Theory of gravity (a respectable discussion)

[Murk]

Can we discuss the theory of gravity without childish name-calling? We can surely keep a thread open and discuss if people keep it civil, you're obviously passionate about these things (cognitive dissonance will do that).

In reply to people asking about gravity in the previous thread, it's density that makes things fall, not the theory of gravity.




Remove "gravity" from the buoyancy equation & it will STILL WORK PERFECTLY FINE! "Gravity" is a 356+ year old theory! How much longer do we have to wait for it to prove its existence? It doesn't exist! We were lied to about a lot of things! They indoctrinated us from children at school.



Theories like gravity, evolution and globe earth/space is just designed to remove us from a Creator.

 

[Dr.Suave]

Theories like gravity, evolution and globe earth/space is just designed to remove us from a Creator.

Evolution isnt a real thing?

 

[Murk]

Evolution isnt a real thing?

Microevolution sure, it's observable and testable, it's science.

Macroevolution, things turning into completely different things, a fish to a toad, no, we've never seen it, nobody has, it's not science it's just a theory.

You can think you came from a monkey, but not me, humans were created, not a random happenstance.

 

[MatureDJ]

Can we discuss the theory of gravity without childish name-calling? We can surely keep a thread open and discuss if people keep it civil, you're obviously passionate about these things (cognitive dissonance will do that).

In reply to people asking about gravity in the previous thread, it's density that makes things fall, not the theory of gravity.

Remove "gravity" from the buoyancy equation & it will STILL WORK PERFECTLY FINE! "Gravity" is a 356+ year old theory! How much longer do we have to wait for it to prove its existence? It doesn't exist! We were lied to about a lot of things! They indoctrinated us from children at school.

Theories like gravity, evolution and globe earth/space is just designed to remove us from a Creator.

If you're going to spout off nonsense like this, then I guess we can't discuss it.

Density does not make anything fall. A body in a fluid in which the net density of the body is greater than a fluid will sink in the direction of the acceleration field, which is generated by gravity between masses, or the acceleration of the fluid system (i.e., in the opposite direction of the acceleration, which is why being in an accelerating car makes an occupant feel like gravity is pushing him backwards). Now, this is the *observed* behavior in an otherwise inertial reference frame, and to get any deeper than that, we'd have to go down a "black hole" of physics discussion (pun intended).

 

[Foe]

Hey guys, just wanted to check in and let everyone know I'm an idiot.......Signed OP.

 

[Plinco]

Eh what the heck. Let's make this an interesting thread OP

 

[EyeBRollin]

How about you go back to school, prove gravity wrong, then present research to defend your position?

 

[Mike32ct]

If we assume that space is pretty close to a perfect vacuum, then any planet would necessarily be more dense than its surroundings. Do planets continue to "fall" (rather than stay in orbit)?

This "Relative Density" (only) theory (in lieu of gravity) assumes that the object "falls" in the direction of positive net density. If all directions are equal positive net density, such as my planet example, then the planet shouldn't move at all. And if we want to accept inertia (as compatible with the Relative Density theory), we wouldn't have orbits either. (Planets would take off and never return.)

 

[Kotaix]

Troll.

You make everyone dumber

 

[logicallefty]

Hey guys, just wanted to check in and let everyone know I'm an idiot.......Signed OP.

Foe, Please check your private messages. Thanks.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

You are on a roll with comical threads of nonsense lately

 

[BillyPilgrim]

You're on point with evolution Murk, but generally speaking you have to be skeptical as well as open-minded. It's good to question but you have to watch out for disinfo.

 

[Serenity]

What makes two objects of identical volume but different densities have different weight? Could it be... Could it be that mass is attracted to other mass? Could it be that something of greater mass has more pull than something of lesser mass? Could it be that the Earth being really really massive has a lot of pull on all the comparatively tiny things on its surface?

Oh, what should I call this mysterious force? Hmmm... I think I'll call it gravity.

it's just a theory.

This statement tells me you have no clue what it takes to qualify as a scientific theory. It's a hell of a lot more than just some guy having a loose idea of something and is usually built on a mountain of evidence to support the conclusions. You could say they have a lot more gravity than your layman theories.

"Gravity" is a 356+ year old theory!

Yeah, that one is good enough for most everyday cases, but for more extreme cases you should look to Einstein's theory of general relativity if you need more precision for your predictions about the gravitational forces.

 

[Kotaix]

You're on point with evolution Murk, but generally speaking you have to be skeptical as well as open-minded. It's good to question but you have to watch out for disinfo.

He's not on point with evolution, the transitional fossils that prove macro evolution have been available for decades.

Stop feeding the troll.

 

[logicallefty]

Troll.

You make everyone dumber

Kotaix, Please check your private messages. Thanks.

 

[logicallefty]

Fellas, If your taking your time to read this thread then engage with the OP and others about the topic. If you think the topic is stupid or have opinions of the OP for the content, just save it. Go do something else. This is the "Anything Else" sub. It's for "Anything else except attacking other members".

 

[Atom Smasher]

What do you guys think? Is gravity actually the result of a mass distorting the space around it, similar to the 2D representation of the demonstration of a bowling ball sitting on a stretched out rubber sheet and a person rolls in a tennis ball, which circles around, eventually touching the bowling ball?
Or is gravity an actual pulling force that is inherent in all mass?

 

[logicallefty]

What do you guys think? Is gravity actually the result of a mass distorting the space around it, similar to the 2D representation of the demonstration of a bowling ball sitting on a stretched out rubber sheet and a person rolls in a tennis ball, which circles around, eventually touching the bowling ball?
Or is gravity an actual pulling force that is inherent in all mass?

I'm thinking it's the "pulling force that is inherent in all mass". Without Googling and from memory I can remember seeing something showing how a big structure like a tall skyscraper has gravity and pulls things towards it. Wish I could remember where I saw that.

 

[Atom Smasher]

Have you ever seen the demonstration I mentioned? The rubber sheet and bowling ball? It’s pretty interesting. I think Einstein subscribed to the warped space theory, unless I’m mistaken.

 

[Serenity]

What do you guys think? Is gravity actually the result of a mass distorting the space around it, similar to the 2D representation of the demonstration of a bowling ball sitting on a stretched out rubber sheet and a person rolls in a tennis ball, which circles around, eventually touching the bowling ball?
Or is gravity an actual pulling force that is inherent in all mass?

I don't see how those two would be mutually exclusive. All mass has gravitational force, the weakest of the four fundamental interactions. The curvature of spacetime is a way to describe how space and time is affected by the uneven distribution of all the mass.

Both Newton and Einstein are describing the same fundamental interaction in a bit different ways and at different scales. Applying Newton's or Einstein's equation for simple physics you could preform in a classroom would give you pretty much the same answers, but when you start going really fast or really heavy (like a black hole) then Newton's equations will fail to give accurate answers compared to what's observed.

Gravity does literally distort spacetime, the Earth or the Sun isn't really big enough to notice it first hand, but is measurable with instruments and it has been measured. I like to bring up GPS, without Einstein's theory of general relativity GPS just wouldn't work, at least not with the accuracy it does. This is because the satellites experience time dilation relative to us on the surface because of velocity and different gravitational force, so their very accurate clocks desync if it's not corrected for. Still, all mass has some gravitational force, it all affects spacetime a little bit or a lot if there's a lot of mass in a small part of space.

The only way the tennis ball would get closer and closer to the bowling ball for each orbit in that example is with friction. Without friction and rolled at the right speed at a given distance from the bowling ball the tennis ball would circle the bowling ball forever, just how we don't fall into the sun or the moon doesn't fall into earth. There's (almost) no friction in the vacuum of space.