Gravity Does Not Exist!

Excellent video, Eric, and quotes.

George Berkeley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

On Natural Philosophy

Berkeley argued that forces and gravity, as defined by Newton, constituted "occult qualities" that "expressed nothing distinctly". He held that those who posited "something unknown in a body of which they have no idea and which they call the principle of motion, are in fact simply stating that the principle of motion is unknown." Therefore, those who "affirm that active force, action, and the principle of motion are really in bodies are adopting an opinion not based on experience."[21] Forces and gravity existed nowhere in the phenomenal world. On the other hand, if they resided in the category of "soul" or "incorporeal thing", they "do not properly belong to physics" as a matter. Berkeley thus concluded that forces lay beyond any kind of empirical observation and could not be a part of proper science.[22] He proposed his theory of signs as a means to explain motion and matter without reference to the "occult qualities" of force and gravity.

Berkeley regarded his criticism of calculus as part of his broader campaign against the religious implications of Newtonian mechanics – as a defence of traditional Christianity against deism, which tends to distance God from His worshipers. Specifically, he observed that both Newtonian and Leibnizian calculus employed infinitesimals sometimes as positive, nonzero quantities and other times as a number explicitly equal to zero. Berkeley's key point in "The Analyst" was that Newton's calculus (and the laws of motion based in calculus) lacked rigorous theoretical foundations. He claimed that

"In every other Science Men prove their Conclusions by their Principles, and not their Principles by the Conclusions. But if in yours you should allow your selves this unnatural way of proceeding, the Consequence would be that you must take up with Induction, and bid adieu to Demonstration. And if you submit to this, your Authority will no longer lead the way in Points of Reason and Science."[26]


Induction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Deduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
Abduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

Berkeley did not doubt that calculus produced real world truth; simple physics experiments could verify that Newton's method did what it claimed to do. "The cause of Fluxions cannot be defended by reason",[27] but the results could be defended by empirical observation, Berkeley's preferred method of acquiring knowledge at any rate. Berkeley, however, found it paradoxical that "Mathematicians should deduce true Propositions from false Principles, be right in Conclusion, and yet err in the Premises." In "The Analyst" he endeavoured to show "how Error may bring forth Truth, though it cannot bring forth Science."[28] Newton's science, therefore, could not on purely scientific grounds justify its conclusions, and the mechanical, deistic model of the universe could not be rationally justified.[29]

Works: http://www.gutenberg.org/author/Berkeley,+George
The Analyst: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Berkeley/Analyst/
Theory of Vision : https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Essay_Towards_a_New_Theory_of_Vision

Berkeley's Essay

Berkeley rejected Sir Isaac Newton's absolute space, time and motion.

"We must pay attention to facts regarding things and their nature, not to words or to someone's authority. The mind should be concerned with particular and concrete things themselves, not with abstract terms. The effects that are felt on our senses should be noticed. The causes of these effects are rationally inferred and are occult qualities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Motu_%28Berkeley's_essay%29

I-m not sure what this guy's deal is but he sure made one hell of a funny video about gravity.

Gravity in a bottle?!

QuantumPineapple wrote:
Science proves gravity waves
bullshit!

Theoretical Physicists "created gravity waves and shell modeling" to compensate for the conundrum that Gravity is a dimensionless mass.

F = ma
  force = mass x acceleration

F = ma ?
  vectors are (F) and (a)
  scalar (m)
  mass times acceleration (ma),  or scalar (m) x vector (a)

Why does this equation disprove [G]ravity?
  You cannot have, (zero dimensional mass x a 2 dimensional vector), this does not equal a 3 dimensional field

Let's disprove [G]ravity another way:  

F = G(M1 * M2)/r^2
  Force = The constant of Gravity * (the zero dimensional mass 1 * the zero dimensional mass 2)/ the 3 dimensional length between them squared

  You cannot reduce 3 dimensional densities to 0 dimensional masses.
  You cannot return mass to the original shape of the density.
  You cannot cube zero = 0

What this imply's is that Gravity pulls on every object simultaneously, creating another dimensional problem. Physicists know this and compensate
by adding a constant to gloss over the problem, when this no longer works they change the constant value.

Theoretical Equations are called PRETEND.

Theoretical Physicists is another term for Science Fiction Writer.

[G]ravity replaced Abracadabra

Theoretical models that approximate reality can only be falsified not proved. Both the Heliocentric theory and Gravity theory have been shown to be false.

For the "Slinky Drop" all we see is falling, there is no force pulling down, there is only falling and rising, objects seek equilibrium based on resistance of the surrounding medium.



Examples:
  submarine uses compressed air to ascend in water.
  hot-air-balloon uses hot air to ascend in the air.
  airplane uses pressure difference across its flying surfaces to gain lift.

Air is liquid, the mass of objects without air, weigh less.

Air-filled balloon falls slower than balloon without Air.

Air-filled balloon falls slower than balloon without Air. WHY?
The air filled balloon gains air resistance slowing it's rate of descent; in our natural system all objects fall or rise based on their density.

Helium-filled balloon rises, because it's total weight is less than the surrounding air (like oil in water).

RealTruther wrote:I am going through somewhat of a block.
What would replace the gravitational constant (9.8m/s^2)that we experience on earth on a plane earth enclosed system?
I have been able to address the cause for falling objects and us being rooted on the surface of the plane with Density, which is how the ancients answered it. The problem I encounter is with the rate of acceleration that is measurable when objects fall. Of course I have not tested this myself.
I am skeptic that perhaps thorough experiments would reveal a non-constant rate of acceleration, perhaps indicating that the rate of acceleration cannot be attributed by a force being exerted by the earth but as a force that is strictly in relation between the falling object and the medium it traverses.
But this is speculation. Maybe I am relatively new at this but what in your opinion is the cause for the 9.8m/s^2 acceleration rate falling objects undergo?

Nothing really needs to replace it. Why does there have to be a cause of force? The 9.8m/s^2 also only relates to a frictionless vacuum, things fall or rise at speeds depending on their relational density and the medium they are moving through. The real scientifically impossible quandary is how an atmosphere stays intact around a ball Earth while surrounded by a vacuum of space. The vacuum of space would create MUCH more suction and dispersing force than my Hoover or Bissel vacuum yet those can both pick up metallic objects that are hundreds of times more dense than air.

Here's what we know. Denser objects sink in mediums they can move through. Less dense objects rise in mediums they can move through. There has never been even the SLIGHTEST evidence that matter attracts matter outside of magnetic/electromagnetic/static forces. Gravity was a theory introduced to explain heliocentrism, yet it doesn't follow its own rules. If gravity means all matter attracts all matter, everything would collapse into the Sun since the Sun is pulling on the planets and the planets are pulling on the Sun.

RealTruther wrote:
my concern
9.8m/s^2 (acceleration constant)
Having taken physics
this is a discernible constant and it used to make predictions

There is no [G]ravity, all unsupported objects heavier than air have a natural tendency to fall by their own weight at (9.81 m/s^2 on Earth).

free-falling object, dropped from rest

 t = time in seconds
 d = distance fallen in meters
 v = velocity (9.81 m/s^2 on Earth)

Calculate distance traveled for free-falling object
d = 0.5 * v * t^2

Calculate velocity of free-falling object (vf)
vf = v * t

The Zero G Plane allows those INSIDE the Cabin to experience Free-Fall, within a protected environment; unlike Sky-Divers who must Fall through differing air resistance based on speed and conditions.  
For the Sky-Diver without the protection of the Cabin, air resistance increases with velocity until equilibrium is reached and acceleration stops; this is called terminal velocity.

RealTruther wrote:
Supposing that the mass of ether or air in the enclosed plane ecosystem is constant and vastly disproportional to the mass of any falling objects in relation to it.
Essentially the mass of air around us is always the same and immense while falling objects are minute in comparison; making the observable acceleration of falling objects appear constant because in relation to the expansive mass of air their mass is "insignificant".

Are these assertions plausible or out of line?

I wonder if equations for example a free body diagram F=ma or F=mg can be rewritten with density    

PS I agree there is no gravity but I want to be able to satisfy every question I have about how to explain observable phenomena without it.
Sorry if I seem persistent. I want to understand and be able to explain what we observe!

This desired cause of acceleration can't actually be proven to be caused by any universal law. Gravity is a heliocentric attempt to explain it. The FE Society says the disk of Earth is rising at exactly that acceleration at all times(which is even more absurd honestly). All we know is the speed at which mass accelerates towards the ground naturally. Density only matters in relation to the resistant medium through which the object is falling(air, water, etc.) The denser the object is in comparison to the air or water it is falling through the closer the acceleration reaches 9.8m/s^2, and we know that there is a maximum velocity any object can reach because the resistance increases in a directly exponential relation to the velocity.

So like I've said before: we know what the maximum natural acceleration is, the cause cannot actually be tested because there is no other environment to test upon(unless you're a Moon skipping astroNOT or soon to be Mars skipping astroNOT) We know that gravity is bunk because there is absolutely no measurable attraction between objects, we also know that the Earth isn't a spinning ball or we'd weigh less at the equator than at the highest or lowest latitudes and water would bulge at the equatorial line. Also we'd feel the effect of the Lunar pull that causes tides on our own bodies. If it's strong enough to lift water it would make us feel lighter when it's above our heads and feel heavier when it's on the other side of the Earth. We are fairly sure we're not actually on a disk accelerating upwards at a constant of 9.8m/s^2 reaching an infinite velocity.

There are many things in our reality that remain unknowable(why does our brain make sugar taste the way it does? why do we find harmonious vibrations that make musical notes pleasant?). It's good to always ponder upon things but when you demand an answer sometimes that only results in opening yourself up to accepting a faith based belief in what the answer is. I wish I had a plausible alternate theory but that's all it would remain as I can't go out and scientifically prove any theory since all we have is this one reality to play in.

To enforce- the indoctrination of the gravitational constant, the Freemasonic AstroNOTS allegedly took a hammer and a feather to the Moon and proceeded to display that they both landed at the same time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

The only problem is the Moon allegedly has a gravity of one sixth of the Earth, so both objects should have fallen at one sixth of the velocity they would on Earth,
They would NOT have landed at the same time.
I find it strange no-one ever questions that 'experiment', but again, more indoctrination, mind-control and selling of the Globe Earth Heliocentric garbage

...mASonS making bullshit experiments on a fake moonlanding?... must be LEGIT

When you drop a dense wood block into water and then a light wood block into water and one sinks and one floats, my brain instantly can wrap itself around the concept, buoyancy/pressure/density, got it. But when i try to apply that to other isolated incidences i lose it all over again. Like if you completely seal off the water tank with the blocks inside, how do they know which way is up and which way is down?



Legit question, if you forget the theory of gravity, what is causing the flakes to settle to the bottom of the snowglobe? Why do they not simply make their way outward away from the center, or possibly bunch up in various clumps in the way you see oil separate from water on its surface?



A Spirit Level is a bubble sealed off inside a plastic tube with liquid in it, how does the bubble know which way is "up"? Why does it not shoot off in different directions resisting the density of the liquid?

These things are sealed off perfectly from outside influences and are perfect everyday situations in which to examine this phenomenon. I know we are on a flat earth, and every lie they tell us is usually to cover up a truth or support another lie they've told. I think in this case it's the former, they're telling the lie of gravity to cover up the truth of what is really going on here. But i can't accept that there is simply nothing going on here because none of these other concepts answer the question of why up is up and down is down in a sealed off environment.

stew bum wrote:In a sensory deprivation tank, as I experienced 2 weeks ago today, one loses up and down vision but you can not hold yourself out of the water long before fatigue sets in. That indicates up and down, 'cause water won't float. I wasn't vacuum sealed, but the criterion we employ for our place holding is not available inside a float tank other than up and down or level.
Air is above water because it is less dense, conversely, water is more dense than air, so it must sink to it's lowest point.
That being said, water could be possibly THE most dense material because is finds it's way to the lowest point available. If it is not water tight, it will leak. As a guy who has attempted to seal stubborn leaks, water finds a way through, around, over, or just "water-logging" till it drips out.
It may be hard to fathom the notion of water being more dense than me, but so nature is that we can observe her.

I agree that the concept of density should and is 100% observable when looking at water/air sealed off inside a tube, the water being far more dense than the air will separate from it. but the direction inside the container in which the water separates is always relative to the direction of the ground.

If i could take a half full water bottle inside one of those Zero-gravity airplane rides and shake it up and then watch in which direction or manner the water separates from the air it would answer so many questions.

Stew Bum's suggestion that "water is THE most dense material," is ridiculous. Everything that sinks in water is denser than water. Yes "water seeks it's lowest point possible," and "if it is not water tight it will leak," but if something leaks from not being water-tight, then water is just filling up the less dense space/air beneath it, NOT somehow superseding its density.

Digital Renegade wrote:
Because gravity
the moon would not orbit the earth
the earth would not orbit the sun

Say goodnight Balltard.

Digital Renegade wrote:Have I done something wrong? Is this not a forum for reasoned and sensible debate?

Gravity = theory.
Orbital mechanics = theory.

If you believe the fraud from the occult space agencies, then you haven't read the forums and done your own due diligence on the topic. Which also means you haven't read the rules.

Folks like you don't last too long around these parts where we discuss the real world.

The natural physics of density and buoyancy determine that objects denser than the medium surrounding them sink while objects less dense than the medium surrounding them rise.  This is the reason raindrops fall down through the air, while air bubbles rise up through water.  Objects at perfect equilibrium with the medium surrounding them levitate in place like the balloon in the following video.  Please share this short 5 minute video with your social networks and help make it go viral so we can wake people up to the centuries-old pseudo-scientific lie of "gravity."

Kinda interesting video

This is a great experiment why gravity is a lie. The rock in the video weighs 400 gram when surrounded by air. According to the law of gravity the rock should weigh an equal amount in water + the weight of the water pushing on top of it, so AT LEAST 400 grams. What we see however, is that the rock weighs only 150 grams when surrounded by water! Icing on the cake is that it does not matter how deep the rock is, so the amount of water on top of the rock doesn’t effect its weight.

Ultimate proof there is no such force as gravity.

Vespillo wrote:If gravity does exist, how can the "law" of density also exist at the very same time?

Does gravity make mass accelerate towards Earth? If so, why not a balloon? Or a feather? Why doesn't the moon eventually hit Earth, or the Earth hit the sun ?

That's the thing, it Does not exist

The magical force of gravity is necessary to make the heliocentric model work.

Please read the threads

Hello IFERS. How do we explain the increasing of (water)pressure by relative density?

Just Vital wrote:
How do we explain
the increasing of (water) pressure
by relative density?

The density of water will change with temperature and pressure.

Relative density is also known as Specific gravity with respect to water. You want to make sure to phrase your Questions and Answers so as not to invoke the Fiction of Gravity.

Thanks for your reply Schpankme.

Let me put it like this; how do I answer to someone who asks me “how do you explain that the water pressure increases when you go deeper into the ocean?”

I'm asking because I was having a discussion with a friend about this, who is very close to stop believing in the globe religion, but I couldn't give him a convincing answer on this question.

Just Vital wrote:
“how do you explain that the water pressure increases when you go deeper into the ocean?”

JV, thanks for the question.

What you're looking for is called Fluid Pressure and Depth, also taught as Hydrostatic pressure;
when measured from the surface becomes an increasing weight of fluid, based on depth and fluid type.

hy·dro·stat·ic
adjective
relating to or denoting the equilibrium of liquids and the pressure exerted by liquid at rest.

pres·sure
noun
the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something in contact with it.