Gravity Does Not Exist!

I said the hammer and feather do in the video experiment, not that everything falls at the same rate. As Lightning Peasant said, "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)." A balloon filled with air is a good example, or a dandelion seed, to show that not everything falls at some universal acceleration like they claim gravity does.

So a guy and I are talking about gravity being non existent. I try to tell him that it is just density and buoyancy. So if you are lighter or heavier than the matter around you, you either sink or float. He then proceeds to ask me to give him a calculation of density and buoyancy without the "g" as he says. Now, I know the Masonic G, as I called it, is just made up and put places to promote its authenticity and explain away things that they don't have answers for or whatever. Funny because lab coats don't have all answers for their gravity either. Answering a lie with a lie. But how do I give him a calculation without and explain why the Masonic G is unnecessary. I don't know how to answer him, can anyone please help me out. Thanks.

openURmind wrote:
talking about gravity
calculation of density and buoyancy without the "g"

1) There is no force pulling down on you, there is only falling and rising.  Gravity falsified.

2) 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

What this implies is that Gravity pulls on every object simultaneously creating a dimensional problem. Theoretical Physicists (Science Fiction Writers) know this and compensate by adding a constant to gloss over the problem, when this no longer works they change the constant value.

3) Sky-Divers fall through differing air resistance based on speed and conditions, air resistance increases with velocity until equilibrium is reached and acceleration stops; this is called terminal velocity.

All unsupported objects heavier than air have a natural tendency to fall by their own weight at "9.8 m/s/s".  This is calculated by invoking "g".

The fallacy is that [G]ravity is pulling on objects;  g = acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/sec²)

This is a confusing subject and it is deliberately confusing to force nature, that which is, to agree with artificial concept such as gravity or the speed of light.

If you take a scale and weigh a litre of water the scale will read approximately 1kg. You can say that the density of the water is 1 kg/litre that is the weight/volume.

What causes the water to have weight? Because the water is more dense than air.  Lower a plastic bag containing 1l water hanging on a spring scale. When fully submerged under water the scale will read ZERO disregarding the weight of the plastic. Why? because the 1l water is the same density as the water. Do not be confused by reality.

So the scale is measuring the weight of the water. Now in order for the theory of gravity to exist we say that the water has mass. It has mass which is the weight of water divided by gravity (say 10 m/s/s) so the mass of 1l water is 0.1kg and it's weight is 1kg. Confusing is it not?

The formula is F=mg where F= downward force on the scale kgf or N, g=gravity 10 m/s/s and mass in kg So the Force 1l water exerts on the scale equals 1x10=10 N otherwise known as 1kgf. Why do we not just say the force exerted by 1l water is its weight 1kg? It has to do with the concept of gravity and the mathematics that are used to calculate force. Gravity is a belief system, we have made it up.

What gives matter weight science theorises is separating the weight of a body into mass and acceleration. They call this acceleration GRAVITY.  However, as you may realise gravity times mass coincides with specific weight / density as clearly proven by weighing water in water and the mathematics (F=mg). To replace what we experience, the weight of something with mass times gravity is how science has decided to do it. To believe gravity exist is nonsense! Have faith in yourself and your innate, beautiful intelligence

You are indeed correct, 100ml of water weighs 100 grams, 1000ml of water weighs 1000 grams aka a Kilogram.
Hence, waters density (or weight) is 1 gram per 1 millilitre, density and weight are interchangeable, they confuse people with mass, volume, weight, density and so on, all used to push the lie of gravity.

In the midst of twitter debate and we're not making much progress partly bc he's largely ignoring what I post. Now he's posted this and I don't know what the contraption in the video is. Anyone help?

His tweet: "Watch how these objects don’t fall at equal rates with air and do in a vacuum. Proof of gravity. Empirical evidence. You’re an imbecile".

mitch wrote:
twitter debate
objects don’t fall at equal rates with air
objects fall at equal rates in vacuum

Yes, objects fall at equal rates in a vacuum, because the "air resistance" has been removed.

Without the vacuum, "air resistance" increases with velocity until equilibrium is reached and acceleration stops; this is called terminal velocity.

"Air resistance" has noting to do with promoting that fiction called Gravity.

Gravity so strong that it can hold trillions of gallons of ocean to the exterior of a ball yet can not push this paper cover down on a book.

Watch as the mystical powers of Spiritual Science overpowers gravity!

https://youtu.be/CLNWw_Rv6PM
Testing for the Magical Gravity

Gravity already debunked in 1983 by Professor Eric Laithwaite with a big gyro weel

Lightning_Peasant wrote:Gravity so strong that it can hold trillions of gallons of ocean to the exterior of a ball yet can not push this paper cover down on a book.
Watch as the mystical powers of Spiritual Science overpowers gravity!

Brilliant

I showed this to a mate. He argued that the book cover was connected to the book, and thus able to "resist gravity".

So I moved a ruler across the space between the book-cover and the book, which naturally caused the cover to momentarily drop before moving back up into its original position.

Explained to my mate that the book-cover is resting on the air underneath it, irrespective of the connection to the rest of the book, and that the response it had to the displacement of air underneath it is evidence of that.

"We, as humans, or solids/liquids slightly gas whatever, are "stuck" to the ground because of this supposed attractive farce of gravity. If it is attracting all matter towards the center of the Earth, why do gases only get somewhat pulled in and get to exist as high as airplanes and beyond? What's keeping the tiny gas particles a float even though they have a larger proportionality difference in mass in comparison to the Earth and since they are "lighter" they are more easily moved by forces yet Gravity decides to only halfway pull them down towards the surface. Atmospheric gases are compressible so it's not like we've hit max occupancy of gases at the surface of the Earth, and it seems these gases, like smoke and stuff isn't undergoing any downward motions seeing that they rise up. Another easy to follow example is in dealing with Clouds, why would liquid water be held to the oceans yet gaseous water clouds float above our heads? Is it not the same H2O molecules? Why do those few selected ones get to soar into the sky and move about with little to no force required to keep them afloat in the sky? How does Gravity decide which H2O molecules get to go airborne and which identical molecules have to stay at the Earth's surface level? And yes, gases do change phase as you compress them...compressed gas containers hold liquid versions of the gases they emit when the opening is released causing them to immediately go back into gas form once they are not under the compressed pressure of the tank. And also imagine if Gravity decided to be consistent and pulled all the Gaseous Clouds down from the sky, we would all be wet here on the surface. And finally to answer your question about the mechanism as to why do denser things tend towards the Earth...is that there is an inherent Density Gradient that we exist in...just like there are two poles on a magnet that oppose one another, in charge polarity, not attractive qualities, well, our environment, to maintain total equilibrium has a Denser Pole you could say and because there is a Denser Pole, there has to be an equal and opposite Less Dense or Non Dense opposite Pole. So it's not that things are tending towards the Earth, no, they are tending towards their Density Equilibrium, it's just that so much solid matter has piled up in the more Dense direction, we actually have a platform to walk on but we are not yet at our density equilibrium so we keep pushing downwards just as a helium balloon constantly pushes upward when it hits a ceiling and can't move upwards anymore and can't break through the ceiling barrier. Just the simple fact that the balloon constantly pushes up on the ceiling when stuck inside is a contradiction to Gravity enough to disprove it's validity. In the Density explanation, once objects reach their density equilibrium point, they neither fall, nor rise, but remain suspended with no force required to keep them there and so they can move about...OR FLOAT...about freely...just like how water particles in a body of water have no trouble moving around in the water...why gas particles float about in gaseous environments...and why we would need tons and tons of fuel to keep as much water as there is in the clouds suspended in the air yet in the gaseous form, water requires no fuel or energy to keep it afloat in the the air. None of this would be possible if there was a downward pulling force of Gravity that pulls not only all matter to the Earth, but all matter to all other matter regardless of distance...that is just Flat Out Absurd."  -Vahid Ebrahimi

"Okay to make this brief...two objects, a hammer and a feather, have different masses but fall at the same rate...in a vacuum....that shows that mass is not the deciding factor of why things fall at the rate they do. This is shown to be true because if you change the mass, the rate of descent is not affected. Now what they are falling through is the same medium...a vacuum...so lets change the medium and see if that changes the rate of descent...change the medium to air...and you notice the hammer slightly changes it's rate of descent and the feather drastically changes its rate of descent....change the medium again now to water and the feather floats upwards and the hammer drastically changes its rate of descent. So clearly, it is the medium that changes objects rate of descent because when you change it, you then change the rate of descent of objects...and clearly it has nothing to do with mass...and therefore what are the factors of Gravity in it's equations??? Mass, Gravitational Constant (which if you look at its units, is absolutely absurd, it's not even a realistic measure of anything) and the distance between the objects and the Earth in this case. Well, changing the mass has no real effect on the rate of descent, neither does the distance, it still falls with the same acceleration just for longer amounts of time, and the Gravitational Constant is ludacris and has no bearing on reality so what again is it about Gravity that decides the rate of fall of an objects??? Seems to me like none of the factors of Gravity play any role in why things fall... Long answer short, things of different mass fall at the same rate in a vacuum because they are falling in the same medium and the rate in which they do so is dependent on their relative density compared to that of the medium...fluid medium to be exact...and once a certain medium's density is breached by an object's density, it produces non-noticible changes in the rate of descent because the graph of the density of a object compared to the medium's density is a Horizontal Hyperparabolic line that crosses the independent axis at the density of the medium being equal to the density of the object." -Vahid Ebrahimi

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1158337/ewton-wrong-science-dismiss-isaac-newton-theory-gravity-albert-einstein-black-hole/amp

Check that out , it seems even mainstream science can't handle the inconsistencies of "gravity". Of course they just keep making more and more convoluted BS to replace it.

Nice find Samar527 . Maybe the first baby steps of admission that heliocentrism and all that goes with it is wrong . Be along time before they admit the earth is flet though .

Newton's theory of gravity was first tested in the 17th century by the French Academy of Science , the object being to resolve through survey and observation whether the world was an oblate sphere - a prediction of Newtonian theory , or a perfect sphere -the accepted heliocentric model at the time .

It was found that earth , according to trig. survey and latitude taken from the pole and other stars , was neither . Brought the age of reason to a shuddering halt .
Fierce debate between astronomers who carried out practical measurement (science ) and the theorists went on for over thirty years before it was decided that earth would be mapped as a sphere in order to save the age of enlightenment . "Couldn't go back to the dark ages could we" was the excuse . Ridicule , as a weapon to hide truth , started at that point .
This period of controversy is never mentioned but it is still there . It's along story
but if anyone wants to start looking for themselves look at Giovanni Cassini and the prolate sphere ( which is a misnomer , an attempt to distort his findings ) . His data has never been found in error .
This stuff is becoming much harder to find , googles policy of hiding the truth .
Must dash but feel free to ask questions .

1.) As is observable, there is some ordering of matter dependent on Density...that's why an empty balloon falls but if you add mass to it by adding Helium, it rises given that if it were Gravity causing this, the increase in mass would only increase the force of Gravity and therefore definitely shouldn't send the once falling object in the complete opposite direction.

2.) Everything seeks out its density equilibrium range within that Density Gradient and once there, objects no long fall nor rise, they float along with no energy required to keep them there...hence why clouds stay suspended in the air when if we were to air lift that much water and hold it in the atmosphere we'd be using a hole lot of fuel and couldn't do it, yet it does it naturally.

3.) The Void or Vacuum is not a unique situation not included in this Gradient...It is just the 0 point, or origin to this gradient, hence why in a vacuum, a Helium balloon falls down...it is just obeying the laws of the Density Gradient, nothing should float in a vacuum.

4.) Density is easily overtaken when the medium and or object is in fluid form, otherwise, while in solid form, the crystalline structure and or molecular bonds of a solid object make for additional forces to need to be overcome in order for a denser object to pass through or break the bonds of a less dense solid object. In the anvil situation, you can drop an anvil from a higher distance onto the table to make up for the additional forces of the molecular bonds of the wood that would be needed to overcome and the anvil will gain the lower position on the table, as for the table, at no point can you crack through the anvil dropping it from whatever distance you'd like. Other factors also affect these results such as Temperature, Pressure, Molecular Bonds in solid objects, Geometry, Force gained from External sources, Magnetism, Electrical Charges, etc. etc.

5.) We as solids also have a Density Equilibrium Point but our point is far below any depth ever dug by man so that is why we and other solid obejcts seem to all be falling but if you notice, we fall with the same persistence as a Helium balloon does when it rises and hits a solid boundary. It does this because it hasn't reached its Density Equilibrium Point because it has reached a solid barrier but it will hold itself up to the ceiling indefinitely. And that is the same but opposite situation for us and why we fall downward...because we're trying to reach our Density Equilibrium Point but when you're dealing with solids, you have that additional Molecular Bond forces that prevent us from passing through solids like we do in fluid mediums. So basically, our Density Equilibrium is congested with all this physical solid matter so we feel like we're always falling or pressed to the ground just like the balloon feels pressed to the ceiling but itsn't VERY CLEAR that it's not the Ceiling having anything to do with why the balloon is pressed against it...just that it's in the way of where the balloon is trying to go...if that is OBVIOUS, the how is it not OBVIOUS that the ground we stand on has nothing to do with why we're pressed against it.

6.) Why do we fall in the air, but float upwards in water? How much do you think you weigh underwater? You'd never know because you float upwards so your weight couldn't be accurately measured... Therefore what we call weight, has nothing to do with mass and Gravity but rather the tendency we have to move towards our equilibrium point. A helium balloon's weight would not be negative as the Gravitational model would suggest, but rather you'd put a scale above the balloon to intercept its path of where it is going in order to weigh it. That is clear evidence that weight is dependent completely on the surrounding medium compared to the object and what determines whether an object rises, floats, or falls and the level of intensity in which is does so???...Relative Density of the object to the surrounding fluid medium. To answer the question why do we float up in liquid water is because liquid water's equilibrium point is also deeper than we've ever dug but also deeper than our own...so if we were to reach our equilibrium point, we would notice that water still falls down in that zone because it hasn't reached its equilibrium point. -Vahid Ebrahimi

i find it really difficult to talk to anyone about this who doesnt follow flat earth theory. its one thing to bring up flat earth,but its another to bring up gravity being fake. no one wants to listen

rySti14 wrote:i find it really difficult to talk to anyone about this who doesnt follow flat earth theory. its one thing to bring up flat earth,but its another to bring up gravity being fake. no one wants to listen

Perhaps you have been taught to fear your own mind and your own thoughts or that labels that may be placed upon you when you stand up for your own beliefs.

Would you be willing to consider the possibility that taking a strong position on a tough subject will strengthen your entire life? Would you consider that family and friends that will stand with you and respect your beliefs when you are consistent and clear with who you are?

Start with this -- flat earth is Not a theory. The enemy's definition of gravity, that mass attracts mass, is incorrect. An inflated helium balloon has more total mass (atoms/molecules/matter) than an empty deflated balloon; yet the inflated helium balloon will fly away. Mass does not attract mass.

People want to listen. Every flat earth discussion I strike up with family, friends and even strangers bring forth a delightful exchange. Everyone wants to listen and learn when you stand up and make your statement.

Please consider.

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:

Perhaps you have been taught to fear your own mind and your own thoughts or that labels that may be placed upon you when you stand up for your own beliefs.

Would you be willing to consider the possibility that taking a strong position on a tough subject will strengthen your entire life?  Would you consider that family and friends that will stand with you and respect your beliefs when you are consistent and clear with who you are?

Start with this -- flat earth is Not a theory.  The enemy's definition of gravity, that mass attracts mass, is incorrect.  An inflated helium balloon has more total mass (atoms/molecules/matter) than an empty deflated balloon; yet the inflated helium balloon will fly away.  Mass does not attract mass.

People want to listen.  Every flat earth discussion I strike up with family, friends and even strangers bring forth a delightful exchange.  Everyone wants to listen and learn when you stand up and make your statement.

Please consider.

FE isn't a belief, either. If anyone has beliefs that go beyond what is known that's besides the point, IMO, and why would you express that publicly instead of sticking to the facts?

Anyway, I don't think you can debunk gravity with your example. Since gravity is purely a mathematical force, all they have to do is adjust the equations to account for the buoyancy effect that is seen in fluid dynamics. What I'm saying is that even though your explanation is perfectly correct according to common sense and logical thought applied to practical reality, mathematical models can contradict common sense because they only have to make sense mathematically.

As a side note, I'd say social dynamics are tricky. You should bare in mind that this is just your personal/anecdotal experience of your interactions with people, and I feel like you're barely scratching the surface of what your interactions were really like when you say that. While useful, it probably isn't in line with everyone else's experiences.

Dual1ty,

Eric Dubay had just posted Vahid Ebrahimi's discussion in the previous block, so I used that as a good start. Throughout this entire section, there is plenty of material evidence to show that the term gravity (mass attracting mass) is wrong.

When I stand on a bathroom scale, my mass, having not reached the Density Equilibrium Point, pushes down upon the scale, which then displays my weight. If I jump into a swimming pool or release the helium balloon, the mass pushes upward, away from the humongous mass of Earth. Mass does not attract mass; therefore, gravity does not exist.

I advised ryStil4 to take a stand. And you are absolutely right -- social dynamics are tricky. But there is a reason why each one of us reads through and researches the topics presented upon this site. What we do with the evidence we see and the knowledge we gain is on us.

If we don't stand up to gravity, then who will?

Oliver, of course we know that gravity is a bunch of fantastical horse shit and is easily defeated with common sense, but what I said still stands true. There are equations which explain buoyancy, while taking into account the force of gravity. Every "educational" institution where buoyancy is explained mentions gravity in the explanation. I don't know if you see what I'm getting at? I'm not trying to say gravity is real whatsoever, but the fact remains that most people believe in it, even though everyone and their dog has personally witnessed buoyancy at least several times in their lifetime, so obviously the equations and the explanations that go with them are effective. That's all I'm saying.  

Personally, I'm not going to bother interacting with the sheep because I've lost faith in humanity (except for the few people who are actually honest and seek the truth). Nowadays if someone mentions FE mockingly I just say: "oh yeah, you're totally right, they are soooo stupid and we all know that the Earth is a pear-shaped ball, it's so obvious!", hoping to get it over with and immediately get out of that situation and destroy that relationship. I don't know, for me it's just that simple. Am I a coward for doing that? Possibly, but I honestly can't stand people anymore. Can you blame me? Because if you can just say so.

i know what youre saying dual1ty.thats pretty much where im at too. in my head, i know we arent on a pear,but when people bring it up i just smile and nod because i know they are just too far gone and its not worth ruining that relationship,especially if its a coworker or something. i also feel like that may be the cowards mentality. you arent alone

RedorBlue wrote:
It was found that earth , according to trig. survey and latitude taken from the pole and other stars , was neither.

Where can I read about these findings ? It sounds very interesting that a large survey using trig would prove that the Earth is not a sphere or an oblate spheroid.

As far as I recall, the globies teach that Maupertuis in the 18th century did find a difference between the "polar radius" and the "equatorial radius". Of course, if the Earth is flat, then there is no "radius" and the entire thing is bullshit. But I'm still curious to know how you were able to find documents about that large survey that goes against what is teached in school.

The truth is never hidden . Research Cassini's 17th century measure of over 8 degrees of latitude along a meridian surveyed from South to North of France . Brought the ag of "reason" to a grinding halt .
The whole story is spread and diluted but available to piece together , and also not taught since he disproved Newton's theory of gravity - which w predicted the oblate sphere .
Are you aware that the Maupertuis survey covered less than 1 degree of latitude ?