Gravity Does Not Exist!

Yes, I mean only for you to look at the minute or two about the book and the research. The rest are parts of a 17h long series on creationism.

Not sure if this was posted, but very interesting!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wymfYp18720

Hi All,

Like many others, I've seen the video of Eric Dubai debunking the gravity, and answering Dave difficult questions (at least this is what seems to be for new Flat Earthers). I thought of sharing with you an experimental way to prove that Gravity doesn’t exist, I am not sure if it will count or not, However, I feel its worth discussion with you all here.

As we know, following the scientific methodology we cannot give a label to a theory that its 100% correct, because if we do so we are actually going to destroy the foundation of the scientific methodology as this methodology is built on continuous learning, meaning there would always be a tiny percentage of doubt regardless of the evidences provided for things which we cannot observe or assumptions we've developed in our minds. I know the subject might seems to taking this a bit far or stretching but anyway let's give it a try. If we use Newton's formula, F= GMM/r^2 where Force equals the constant of gravity is multiplied by the mass of Object 1 and mass of Object 2 divided by the distance between the two masses raised to the second power. If we take this into account, this would mean that the mass of the Earth is so great that the balloon would have no choice but to be attracted to the Earth. Why is that? because we have Object 1 mass pulling on Object 2 mass and vice versa where Object mass 2 pulling on Object mass 1 which we then have to conclude that F1 = F2 and this we all know is wrong, and why its wrong? because the pulling force of both not equal. I mean that the force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon! Given that, the balloon shouldn’t rise whatsoever but the reality is showing something else, something which Eric mentioned before makes more sense, that Objects follows its density equilibrium

What do you think of the above?

and would also like to pounder on the question, is there a force required! we know that the scientific community considers gravity a force, do we need a force to explain what we observe in the first matter? and if we need, can we 100% say that gravity force consists of pulling factor?

Another question that in

Gemini wrote:Hi All,

Like many others, I've seen the video of Eric Dubai debunking the gravity, and answering Dave difficult questions (at least this is what seems to be for new Flat Earthers). I thought of sharing with you an experimental way to prove that Gravity doesn’t exist, I am not sure if it will count or not, However, I feel its worth discussion with you all here.

As we know, following the scientific methodology we cannot give a label to a theory that its 100% correct, because if we do so we are actually going to destroy the foundation of the scientific methodology as this methodology is built on continuous learning, meaning there would always be a tiny percentage of doubt regardless of the evidences provided for things which we cannot observe or assumptions we've developed in our minds. I know the subject might seems to taking this a bit far or stretching but anyway let's give it a try. If we use Newton's formula, F= GMM/r^2 where Force equals the constant of gravity is multiplied by the mass of Object 1 and mass of Object 2 divided by the distance between the two masses raised to the second power. If we take this into account, this would mean that the mass of the Earth is so great that the balloon would have no choice but to be attracted to the Earth. Why is that? because we have Object 1 mass pulling on Object 2 mass and vice versa where Object mass 2 pulling on Object mass 1 which we then have to conclude that F1 = F2 and this we all know is wrong, and why its wrong? because the pulling force of both not equal. I mean that the force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon! Given that, the balloon shouldn’t rise whatsoever but the reality is showing something else, something which Eric mentioned before makes more sense, that Objects follows its density equilibrium

What do you think of the above?

and would also like to pounder on the question, is there a force required! we know that the scientific community considers gravity a force, do we need a force to explain what we observe in the first matter? and if we need, can we 100% say that gravity force consists of pulling factor?

Another question that in

I was thinking the same thing. Science will use F = Gmm^2 to explain how the moon affects the tides. But for your balloon example they’ll completely ignore the gravity question and instead use the law of buoyancy stating the balloon is lighter than the air it displaces. The crazy part is let’s say it was 2 solid objects falling they’ll will skip the F=Gmm^2 and use F = m a or a = F/m where acceleration is directly proportional to its force and inversely proportional to its mass to explain why any object independent of its weight will fall with the same acceleration. To make things even more confusing they’ll say matter for the first equation is the amount of material in the matter while on in the 2nd equation matter is the force of gravity acting on the matter yet both are considered classical mechanics.

No theory of gravity has ever been shown to produce useful results with more than 2 bodies. The results invariably become chaotic, because all objects affect each other, and end up inevitably crashing or flying away. Maintaining a stable orbit with 3+ bodies is nearly impossible. So now imagine how this would work in the solar system, with many gravitational bodies, or in the Milky Way, with billions. The probability of having a galaxy that is stable is unfathomably small. It's so small that you would have to conclude that a creator put it together.

Because gravity promoters tend to be atheists, they are simply assuming that gravity explains the movements of the stars, planets, solar systems, and galaxies. They have no way to ever test it. Something that cannot be tested is, by definition, not science. Therefore, gravity is not science but a religion.

Cavendish Experiment Proves Gravity?



In 1797, Henry Cavendish, the British scientist, Freemason, and wealthy grandson of the Duke of Devonshire, created an experiment which he claimed successfully proved the existence of gravity, measured its constant, and provided accurate figures for the exact masses of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and Planets. How did Cavendish achieve this quantum leap for heliocentric pseudo-science? He fixed two large lead balls on opposite ends of a torsion balance and hung them from the roof of his shed. By watching and recording slight motions of the contraption via telescope through his shed window so his mass would not affect the reading, Cavendish claimed to have proven gravity. Two small lead balls were hung near the large ones and any motion observed towards one another was touted as being the influence of gravity.

Now, the Cavendish experiment has been widely criticized by the scientific community because never in over two centuries since its creation has anyone been able to replicate it! Firstly, the balls simply do not always attract one another as they must for the so-called gravitational constant to be constant at all. Sometimes the torsion balance turns towards the balls and sometimes away as it is impossible not to give some slight tremulous motion when interacting with it. Henry even complained in his notes how often as he was performing the measurement the contraption was still in oscillation. Secondly, since his calculated force of gravity was 10^39 weaker than the force of electro-magnetism, from which all material objects are composed, there is no control for the experiment which can factor out and positively differentiate the alleged gravitational force, from the known stronger electro-magnetic force. In other words, the balls could simply be attracting each other through static electricity, a known force existing in all things, billions of times stronger than gravity, and impossible to control for the experiment. Even though no one could replicate Cavendish’s findings, the experiment went down in history as a great success, and is still taught as veritable proof of universal gravitation in science textbooks today.

Eric's video reminded me of an article I came across last year about gravity and how "scientists" measured it on the smallest scale.

article: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/researchers-measure-the-gravity-exerted-by-a-90-milligram-object/



In this article they said, "Unfortunately, studying gravity is extremely challenging because it's far and away the weakest of the forces." which is strange as it can hold so many people and objects to a ball. The same old excuse they love to program in their articles of it being so strong and weak at the same time. They go on to describe the experiment on how they are able to measure such small forces.



They use a lot of technical words to describe how close they paid attention to details in order to account for various factors that could cause issues in this experiment. It doesn't matter how many technical words they use to pretend they created a vacuum as creating a perfect vacuum has proved impossible thus far on earth. Therefore describing it as so is a lie. They then admit towards the bottom:  "the researchers moved the sphere in a regular pattern, setting up a steady back-and-forth resonant attraction. The frequency of this resonance was carefully chosen to be very different from the natural resonances of the pendulum that the bar forms." aka we pushed the balls and called it gravity. This is so close to the cavendish experiment and just shows that they came up with a new bs story to keep the lie going.

"During the experiment, their separation varied from 2.5 millimeters to 5.8 millimeters. Overall, the researches estimate their system is capable of picking up accelerations as small as 2 x 10-11 meters/second2, although it would take about a half-day of monitoring to do so."

"Overall, the gravitational force here ended up being about 9 x 10-14 Newtons. The researchers also used their results to derive the gravitational constant. While this ends up being off by quite a bit (9 percent), it's still within the uncertainties of their experimental measurement."

The researchers claim to measure these findings with laser which could have the values easily manipulated with it being such a small value. They then use the gravitational constant to go with a usual downplay trick of "Oh, we don't have it all figured out to pass it off as more believable to normies." The gravitational constant claims that objects fall at the same rate. Terminal velocity exists and is demonstrable and repeatable. If terminal velocity exist then object stop accelerating. If objects stop accelerating then that disproves the gravitational constant as objects do not continue to fall at the same rate. Another fictitious experiment to keep the lie of gravity going by using scientific jargon most people aren't used to as well as reinforcing other lies. Is this Cavendish 2.0?

Edit: Something I just thought of after I posted this, how did they have more accurate measuring devices in 1797? How did Cavendish measure such a small unit of measurement but now with lasers and more advanced technology we aren't as accurate? Are the researchers not admitting that Cavendish was more accurate than their experiment therefore they are saying that measuring equipment in 1797 was more accurate. Sounds pretty bogus to me.

https://www.thetravel.com/places-on-earth-with-no-gravity/

https://www.heritagedaily.com/2022/09/maya-cities-were-contaminated-with-mercury/144764?amp

Heard the ancients had flying machines that used mercury.

The Mystery of Gravitation:



The Mystery of Gravitation was an essay published in The Earth Review magazine April, 1893 by flat earther Albert Smith exposing fatal flaws with the theory of gravity including a shocking and revealing admission from Sir Issac Newton himself.

What causes things to fall in a vacuum chamber?

Skeptics often ask, if gravity doesn't exist and objects simply fall down because they are denser than the medium surrounding them, why do objects of varying masses all fall at the same rate? If there is no gravity, why does a helium balloon fall down in a vacuum chamber? And without gravity, why exactly do things fall downwards when dropped rather than upwards or sideways?

To begin with, a feather and an anvil will both fall at different rates because one is radically denser than the surrounding medium (air), while the other is not. Imagine a dandelion seed and a brick, or a piece of paper and a boulder - these examples and many others fall at drastically different rates debunking the supposed uniform speed of acceleration due to "gravity" of 9.81 m/s/s. This phenomenon would be more accurately titled the "maximum acceleration towards density equilibrium." As long as something has enough mass and is aerodynamic enough to negate the air resistance, things will fall through air at approximately the same rate, but if we change the medium from air to water, for example, objects will no longer fall at the same rate, again debunking this supposed gravitational constant.

In a vacuum chamber the medium of air is removed completely so all objects including a feather and a bowling ball will fall at this same maximum rate. By removing the medium from the equation altogether, all objects including a helium balloon will fall to the ground simultaneously. Without any medium to move through, the fall rate of all objects is indeed equal, but this has nothing to do with some mythical attractive pulling force, and everything to do with the fact that the density of the surrounding medium has been reduced to zero. Therefore, in reality, since a feather, bowling ball, or anything else inside a vacuum chamber is infinitely denser than empty space which has a density of zero, it all falls at the same rate of 9.81 m/s/s which is actually "the constant fall rate of matter in empty space," or "maximum acceleration towards density equilibrium," but not a "uniform speed of acceleration due to gravity."

As for why objects fall downwards when dropped rather than upwards or sideways, firstly, there is a pressure gradient formed by the amount of stacked air/water/land over you in a column which increases the pressure/weight/density the farther down you go and that defines direction. Secondly, helium balloons fall up, not down, proving there is no downward directional bias. You can also prove this point by throwing various kinds of rocks including pumice into a pond. All rocks excluding the pumice stone will sink to the bottom, but then when you throw in the pumice it will rise right back to the surface. This is because pumice has a density less than water, just like helium balloons have a density less than air. Their relative density being lower than the medium surrounding causes them to rise, just as things with a relative density higher than the medium surrounding causes them to fall. This is all perfectly explained by the natural physics of density and buoyancy which was well-known and understood long before Sir Newton renamed and remodeled it to fit with his heliocentric theory of the cosmos:



https://www.dropbox.com/s/xxom60j5qyby538/Why%20Things%20Rise%20and%20Fall.pdf?dl=0

So then within a vacuum chamber, why do we never see a bowling ball accelerate UP towards the chamber lid and stick to it? Why does it always go down?

"As for why objects fall downwards when dropped rather than upwards or sideways, firstly, there is a pressure gradient formed by the amount of stacked air/water/land over you in a column which increases the pressure/weight/density the farther down you go and that defines direction." - But we are talking from the context being within a vacuum chamber where there is no atmosphere, and no pressure gradient. What would be left to prevent the dropped object from falling sideways, or up or down? If it comes down to maximum acceleration towards density equilibrium, then wouldn't the dropped / released object 'fall' towards the closest surface of the inner vacuum chamber at a rate of 9.81 m/s/s? Could this be tested?

Thanks sincerely for taking the time to respond. I'm just looking to understand better so I can confidently attempt red pilling people close to me.

A vacuum chamber maybe devoid of air but not devoid of that which produces the pressure gradient.
Cosmic rays ,x-rays ,magnetism etc are not ruled by 'gravity' or atmosphere .
All pervading aether, as it used to be known ,produces the gradient .

So then aren't we just exchanging the word Gravity for 'That which produces the pressure gradient'? I understand that the earth is not and cannot be a ball, but all I've gathered from my year in the FE community is that gravity doesn't exist, and that everything is explained through density. It never occurred to me until yesterday that things still fall down in vacuum chambers, so there must be some other force at play. Call it ether or whathaveyou, its pulling us down.

Now your just playing with words . Did you think ,until yesterday , that things should not fall down in a vacuum chamber?

Evacuate a glass chamber , does the light disappear from view? Does the chamber become a black hole?

Up until the 1920s the term "Luminiferous aether" was still used in physics text books - I have a 1923 text book . Einsteins rubbish thought experiments were not science. Neither is gravity. That was Newtons thought experiment.

The thing you don't seem to have realised is that everything you have been told that we know is wrong. There is no experiment ever carried out that proves grabbity.

There is obviously no such thing as a vacuum . You can remove the air from a chamber and you'll end up with a chamber without air . You will still have the pressure gradient . As I say ,that is the all pervading aether .

Science pretends the aether doesn't exist since the introduction of that relativity nonsense along with that other clothheads supposed garden shed gravity experiment . Can't be arsed digging for his name. Watch the video posted above

Not an answer. There is still a force other than air pressure that pushes down on us. You call it Aether, globers call it Gravity.

The term "luminiferous ether" is not equivalent to the Newtonian imaginary "gravity" . It is the medium through which propagation of light occurs .You can shine light through a vacuum so there must be a medium through which light propagates. It is a scientific conclusion based on observation.

Gravity is touted to be an attractive force exerted by mass upon other mass by some unknown means. So how can a balloon rise to a position of equilibrium?

How can a butterfly effectively overcome this force of gravity which is said to be holding it to the ground?

There is no scientific experiment or observation that has ever proved the imaginary force of gravity as an attractive function of mass.

Do you have evidence of the existence of gravity?

I did not call it Aether . Science called it aether . Pseudo-scientific heliocentric model calls it gravity.

You sir are a bit of an idiot aren't you. I never claimed gravity exists. I am a FE. Chill and read what I actually say before responding.

Balloons don't rise in a vacuum. I'll state my question again and see if anyone can answer it. What makes something fall in a vacuum chamber?

Just watched the 'level' film. They explained the fe theory is that it is electrostatic attraction? Never heard that from dubay before or anywhere else. This is a huge issue and all the FE community is unclear on it or unaware like tyrannicalsawdustrex here.

A balloon with its material and air inside will fall due to it being more dense than the air surrounding it. It is vacuum chamber, not a perfect vacuum. It is a chamber that is “close” to being a vacuum. If it was a true vacuum then the balloon material would expand due to the difference in pressure and would pop or expand to nearly the size of the chamber to get to equilibrium. Similar things can be shown in a vacuum chamber but again it is not a true vacuum.

Remember those old Flat Earth shills that pushed the idea of gravity as possibly being the earth accelerating upwards 9.8 m/s/s just to make us look bad.  Well mainstream science is running with that very same idea according to a popular YouTube creator.  

Ryan wrote:Not an answer. There is still a force other than air pressure that pushes down on us. You call it Aether, globers call it Gravity.

True, there is a force ofc but you are incorrect. What globers call "gravity", is fairy-tale attributed to a magical property of matter (called 'mass'), that does not exist.
We know it doesn't because the derivation of Newtons 2nd 'law' is provably a mathematical hoax, blatant invention of 'mass' and forces in 'Newtons' + use of pre-made math and circular reasoning that is stretched way outside of its realm of validity.
Mathematically-debunking-gravity-a-critique-of-newtons-laws

Aether (all) buoyancy is a pushing force, not a pulling one Toward-a-better-theory-of-gravity-bubbles

The failed Newton-hoax dismisses all ideas of an expanding big-bang universe and evolution as well. On top of heliocentrism.
Which ofc also is debunked by the fact that also Kepler also is provably a hoax. Kepler-is-also-a-hoax.
Even assuming the gravity hoax is for real, there is physically impossible for heliocentrism (Globe earth) to be true.

Ryan wrote:You sir are a bit of an idiot aren't you. I never claimed gravity exists. I am a FE. Chill and read what I actually say before responding.

Balloons don't rise in a vacuum. I'll state my question again and see if anyone can answer it. What makes something fall in a vacuum chamber?

Just watched the 'level' film. They explained the fe theory is that it is electrostatic attraction? Never heard that from dubay before or anywhere else. This is a huge issue and all the FE community is unclear on it or unaware like tyrannicalsawdustrex here.

It is only an issue in your head. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109982/how-is-a-vacuum-able-to-propagate-light

No such thing as a vacuum and it's certainly no big thing for FE.

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum . Big clue in the name. No such thing as Gravity which is needed by globe heads for their silly model.

Never heard of the 'level' film.

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:

Ryan wrote:You sir are a bit of an idiot aren't you. I never claimed gravity exists. I am a FE. Chill and read what I actually say before responding.

Balloons don't rise in a vacuum. I'll state my question again and see if anyone can answer it. What makes something fall in a vacuum chamber?

Just watched the 'level' film. They explained the fe theory is that it is electrostatic attraction? Never heard that from dubay before or anywhere else. This is a huge issue and all the FE community is unclear on it or unaware like tyrannicalsawdustrex here.

It is only an issue in your head. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/109982/how-is-a-vacuum-able-to-propagate-light

No such thing as a vacuum and it's certainly no big thing for FE.

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum . Big clue in the name. No such thing as Gravity which is needed by globe heads for their silly model.

Never heard of the 'level' film.

I went to the link cited above.  It is a an interesting discussion, but in one portion of the discussion, it talked of rocks in a vacuum.  I know the discussion was propagating mediums and necessities of such, but I have to ask:  If one were to have a device that drops a rock within a vacuum, would the rock be suspended?  I think not.  Does this not disprove space in a nutshell?

Your question belongs in the wonderful world of theoretic ( imaginary ) physics . Like Newtonian gravity come to think of it.

There is a quote in that link discussion " This is like asking: does a unicorn run faster than a horse? – garyp  Apr 25, 2014 at 15:22"

Sums up theoretical physics in a nutshell.

Your question boggles my mind - not hard to do I admit. How can anything be deduced from such Einsteinian thoughts ?

You may have to elucidate a touch.