Gravity does not exist

[wipeout]

I believe Everett's famous thesis in which he expounded the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics had a very similar name, but not the same. "The Theory of the Universal Wavefunction," I think.

Yeah, Everett certainly wrote something of that name. I think I read that Wheeler is said to have both influenced Everett and coined the term "wave function of the universe".

Gell-Mann and Hartle's work together has part of its basis in Everett's work but they call theirs a "many-histories" approach and not "many-worlds" to get people away from thinking that more than one of the countless possible universes become real.

People can still interpret it that way if they want, though.

 

[Mojo]

The burden of proof is on the claimant. Can you provide evidence of a single instance when it has worked?

You are the claimant; you are challenging the generally accepted paradigm.

You even started the thread with the statement: "Gravity does not exist." Please provide some evidence supporting this statement.

If you want some evidence that gravity works, try getting off your uncharged butt and actually performing some of the experiments suggested in this thread.

As I said, nullius in verba.

 

[Kumar]

Gravity: Is it observed & experianced by mass existing & well distributed people since long or least observed & experienced. If it is mass existing & well distributed since long, I have to accept being more practical than theoritical.

 

[Beleth]

I'm still waiting for your response to my proposed experiment, Question. Please answer my questions, and then either accept my proposed experiment or explain in what manner it still needs to be refined so that you will accept it.

Silence will be construed as an admission that you don't really believe that gravity doesn't exist.

 

[Question]

I'm still waiting for your response to my proposed experiment, Question. Please answer my questions, and then either accept my proposed experiment or explain in what manner it still needs to be refined so that you will accept it.

Silence will be construed as an admission that you don't really believe that gravity doesn't exist.

Your experiment is not specified!!! You have said to detect a downward acceleration, but you in no way say how you intend to measure this. You are asking me to prove a negative, and that I cannot do!!! You cannot measure such a downward acceleration until you show that it exists, which is exactly what you have claimed the experiment to be checking in the first! Science is about tests!!! You say you will test the existence of this acceleration, but you in no way specify by what test you will do this with! You are intending to do the experiment, say that it accelerates downward, and prove the existence of the acceleration BY SIMPLE ASSERTION!!!! There is no experiment you have suggested at all!! And thus I cannot respond to your post, as there is nothing scientific to respond to!! Because you are not being scientific, or a scientist!!!!

 

[Beleth]

Your experiment is not specified!!!

Yes, it is. I will let go of a pen and observe its motion and acceleration afterwards.

You have said to detect a downward acceleration, but you in no way say how you intend to measure this.

We haven't gotten to that stage yet. But, assuming we can come to an agreement regarding the success criterion, we can use any of a number of ways to measure acceleration that can be found in a high-school physics classroom. Springs, scales, visual inspection, whatever.

You are asking me to prove a negative,

No, I'm not. I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm asking you to agree to a success criterion.

You cannot measure such a downward acceleration until you show that it exists, which is exactly what you have claimed the experiment to be checking in the first!

My point exactly. I can't specify a measuring mechanism until we come to an agreement about what it is we will be looking for.

Science is about tests!!! You say you will test the existence of this acceleration, but you in no way specify by what test you will do this with!

Yes, I do. I will let go of a pen and observe its motion and acceleration afterwards.

You are intending to do the experiment, say that it accelerates downward, and prove the existence of the acceleration BY SIMPLE ASSERTION!!!! There is no experiment you have suggested at all!!

Yes, there is. I will let go of a pen and observe its motion and acceleration afterwards. My prediction is that it will accellerate towards the ground until the ground stops it. What I need your help with is eliminating all other possible factors that would make the pen accelerate groundward besides gravity. When we have eliminated all the other possibilities, and the pen still accelerates groundward, then we have proven that gravity exists.

And thus I cannot respond to your post, as there is nothing scientific to respond to!! Because you are not being scientific, or a scientist!!!!

Yes, I am.


If you are not interested in pursuing this further, please say so, instead of using lots of exclamation points in your attempt to incorrectly characterize my position.

 

[Question]

LOL!!! You cannot specify ONE (1) (one) (I) (i) (*) (uno) (1!) test that gravity is accelerating something downward. So you try to shift the burden!!!! to me to come up with an experiment that proves gravity. But the burden of proof is still on the claimant. You cannot prove that gravity does not exist because YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE!!!! You are trying to get me to prove a negative, AND IT WILL NOT WORK! Everyone is laughing at you because you can't create one experiment that shows this downward acceleration of gravity exists!! Not one!

 

[Zombified]

Everyone is laughing at you because you can't create one experiment that shows this downward acceleration of gravity exists!!

How odd. I am not laughing. Not at Beleth, anyway.

In fact, I can now announce that I have successfully replicated Beleth's experiment.

Of course, the experiment is not as precise as the lab I did when I was a freshman in college... which you never addressed.

And that's a lot less precise than the work done on orbital dynamics of artificial satellites... which you never addressed.

There are plenty more examples... but you probably oughtta start with a basic freshman physics class.

 

[AWPrime]

Вопрос, поэтому вы говорите что вы не заинтересованы в следовать это дальнейшее. Ð_то можно увидеть от вашего отсутсвия сотрудничества

 

[Beleth]

LOL!!! You cannot specify ONE (1) (one) (I) (i) (*) (uno) (1!) test that gravity is accelerating something downward. So you try to shift the burden!!!! to me to come up with an experiment that proves gravity.

Okay, one more time.

I am not asking you to prove a negative.

I am asking you to tell me what you would consider a positive.

I want you to complete this sentence: "I would believe gravity existed if ___________________________________."

That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking you to prove gravity exists or not. I'm just asking what it would take to convince you that gravity existed.

If you don't tell me that, then no experiment I could possibly come up with would be of any use. You're the one I'm trying to convince; if I don't know what would convince you, then there is no point in continuing.

 

[Question]

Okay, one more time.

I am not asking you to prove a negative.

I am asking you to tell me what you would consider a positive.

I want you to complete this sentence: "I would believe gravity existed if ___________________________________."

That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking you to prove gravity exists or not. I'm just asking what it would take to convince you that gravity existed.

If you don't tell me that, then no experiment I could possibly come up with would be of any use. You're the one I'm trying to convince; if I don't know what would convince you, then there is no point in continuing.

I would believe gravity existed if
every object will start moving downward even though released moving in an upward direction and even though air currents where it was were moving upward there. Since I am reasonable, you need not demonstrate it for every object, but for three objects of my choice (not yours). Do you believe this would be reasonable for a preliminary test of gravity?

ø¨<Æâ,ÛÅ'Æâ&#x10;Æ&#x0b;&#x13;÷Åâ®ÅÅ&#x04;㼩ý©Óžâß&#x04;ã,ÛÅâ&#x10;ª /ã Íâ,ÛÅâ® ªá&#x04;ã,Û©.ãß'ã3(ƾâ,&#x0c;ã&#x1e;Æ·&#x0b;Ô&#x04;âXÆâ,!&#x0c;÷öá&#x04;Ô»&#x01;

Divide by seven, reading numbers like a computer would.

 

[davidhorman]

I would believe gravity existed if
every object will start moving downward even though released moving in an upward direction and even though air currents where it was were moving upward there. Since I am reasonable, you need not demonstrate it for every object, but for three objects of my choice (not yours). Do you believe this would be reasonable for a preliminary test of gravity?

Less than thirty seconds ago, I leaned back, blew upwards and threw a Lego^TM wheel up over my mouth.

Result: it went up a bit, then came down and hit my left cheek.

If you jump up in the air, what do you propose is bringing you back down to the ground?

David

 

[Beleth]

I would believe gravity existed if
every object will start moving downward even though released moving in an upward direction and even though air currents where it was were moving upward there. Since I am reasonable, you need not demonstrate it for every object, but for three objects of my choice (not yours).

Excellent!

This is real scientific progress! This presenting of your own success criterion is a big, big step forward towards true understanding of the world around us. I am immensely proud of you.

Do you believe this would be reasonable for a preliminary test of gravity?

Well... even after congratulating you so loudly above, I have to answer this question with a "no". Not that it isn't commendable progress, because it is. Rather that it's not quite the end state of a rigorous success criterion.

Here are the gaps I see in it.

1) Not every object will start moving downward. Balloons filled with helium, for instance, will tend to move upward in an air-filled environment. This is not because there is no gravity; it is because gravity pulls the air around the balloon downward more than it pulls the balloon.

2) Since gravity is just a force, other forces acting on the object can counteract it. Sufficient upward air motion will impart a force on an object that could make it stay in place or even force it upward. A magnet could likewise force another magnet upward.

3) The three objects must be mutually agreed upon.


Here are my proposed solutions.

1) I propose the experiment be done in a vacuum, or as close to a vacuum as one can generate on the surface of the Earth. This would do away with the lighter-than-air problem.

2) In addition to the air-pressure issue solved by the vacuum, let's make sure that there are no other forces acting upon the objects. Having the objects be nonmagnetic would be a good start.

3) Considering that the vacuum chamber might be moderately small, I propose that the three objects be:
A) A feather;
B) A billiard ball;
C) A cubical 1 Kg weight.

I am sure that there is something in these statements that are unreasonable to you. Please specify what they are, and how you propose to solve them.

Divide by seven, reading numbers like a computer would.

Sorry, I have no idea what this means, nor do I have the time to decipher it. If you are trying to send me a message, please PM me in cleartext instead.

 

[Question]

1) Not every object will start moving downward. Balloons filled with helium, for instance, will tend to move upward in an air-filled environment. This is not because there is no gravity; it is because gravity pulls the air around the balloon downward more than it pulls the balloon.

2) Since gravity is just a force, other forces acting on the object can counteract it. Sufficient upward air motion will impart a force on an object that could make it stay in place or even force it upward. A magnet could likewise force another magnet upward.

3) The three objects must be mutually agreed upon.

I see. You are not confident that this so-called universal force of gravity is really universal, so you must choose objects you already know the result for to make the test come out in your favor. I notice you already know that there are objects like balloons that will go upward when released, but you invent some half-assed excuse as to why it does not falsify gravity. You have to add extra forces, much as the Ptolemaic folks added epicycles, to make your result match reality. What a poor deluded fool you are.

 

[Question]

Less than thirty seconds ago, I leaned back, blew upwards and threw a Lego^TM wheel up over my mouth.

Result: it went up a bit, then came down and hit my left cheek.

If you jump up in the air, what do you propose is bringing you back down to the ground?

David

How scientific. You would have me believe any anecdotal evidence you tell me. You could have just made all that up on the spot. How do I know it really happened? Why should I trust someone who is clearly in league with the gravitationalists?

 

[Mojo]

How scientific. You would have me believe any anecdotal evidence you tell me. You could have just made all that up on the spot. How do I know it really happened? Why should I trust someone who is clearly in league with the gravitationalists?

This is not really anecdotal: it is a repeatable experiment that you can try for yourself if:

a) you have a Lego wheel to hand (if not, I'm sure some other small object would do) and;

b) you can be bothered.

 

[Question]

This is not really anecdotal: it is a repeatable experiment that you can try for yourself if:

a) you have a Lego wheel to hand (if not, I'm sure some other small object would do) and;

b) you can be bothered.

I have found that small objects are not pulled to the center of the earth, and that some in fact fly up toward the sky. Gravitationalists will not admit this however, because there is money to be made in keeping the public deceived.

 

[Beleth]

I see. You are not confident that this so-called universal force of gravity is really universal, so you must choose objects you already know the result for to make the test come out in your favor. I notice you already know that there are objects like balloons that will go upward when released, but you invent some half-assed excuse as to why it does not falsify gravity.

As I said before, confidence has nothing to do with it. I am proposing a test for a force that I claim exists, and the only way to do that is to eliminate all other forces to our mutual satisfaction. My theory posits that just as there are things that "sink to the bottom of the ocean of air" and fall to the ground, so there are things that are less dense than air, and therefore air sinks to the ground beneath them.

It's not a half-assed excuse. It's a scientifically predicted behavior given the properties I believe air and gravity possess.

But you know what? It doesn't matter. You want a helium balloon to be one of the three items, fine. I accept. As long as the test container is a vacuum, my theory predicts that the balloon will accelerate downwards the same way the feather or the billiard ball will.

You have to add extra forces, much as the Ptolemaic folks added epicycles, to make your result match reality.

If by "your result" you mean my theory, then that's what science does: make the theory match reality.

Besides, what extra forces am I adding? You misread me. Adding forces only hurts my case. I am rather trying to remove all the forces that aren't gravity in order to show that there is such a force as gravity.

What a poor deluded fool you are.

Hey, pal, it's not me that's playing the fool here. And consider this your one freebie. If you insult me again, I will report you. I'm not doing this to be insulted.

 

[Carn]

Just out of interest, is Question playing a game or does he realy think, that existance of gravity is not yet proven?

Carn

 

[anor277]

@Beleth; how do you propose to put the helium balloon inside the vacuum chamber? (I am a poor deluded fool as well!).