Gravity Does Not Exist!

It kills me when people claim if there wasn't gravity we would all just float up and away, lol, seriously???

My friend suggested that without gravity no math would work and that gravity is the reason why we weigh less on a mountain . I couldnt find any mathematical formula which actually uses gravity though accept of gravity's itself.... do you know if there are any? and do we really weigh less on a mountain? if we do, shouldnt we weigh less on the second floor of our house?

Sienokupeta wrote:My friend suggested that without gravity no math would work and that gravity is the reason why we weigh less on a mountain

They are correct in one way, that being that Isaac Newton (and/or arguably Leibniz) came up with calculus to justify gravitation, which included the flawed concept of fluxions and infinitesimals, which eventually were made limits, which make an approximation with a specific magnitude of vanishing quantities. In other words, you have a curve, and you approximate it with many straight lines, with a measured length, but it doesn't give the exact length of the curve, so you decrease each line length. It gets smaller and smaller to infinity, needed to get exact. Such can be demonstrated with the Trapezium rule under a curve, or the small angle approximation.
Anyways, this was all invented to justify the paradigm, which the Spinning Ball Earth is based upon, but has been criticized, however, it tends to get swept under the table. I'd call it "Freemasonic Mathemagic", and they've used it to replace experiment these days.
The flat earth does not depend on this, and gravity simply doesn't exist, but rather, is truly dictated by a simple law of density, where density discrepancies dictate free-fall on Earth.

Sienokupeta wrote:I couldnt find any mathematical formula which actually uses gravity though accept of gravity's itself.... do you know if there are any?

Formulation for the fictional Newtonian Gravitation is pretty straightforward. For starters, we have the basic F = Gm1m2/r^2, where m1 and m2 are masses, G is the Gravitational constant, and r is the distance between their centers.
As for altitude changes, we need to take into account the supposed inverse square law relation, and we have g1/g2 = (r2/r1)^2, with g1 as the surface gravity, g2 as the gravity at a specific altitude, and r2 as the altitude + radius of the Earth, and r1 as the radius of the fictional ball Earth.
So, if we were at the top of a 3 mile tall mountain, then supposedly, gravity would drop from 9.8 Newtons to 9.785 Newtons. Giving a less than 0.02% decrease in weight.

Sienokupeta wrote:and do we really weigh less on a mountain? if we do, shouldnt we weigh less on the second floor of our house?

I'd require evidence for this occurrence. The measurement of our weight with a standard scale is approximate and not meant to measure slight changes in acceleration. Other factors could affect weight, but if a consistent decrease in weight can be demonstrated in proportion to altitude, then we can assume that this is true.

It`s a simple logical analysis to prove the impossibility of the existence of gravity.

1.For gravity to exist we  must assume that it effects everything on earth as it would if it existed.

2.Therefore a helium filled balloon must be effected by the force of gravity.

3.However a helium balloon rises against gravity.

4.For the balloon to rise against gravity there must be an opposite force pulling it upwards against the force of gravity.

5.This is impossible within the theory of gravity as no upward exists within the theory of gravity.

6.Therefore the theory of gravity is fundamentally flawed and does  make any sense within real world physical behavior.

7.The only thing that explains all conditions of real world behavioral conditions is DENSITY.

Logical truth, pure and simple.

Logica77 wrote:
the impossibility of gravity

There is no "Force" pulling down on you.

I know there is no force of gravity pulling down that was the point I was making, why have you quoted me?

Logica77 wrote:
why have you quoted me?

Logic - There is no "Force" pulling down on you.

At no point did I state there was a force pulling down, my reply clearly explains the logic underpinning why the theory of gravity is fundementally flawed.
Continuously quoting me falsely claiming I have declared statements that I haven’t is strange, what are you trying to achieve with that approach?

Logica77 wrote:
At no point did I state there was a force pulling down

NO, I stated that there is "no force pulling down" on you; which is 1) the only conclusion, or 2) something to add to your list.

I apologise, it read as though you were correcting me for something I had said.

Logica77 wrote:I apologise, it read as though you were correcting me for something I had said.

Now that you know I'm not out to get you, enjoy the forum.

The absence of a force pulling down is the obvious problem with gravity, but like many logical truths in this world such as the impossibility of gravity, the people who still believe in the theory of gravity along with other fairy tales are simply lacking the willingness to accept simple logical truths.

They have been conditioned to believe their own opinions rather than the logical truth of the world around them.

Once you break things down to their logical components the simple  logical truth will always be there, pure and simple and undeniable.

Logica77 wrote:4.For the balloon to rise against gravity there must be an opposite force pulling it upwards against the force of gravity.

5.This is impossible within the theory of gravity as no upward exists within the theory of gravity.

They claim the "buoyant force" pushes the balloon up, where they think of buoyancy as a force of density pushing up.
Density is the natural order of things, so anyone is going to have to deal with it in their formulations for free-fall, as there are two directions of freefall, up and down, depending on the density discrepancies present. Like negative and positive weight. Except negative weight would be akin to 'anti-gravity' in the heliocentric situation.

Zer0R wrote:

Logica77 wrote:4.For the balloon to rise against gravity there must be an opposite force pulling it upwards against the force of gravity.

5.This is impossible within the theory of gravity as no upward exists within the theory of gravity.

They claim the "buoyant force" pushes the balloon up, where they think of buoyancy as a force of density pushing up.
Density is the natural order of things, so anyone is going to have to deal with it in their formulations for free-fall, as there are two directions of freefall, up and down, depending on the density discrepancies present. Like negative and positive weight. Except negative weight would be akin to 'anti-gravity' in the heliocentric situation.

That`s exactly where the flaw lies, if buoyancy is making the balloon rise then that would imply that the balloon is behaving according to the law of density not gravity, you cannot have two laws acting at the same time, there is only one universal law of physics which everything is governed by, the balloon is either rising due to gravity(invalid) or it`s rising due to density(valid) it cannot be both at the same time.

This is a simple logical truth, which is in plain sight,  and can be arrived at through a simple logical analysis, people(believers) need to rediscover how to think critically(logical truth based belief system)

Even the Buoyancy equations used today have supposed gravity in them. They put gravity all over the place.
In a basic physics class, they teach you that the mass of the Earth can be measured by knowing the gravitational constant supposedly measured by Cavendish in the past. They tell you that Newton supposedly "knew" that Gravity existed but didn't know how it worked and didn't know the constant, as if he one day had divine knowledge that would reach modern physics and become a dogma.
They use the acceleration value and refer to it as gravity, acting on all mass, and all mass acting on the other.
The law of density is quite apparent, but they incorporate it into their gravity deception.
Then it got worse with Einstein's General Relativity, and now Tensor Calculus and a made-up space-time continuum allow scientists to dictate reality themselves, which the general public doesn't understand anyways, leaving them in control of science.

Long before the theory of gravity was a glimmer in Newton's imagination, the natural physics of density and buoyancy already perfectly explained why apples fall down. Quite simply, objects fall or rise based on their relative density to the medium surrounding them. Apples fall because they are denser than the air, while helium balloons rise because they are lighter - no 'gravity' necessary. This is why raindrops fall down through the air and air-bubbles rise up through water! Everything seeks its relative density and rises or falls until settling accordingly. This is why a tiny pebble sinks to the bottom of the ocean, but gigantic cruise-ships and aircraft carriers stay afloat on the surface, because even though a pebble is so small, its mass relative to its volume (its density) is more than water, so it sinks, and even though a cruise-ship is so large, its mass relative to its volume is less than water, so it floats. If Newton's apple had landed in a puddle instead of on his head, he would have seen the apple only fell through the air because it was denser than the air, but then floated on top of the water because it was less dense than water. Have you ever noticed how its easier to stay afloat with your lungs full of air than it is when they're empty? Submarines float on the surface when their ballast tanks are filled with air, but when the vents are opened and seawater floods in, they begin to sink as the submarine's density becomes greater than water. Depending what depth they wish to dive sailors simply adjust the ratio of air/water in the tanks, and when ready to re-surface they blow compressed air into the tanks forcing the seawater out, lowering the density, and thus causing them to rise back to the surface. We can also prove this fact of relative density by filling a balloon with approximately half helium and half air. Since helium is lighter than the oxygen, nitrogen and other gases that compose the air around us, filling a balloon with just the right amount of helium to compensate for and balance out the density of the plastic results in a 'gravity-defying' levitating balloon at equilibrium that neither rises nor falls!

I tried to argue with a few globe earthers about how gravity does not exist. But they always come up with that downward force which does exist as we know that things in a vaccum fall at the same rate. However this does not mean that downward force is gravity and it makes objects orbit around each other. But my question here was that density does not account for objects falling down as if u take all the atmosphere away like in a vaccum then objects of different mass fall at same speed. I dont know what to think about this. Comments welcome please. Also there is no thread on this so i made a new one.

1) They fall at the same rate not in a vacuum as well (see video)
2) Everything rises or falls towards its relative density.  A bowling ball and a feather are both heavier than the air, regardless of whether in a vacuum chamber or not, therefore they will still fall towards their relative density (Earth)
3) A helium balloon will rise because it is lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other gases surrounding it.  But in a vacuum chamber, the helium balloon will fall because the medium has changed and become lighter than the balloon.

Thanks for the reply and moving my thread .

Admin wrote:

1) They fall at the same rate not in a vacuum as well (see video)
2) Everything rises or falls towards its relative density.  A bowling ball and a feather are both heavier than the air, regardless of whether in a vacuum chamber or not, therefore they will still fall towards their relative density (Earth)
3) A helium balloon will rise because it is lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other gases surrounding it.  But in a vacuum chamber, the helium balloon will fall because the medium has changed and become lighter than the balloon.

Is there a downward force?
If not how do we see acceleration without downwards force?
Coz we know downward force dosent depend on density. F=ma...It depends on mass .
Acceleration of all objects is same as we know from experimentation. So the force it creates when it drops depends on mass only .
Although these people named it gravity and lot of bullshit connected to it? There has to be a downward force right?

vivektodmal wrote:

Admin wrote:

1) They fall at the same rate not in a vacuum as well (see video)
2) Everything rises or falls towards its relative density.  A bowling ball and a feather are both heavier than the air, regardless of whether in a vacuum chamber or not, therefore they will still fall towards their relative density (Earth)
3) A helium balloon will rise because it is lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other gases surrounding it.  But in a vacuum chamber, the helium balloon will fall because the medium has changed and become lighter than the balloon.

Is there a downward force?
If not how do we see acceleration without downwards force?
Coz we know downward force dosent depend on density. F=ma...It depends on mass .
Acceleration of all objects is same as we know from experimentation. So the force it creates when it drops depends on mass only .
Although these people named it gravity and lot of bullshit connected to it? There has to be a downward force right?

Acceleration is not the same for all objects. It is a great example of how they indoctrinate children at a young age though. Objects fall at different rates due to their density, density of the fluid surrounding the object, and surface area of the bottom side of the object(drag). When observing reality objects appear to fall at the same rate due to short distances and much higher density compared to the low density of air. Do balloons filled with just air fall at 9.81 m/s^2(constant for gravity)? Objects will reach different terminal velocities at different heights due to the decreased density of air at higher altitudes. When the objects hit higher density air they will slow down which goes against the theory of gravity. They try to explain this with drag which makes very little sense as it causes major velocity differences which it shouldn't if gravity is such a strong force. A great example of this is skydiving. You can slow yourself down and speed yourself up by using different position.

Up is up and down is down, it's as simple as that. On a globe up and down are relative.

Lightning_Peasant wrote:

vivektodmal wrote:

Admin wrote:

1) They fall at the same rate not in a vacuum as well (see video)
2) Everything rises or falls towards its relative density.  A bowling ball and a feather are both heavier than the air, regardless of whether in a vacuum chamber or not, therefore they will still fall towards their relative density (Earth)
3) A helium balloon will rise because it is lighter than the nitrogen, oxygen and other gases surrounding it.  But in a vacuum chamber, the helium balloon will fall because the medium has changed and become lighter than the balloon.

Is there a downward force?
If not how do we see acceleration without downwards force?
Coz we know downward force dosent depend on density. F=ma...It depends on mass .
Acceleration of all objects is same as we know from experimentation. So the force it creates when it drops depends on mass only .
Although these people named it gravity and lot of bullshit connected to it? There has to be a downward force right?

Acceleration is not the same for all objects. It is a great example of how they indoctrinate children at a young  age though. Objects fall at different rates due to their density, density of the fluid surrounding the object, and surface area of the bottom side of the object(drag). When observing reality objects appear to fall at the same rate due to short distances and much higher density compared to the low density of air. Do balloons filled with just air fall at 9.81 m/s^2(constant for gravity)? Objects will reach different terminal velocities at different heights due to the decreased density of air at higher altitudes. When the objects hit higher density air they will slow down which goes against the theory of gravity. They try to explain this with drag which makes very little sense as it causes major velocity differences which it shouldn't if gravity is such a strong force. A great example of this is skydiving. You can slow yourself down and speed yourself up by using different position.

Up is up and down is down, it's as simple as that. On a globe up and down are relative.

But we know that in a vaccum chamber things fall at same rate even though they have different mass and density. Even eric says they fall at same rate. rate is not same as speed.

vivektodmal wrote:
in a vaccum chamber things fall at same rate
even though they have different mass and density

For falling objects outside the vacuum chamber, air resistance (friction) increases with velocity until equilibrium is reached and acceleration stops; this is called terminal velocity.  The opposite can be implied within the Vacuum Chamber, the "air resistance" has been removed, and objects no matter their size or density will fall at an equal rate.

The "vacuum of space" is a man-made construct, this frictionless environment called the Big Suck, that was created by the Big Blow; within an ever expanding Universe, the Space Enterprise.