+Angeles
https://www.howmanyhours.com/mobile/fly.php?from=Los+Angeles&to=China

They would have done enough flights to know if the rotation offset the time any.

In reality, gravity acts like glue on the bottom of our shoes.

Just kidding. If anyone wants to know what physicists actually believe today, here's a summary.

The gravitational force is one of the four fundamental forces of nature and is responsible for the attraction between objects with mass. There are two theories that attempt to explain the origins of gravitational force. One theory proposes that the force arises from the curvature of space, while the other theory proposes that the force arises from the exchange of particles known as gravitons.

According to the theory of general relativity, the curvature of space caused by massive objects is what produces the force of gravity. In other words, massive objects such as planets and stars curve the space around them, and smaller objects such as moons and asteroids are attracted to them because they are moving along the curved space path. This theory has been successful in predicting the paths of objects in space and phenomena such as gravitational waves.

On the other hand, the quantum mechanics suggests that all fundamental forces have a corresponding particle that mediates the force. For the gravitational force, this hypothetical particle is called the graviton. In this theory, particles exchange gravitons with each other, which then produces the gravitational force between them. However, the graviton has yet to be directly observed, and it is unclear how to reconcile the apparently incompatible theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics.

The origins of gravitational force are still a topic of ongoing research and debate among physicists. While the theory of general relativity provides a successful description of gravity in the macroscopic world, quantum mechanics suggests that gravity must also be mediated by particles which have been named gravitons. Physicists hope to one day reconcile these two theories to develop a complete understanding of the gravitational force.

The electromagnetic forces in the universe between 2 spinning objects, whether this be at the macro or micro levels do not cancel out and can only be vibratory balanced by the formula +/-=+/-.

So the assumption starting philosophy of +=- and -=+ that modern day science has adopted for all it theories is incorrect.

Einstein thought these forces did cancel.Tesla knew they didn’t.

It’s about how the overall system works.

Reduced to mumbling to yourself.

I don’t mumble Bobsul.I have no need to.I know real science.Your eyes need to be opened.It amazes me that half logic science is collapsing and you just can’t see it.

Modern day half logic science is one big yawn.It doesn’t explain what is happening in the universe at all.