Gravity.

[deleted]

Yes.

Your "questions" (which are just meaningless words) are stupid.

I think understanding what a theory in scientific terms means, would do yourself good.

A theory in everyday life is generally said to be a thought or an idea you have right? However, in the scientific method, a theory is a hypothesis(an idea or a thought on how something works) that is already backed up with tests and experiments.

Gravity is a fact, this is proven. The only thing that may change, is how we interpret gravity

Yes.

Gravity is NOT a theory. Holy shit.

Well - there is the gravitational force, which is a force, and there are the various theories of gravitation, each of which seeks to best explain this force.

"Gravity" could refer to either the force or one of the theories. Or the movie.

Gravity is their magical word created by knighted freemason Issac Newton to "explain" anything that doesn't fit into the heliocentric world view. Gravity is weaker than any other force and there is no explanation where it came from. Gravity from the moon supposedly effects the tides but not lakes and ponds.

Truth is there is no "vacuum" in space. The moon landing/space travel is a giant hoax. People only parrot answers like "Gravity" because they hear their high priests like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Bill Nye say it.

It's funny after you think about it that we believe that at some magical point in the sky "gravity" just disappears. So could you theoretically have half of your body on the gravity side and the other half on the non-gravity side? It's ridiculous the "scientific" lies that we've been fed.

. Gravity is weaker than any other force and there is no explanation where it came from

There is plenty of explanation of "where it came from". Gravity occurs when objects have mass.

Gravity from the moon supposedly effects the tides but not lakes and ponds.

Gravity affects both of these things. Tides can be witnessed on sufficiently large bodies of water like the Great Lakes.

It's funny after you think about it that we believe that at some magical point in the sky "gravity" just dispersers.

It doesn't disperse.

So could you theoretically have half of your body on the gravity side and the other half on the non-gravity side?

Well yes, technically I guess. Thought theres no "non-gravity" side.

There is plenty of explanation of "where it came from". Gravity occurs when objects have mass.

I know that is the theory but it has never been reproduced or proven.

Gravity affects both of these things. Tides can be witnessed on sufficiently large bodies of water like the Great Lakes.

They can also be perfectly still and are not always in rhythm like the oceans. I live by a lake and the tides are bigger when there is more wind, go figure.

It doesn't disperse.

I meant to type disappear. Yes according to "science" at some magical point we can break through gravity and emerge in a "vacuum" that does not contain gravity.

Well yes, technically I guess. Thought theres no "non-gravity" side.

So you claim that this "vacuum" does have gravity? OP's original question still hasn't been answered. How is gravity of Earth held and separated from the vacuum?

Edit: Easy to see which topics get brigaded. No way this many people stumbled into an obscure conspiracy post that had 0 points and then with in a matter of a few hours all my posts have massive downvotes even if I just provided a link that someone was asking for. You must not question the NASA priest class.

Are you under the impression that once you travel past the atmosphere, that you can remain in place without experiencing the effects of earth's gravity? If so, you haven't understood how satellites and space stations work.

Please show me some pictures of satellites in space. Why when I see pictures from the ISS there are never any of these 1000's of satellites. Why are all the pictures of Earth composites? If there were satellites up there shouldn't we have tons of REAL pictures and videos of Earth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLMRWvXuc5U

Please show me some pictures of satellites in space

Why don't you just get a cheap telescope instead? See it with your own stupid eyes.

Probably cant afford it too busy being stupid on the internet

Please show me some pictures of satellites in space

https://whiteeagleaerospace.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/sts-41c1.jpg

Why when I see pictures from the ISS there are never any of these 1000's of satellites

Satellites operate at a considerably greater distance from the planet than things like ISS

Why are all the pictures of Earth composites?

They aren't.

If there were satellites up there shouldn't we have tons of REAL pictures and videos of Earth?

There are

Those are the only "pictures" of satellites in space that you can find? What took the picture of the satellite? I really want to see what the Google satellite looks like too.

Why are all the pictures of Earth composites?

They aren't.

Ok prove your point, show me REAL pictures of Earth from satellites, there should be thousands right? How about a real video of Earth that should be an easy one but I didn't see you link it. You just say "There are". Ok lol

Those are the only "pictures" of satellites in space that you can find?

Google result took me like 30 secs. I'm sure if you were actually interested you could find some too, but you're not, so you won't.

I really want to see what the Google satellite looks like too.

Seeing as how several of the satellites are twice the distance to earth as ISS, it would be like taking a picture of a pebble in an ocean.

Ok prove your point, show me REAL pictures of Earth from satellites

Every photo you see from satellites is real.

there should be thousands right?

Of course, now you're moving the goalposts.

What you're asking for is a picture, taken from far enough away, as to picture the whole earth in its frame.

Here's a website with regularly updating images of the whole earth, from a variety of satellites, across a variety of spectra

http://angler.larc.nasa.gov/

How about a real video of Earth that should be an easy one but I didn't see you link it.

What do you mean? Like the constant videos ISS and other craft produce?

Google result took me like 30 secs. I'm sure if you were actually interested you could find some too, but you're not, so you won't.

Here is what comes up when you type satellites in space

You think those are all real??? They are cartoons, you are brainwashed.

Every photo you see from satellites is real.

Unfortunately NASA says you're wrong. They admit that they photoshop the Earth and the pictures are in fact "composites".
https://youtu.be/Rx4rXCpVBFY?t=26m40s

http://angler.larc.nasa.gov/

Those are all radar images!

What do you mean? Like the constant videos ISS and other craft produce?

You must think that George Clooney and Sandra Bullock were actually in space too? http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/gravity650.jpg.jpg

Here is what comes up when you type satellites in space

Here is what comes up when you type "jet aircraft"

http://i01.i.aliimg.com/wsphoto/v0/759939283/Art-tech-warbird-F-18-V2-PNP-electric-RC-font-b-jet-b-font-airplane-model.jpg

http://static3.depositphotos.com/1003352/162/i/950/depositphotos_1622586-Jet-airplane.jpg

I'm not sure what your point is.

You think those are all real??? They are cartoons, you are brainwashed.

I didn't claim those to be real.

But I'm intelligent and mature enough to understand that.

Unfortunately NASA says you're wrong. They admit that they photoshop the Earth and the pictures are in fact "composites". https://youtu.be/Rx4rXCpVBFY?t=26m40s

They state they have relased composites of Earth. Not that every single one is.

Those are all radar images!

No they aren't. They are multispectrum satellite images updated on a regular basis.

Here is what comes up when you type "jet aircraft"

uh no this is what comes up. jet aircraft

almost all the pictures are real, you had to scan through to find the cgi image you linked, you didn't just link the search results like I did.

I didn't claim those to be real.

You said after 30 seconds of searching. They all look fake to me.

They state they have relased composites of Earth. Not that every single one is.

He says "they have to be (composites)" You still haven't shown any (non composite) pictures of Earth from satellites.

You should research this stuff for yourself. You have been brainwashed like we all were at some point. Why do you trust NASA so much? Do you also believe the official government story for 9/11?

You really are one of the greatest gifts to comedy I've ever seen, and you don't even have to try at it. You just be yourself, and you generate comedy gold like a fucking factory.

How do you cope with the real world when everything you see, hear, and experience is a carefully orchestrated Truman Show meant to deceive you for no apparent reason? I would need a lot of lithium and benzos to get through the day if I were as much of a lunatic as you are

You really are one of the greatest gifts to comedy I've ever seen, and you don't even have to try at it. You just be yourself, and you generate comedy gold like a fucking factory.

It is humorous, but the joke is people like you that have been brainwashed in believeing that you live on a 1000mph spinning pear shaped oblate spheroid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk-i1k-eRcE

How do you cope with the real world when everything you see, hear, and experience is a carefully orchestrated Truman Show

Finding out the truth is actually much more liberating than keeping your head in the sand and worshiping every word the high priests at NASA say.

Do you trust all aspects/branches of the government? Do you believe the official government story of 9/11?

So is your hypothesis that we are in fact a disc and flying through space on a turtle?

Maybe he thinks it's like Discworld and we're cruising through space on a gigantic turtle?

Must be your go to line, good one.

Your right! Gravity isn't real and the Earth is flat are both better ones.

Don't forget asking if you trust all governmental branches, and if you believe the official story about 9/11. For me, it's no to the first, and mostly yes to the second one.

I think there are real conspiracies that are done a disservice by parroting this shit around everywhere. You make the legitimate look insane by association. If what you say is true, this conspiracy has been going on for 400 years. That's like ten or twelve GENERATIONS of humans without a single leak. We can't even keep secrets for one generation of people, let alone have the dedication to keep one for twelve for NO REASON. When there is nothing to be gained, and the alternative you offer makes no fucking sense whatsoever, it's hard to believe that tens of trillions of dollars are spent, accrued, and distributed in secret to cover up something so pointless.

You jump through insane hoops to imagine you are the gifted one, the truthteller. At the same time, you doubt that anyone in a population of seven billion people could find a shred of hard evidence for a 400 year conspiracy. You are like the definition of a conspiracy loon, and anyone with any self respect in this movement should loathe you to your core.

uh no this is what comes up. jet aircraft

lol u think this is real? http://namonitore.ru/uploads/catalog/aviations/chastniy_reaktivniy_samolet_1024.jpg

almost all the pictures are real, you had to scan through to find the cgi image you linked, you didn't just link the search results like I did.

TIL you need to look at what you're clicking on

You said after 30 seconds of searching.

Yes, I found that image in no time.

They all look fake to me.

Hey, if you think an image provided to you of someone fixing a satellite in space, that's on you. You've been continually provided images and data that you reject "just because". Nasa could kindap you and send you to the moon as a test subject and you'd still find a way to say it was fake. At that point it's no longer mental gymnastics it's mental zero-gravity spacewalking.

You still haven't shown any (non composite) pictures of Earth from satellites.

I provided an entire website full of images that updated on a regular basis.

lol u think this is real? http://namonitore.ru/uploads/catalog/aviations/chastniy_reaktivniy_samolet_1024.jpg

Can you not read? I said ALMOST ALL are real. Which they are at least 90 % on the page look like they are real airplanes. The satellite page look like they are all cartoons. you are struggling, just admit that you have never looked into this subject for yourself and stop trying to blindly defend NASA when you are only going off of what you have been told from NASA.

Again how blindly do you trust the government? Do you also believe the official 9/11 government fairytale?

Can you not read? I said ALMOST ALL are real. Which they are at least 90 % on the page look like they are real airplanes.

So what we've established is that some of the images on google are real and some are fake. Good work.

google airplanes images = 99% real. google Satellite images = 99% cartoons. not "some"

still waiting on you to answer how much you trust the government and your 9/11 stance.

google airplanes images = 99% real. google Satellite images = 99% cartoons. not "some"

Yes, I never made any claims otherwise. Care to expoud on how you think that particular image is fake?

still waiting on you to answer how much you trust the government and your 9/11 stance.

Sounds like ad hominem territory to me, which of course, instead of actually addressing any of my points, you'll just resort back to

Sounds like ad hominem territory to me, which of course, instead of actually addressing any of my points, you'll just resort back to

= shill that comes into the new section of /r/conspiracy to "debunk" everything gotcha. It wasn't a hard question and it's relevant because if you believe 9/11 then I'm definitely wasting my time because obviously you couldn't be open to NASA and all that "science" being a scam.

Either way I'm done responding because you already have it all figured out, so you can go shill back and forth with someone else.

= shill that comes into the new section of /r/conspiracy to "debunk" everything gotcha. It wasn't a hard question and it's relevant because if you believe 9/11 then I'm definitely wasting my time because obviously you couldn't be open to NASA and all that "science" being a scam.

Sounds like ad hominem territory to me, which of course, instead of actually addressing any of my points, you'll just resort back to

You really think that all the people needed to keep a conspiracy as big as 9/11 covered up have somehow stayed silent?! Hur dur jet fuel can't melt steel beams etc

Why are you hanging around in a conspiracy thread that has zero points? Loser

The twin towers never actually existed.

Prove me wrong.

https://youtu.be/ls9yJTphLxg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiTiKOy59o4

thought you were clever with that one didn't you. Why not go observe the physical evidence and buy a telescope, you can look at the satellites responsible for producing that image. I would ask you where the government secretly secured the funds to produce such an expensive render but im sure the explanation involves lizard people and jews.

lizard people and jews

Ok, I'm Jewish and I've been hearing this more and more. I'm not sure what this is, can you explain it? btw not offended, just curious at how the jews relate to lizard people all the damn time lol

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/11/07/the-not-so-good-old-days

A lot of conspiracy theorists believe in the new world order, which in their hypothetical version of the world is either run by the Jews or lizard people, sometimes both ;) its just an extreme form of anti semitism

The amount of stupidity that you spew is absolutely disgusting

You act as if we need to get your approval. Do this stuff for yourself so you can find out. That's the point of scientific method, there doesn't need to be an appeal to authority, you can carefully run the tests yourself and see the same result.

"Please show me the billions of insects and micro-organisms that allegedly exist in my back yard! All I see is grass and dog shit!"

show me some pictures of satellites in space

With just a descent pair of binoculars, you can make out the solar panels on the ISS. It looks like a little white tie fighter. I saw it once when a space shuttle was docked to it, and you could make that out too. Check this out

I would really encourage you to get a pair of binoculars and start looking up. You can identify different aircraft types, and with a website like flightaware.com you can even find out where the planes are going. You'll also get accustomed to what a fast-moving, high-altitude aircraft looks like, and it will be very clear to you that a satellite, when you spot one, is much higher, and going much faster.

They can also be perfectly still and are not always in rhythm like the oceans.

Movement and waves aren't tides.

I live by a lake and the tides are bigger when there is more wind, go figure.

You live by a lake that isn't large enough to see any tidal effect. Wind blowing water =/= tides

Yes according to "science" at some magical point we can break through gravity and emerge in a "vacuum" that does not contain gravity.

We don't "break through gravity"

The vacuum of space is never claimed to not have gravity. If that was the claim the universe as we know it wouldn't function as it does.

So you claim that this "vacuum" does have gravity?

Yes gravity works in space. The presence of gravitational force isn't affected by a vacuum.

OP's original question still hasn't been answered

Yes it has.

How is gravity of Earth held and separated from the vacuum?

It's not separated. You aren't stuck to this planet because of gravity and then magically at a certain altitude gravity just stops and you hit vacuum. It's not a discrete change. It's not pick one or the other; gravity or vacuum.

And for clarifiction, space is also not a true, perfect vacuum.

You live by a lake that isn't large enough to see any tidal effect. Wind blowing water =/= tides

Why not, why doesn't gravity (from the moon) not effect smaller bodies of water?

Yes gravity works in space. The presence of gravitational force isn't affected by a vacuum.

Why do astronauts supposedly freely float in space? What is the difference when we break into the "vacuum"?

It's not separated. You aren't stuck to this planet because of gravity and then magically at a certain altitude gravity just stops and you hit vacuum. It's not a discrete change. It's not pick one or the other; gravity or vacuum.

Again so at what point does a craft/person held to Earth by Gravity or float in space?

Why not, why doesn't gravity (from the moon) not effect smaller bodies of water?

It affects them.

Most lakes are small enough that the affect is indiscernable to the naked eye.

Why do astronauts supposedly freely float in space? What is the difference when we break into the "vacuum"?

I'd advise you do to some very basic reading on weightlessness and "zero-gravity" before you go around acting so incredulous.

Again so at what point does a craft/person held to Earth by Gravity or float in space?

At the point where you can maintain constant freefall. This is generally done at around ~200 km above the Earth

Astronauts float in space because they are in free fall. You know how when you go downhill on a roller coaster you get that weightless feeling? It's the same principle. Gravity at the orbit of the ISS is 90% of the gravity on the surface. If we built a giant podium to the height of the orbit of the ISS and stood you on it you would not experience "no gravity."

Those astronauts float because they are constantly falling to the ground but they are so high up (200km or whatever it is) and traveling laterally so fast (17,000 mph) that they constantly miss the ground. You should really research something as basic as free fall before accusing other people of being ignorant.

You should really research something as basic as free fall before accusing other people of being ignorant.

I have researched this stuff unlike you. I of course used to believe the bullshit that we were "taught" as well. You are making many assumptions. The THEORY of gravity is only an ASSUMPTION. Please don't act like you have actually researched this issue at all, you are only parroting dogmas from the NASA priest class.

Out of curiosity... What was your research? If everything taught in schools is wrong, what is right?

If by "researched" you mean getting my information from ridiculous, easily falsified, Flat-Earth garbage websites and Youtube videos then no. I haven't done any "research."

How can you possibly think you have all the answers when you don't understand free fall? You're so ignorant you don't even know what scientists think. You think they think that there is a spot above the Earth where gravity just "stops" and things start floating. But somehow you know that they're wrong even though you obviously don't understand what they say.

Also,

Lrn2InverseSquareLaw

It's obvious that you don't realise that a theory in scientific terms isn't even close to what we call a theory in every day life. A theory is a hypothesis with a significant amount of evidence to back it up. If even one test/experiment proved it wrong, then it would have to be thrown away.

But by all means, i'm very curious of this groundbreaking research you have made on the matter, since clearly you must know something everyone else doesen't

And hey, since gravity doesen't exist, you can jump off the empire state without any issues right?

"And hey, since gravity doesen't exist, you can jump off the empire state without any issues right?"

That the effect that you fall with increased momentum when you jump off the Empire State Building does not prove that gravity exists. There have been competing ideas such as Roman thought that things fell because it was their nature to be close to Earth.

If you're going to argue the scientific method, please don't get something so basic wrong.

"Gravity" and "vacuum" are not mutually exclusive terms. The vacuum of space refers to areas outside of atmosphere where there is an almost compete lack of matter, while gravity simply refers to a weak force between two bodies. There is nowhere in space where you are free from the effects of gravity.

There is nowhere in space where you are free from the effects of gravity.

There is nowhere in space where the made up term "gravity" exists. Density and buoyancy are all you need to know.

Buoyancy is the result of gravity...

So are you saying that, if you created a vacuum here on earth and put a lead ball in it, it would float around? If there's no air there to create a buoyancy, it would just float around, right? Have you ever thought of trying this experiment?

I don't think these people value the scientific principle of experimentation.

The term exists here on earth. What kind of stupid comment is that? And you do realize that denser objects sink... because if gravity, right? They wouldn't sink without it.

I know that is the theory but it has never been reproduced or proven.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

I would love to see a video of someone making small balls spin around larger balls because of gravity, surely that exists if it can be done.

Literally take that idea you just had, apply it to satellites and there it is. Small balls moving around a larger one.

I mean Jesus the answer is literally right above you in the sky.

Show me pictures of these satellites in space. Why are all the pictures of Earth composites if we have satellites able to take REAL pictures. Before you say Google Earth those are just from high flying airplanes/blimps, notice the "globe" turns CGI when you zoom out. And show me a picture of the Google satellites, preferably in space but even on the ground before they were launched will work as well.

Good luck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLMRWvXuc5U

Show me pictures of these satellites in space

Have you ever watched the night sky and seen moving lights? That's satellites. There's even a website where you can check when ISS is flying overhead.

http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/#.VVjk7JeqpBc

That doesn't mean that there is anyone in there. Please don't tell me you think that people live in that tin can going 18,000mph for over a year with no showers or way to wash their clothes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOzrRlwkUr0

So you admit that there is a least a 'tin can' there though?

with no showers or way to wash their clothes

There are a lot of people here on Earth who do not have these luxuries and are doing just fine.

What do you think the International Space Station is? What about how when I drop my phone it hits the ground? Do you believe in the general chemistry taught at university's? How deep does the illusions go, what is the truth?

You seem to have all of the answers so please, convince me to grab a tinfoil hate and help spread the truth about the mighty government lies.

convince me to grab a tinfoil hate

Number one sign of deep conditioning/brainwashing is when someone pulls this term out. It shows that you don't really care what I have to say and your mind is already made up.

What about how when I drop my phone it hits the ground?

It's very simple, the phone is heavier/more dense than the surrounding air so it falls. something like helium that is lighter/less dense than the surrounding medium will rise. You don't need a magic word called "Gravity" to explain that.

Like I said though you are using the "tinfoil hat" term though so you are not serious about anything I have to say so I won't go on.

Please, enlighten me: why would something fall if not for gravity?

I answered that in the above comment.

It's very simple, the phone is heavier/more dense than the surrounding air so it falls. something like helium that is lighter/less dense than the surrounding medium will rise. You don't need a magic word called "Gravity" to explain that.

the reason that denser things tend towards the bottom is due to gravity, though. So you're just restating the exact same thing.

Density is a very separate term from gravity and they have entirely different meanings. How can you compare them?

How do you explain planet orbitals?

Is the earth flat too?

correct.

Explain it

https://youtu.be/jZS0etOOeP4

Since I'm sure you have many questions listening to this will give you good grasp on it.

Either a troll or really quite stupid. Either way..

Well, those aren't mutually exclusive... There tends to be a big overlap, I've noticed.

Were you asleep during high school physics? There's a gravitational constant that occurs according the mass of two objects. You can't just pick up some balls and make them spin around each other, the gravitational pull is too weak. Now, take the Earth and the International Space Station, two very different masses and literally astronomically different sizes, the pull the earth has on the ISS is going to be much strong than anything we could observe in a classroom.

Also, you've assumed a theory is something not proven but that's how it works. Multiple theories make up laws in the science world. The laws of physics include the theory of gravity, it's that simple. Gravity can be observed when the mass is big enough.

That's... Umm... Kind of exactly how our solar system is

Gravity affects both of these things. Tides can be witnessed on sufficiently large bodies of water like the Great Lakes.

They can also be perfectly still and are not always in rhythm like the oceans. I live by a lake and the tides are bigger when there is more wind, go figure.

You appear to be confusing "waves" with "tides".

Haha, what? Gravity is a function of distance squared. No spot in the universe is not affected by gravity, it's just weaker some places than others. Waves are more visual in the ocean because there the moon is both pulling the waves towards it on the face of the earth that is towards the moon, but is pulling the earth from the water on the face that is opposite the moon.

Gravity acts like a field, just like magnetic fields. It's not just here or there, it's everywhere. It never disappears. Just as you can feel magnets pull harder against each other when they are near each other, gravity is always pulling.

Astronauts are not weightless, they are very much affected by gravity. They are constantly falling, trick is that they are going so fast perpendicular to the point they are falling towards that they "miss" and keep on falling.

You should really read an first course physics book, and try to understand what it is that you are arguing against. I recommend University Physics, as that both goes into the math and the physics parts required to understand Newtons theory of gravity.

On a side note: Gravity is also just a theory that explains how the world we observe works. It's an explanation, and one that explains most of what we see.

If you have a better explanation and you want to disprove the theory of gravity, you'll have to cook up an experiment where your theory holds true and gravity fails. If you can truly disprove gravity, you'll be world famous, and I look forward to seeing how your theory holds up to scrutiny.

It's funny after you think about it that we believe that at some magical point in the sky "gravity" just disappears. So could you theoretically have half of your body on the gravity side and the other half on the non-gravity side? It's ridiculous the "scientific" lies that we've been fed.

Okay, you've got gravity COMPLETELY wrong on this part. Space stations, astronauts, and even the moon are not weightless at all. The vacuum of space has gravity just like everywhere in the universe. If someone made a ladder that could reach the height of the space station and climbed it to the top, they'd weight pretty much the same as they do on earth. All satellites are are falling towards the earth, but moving so fast sideways that the curvature of the earth keeps them from hitting the ground. The space station is moving at around 17,000 miles per hour!

Tl:Dr Astronauts and the moon are not weightless, they are just falling sideways.

Truth is there is no "vacuum" in space.

So what is there in space? Please, I'd love to hear your theory.

It's a region with extremely low density of particles. But it's not a density of 0 (at sufficiently large enough volumnes of measurement). A cursory search says that it's estimated at between 0.1 and 1 atom/cm³ though estimates found were between 1970 and 1995. I'm sure more percise and accurate estimates are known by now.

Yeah I've heard it's somewhere around 1 atom/m^3. That's close enough to 0 to be called a vacuum, though.

Don't you wish everyone knew when to mark /sarcastic or /troll for themselves? Would make it easier...

Or are you /serious?

I believe it's because the atmosphere has a mass, and Earth has gravity to hold that mass in place.

Despite this, I believe I've read that we are technically losing atmosphere, albeit very, very slowly, and the lighter atmospheric elements (such as helium) are being lost more quickly than the heavier ones.

However, I've provided no citations for any of this, so take it as you will. Google would probably find you the correct and properly sourced answer fairly quickly, so I'm not sure why you're asking here and not somewhere more substantial.

[deleted]

If you're going to refer to gravity as "just a theory" then I don't see the point in trying to have any sort of scientific conversation about anything. Don't mean to be snippy, but if you don't recognize the accepted scientific explanation for how gravity works as factual information, there's really no reason to continue this discussion.

And again, if you're genuinely curious for the scientific answer as you claimed to be, you'd look it up like most people do instead of trying to start a pointless conversation on an internet forum where conspiracy theories are discussed.

[deleted]

The phrase "just a theory" has a very specific anti-scientific connotation. It's completely dismissive to the point of undermining or calling things into doubt that aren't particularly doubted in the scientific community as a whole.

Find anyone saying "evolution is just a theory" and you'll see what I mean. I used to be one of those people who would use that sort of phrase, so I know very well what it implies and what it actually means.

What it implies is that the theory isn't factual. Which is wrong.

What it actually means, however, is that the person making the statement doesn't fully understand how science actually works, as,in science, something can be considered both a theory and a fact.

Having a scientific conversation with someone who doesn't understand how science works is not generally a productive thing to do.

Didn't think I was being an asshole. But whatever. Also, if you must know, my username is my first initial and my last name. Nothing to do with being an actual shill, other than my last name is Shill so technically I'm an actual Shill with a capital S.

"That's Mr. Shill to you."

Dank meme, brah.

if you have evidence to "prove" gravity

i ain't flying, where is my cheque?

Yes, Gravity IS a theory.

No, Gravity IS NOT a theory. Gravity is an observable force and something measurable.

The holographic entropic origin of gravity is a theory. The grand unified forces theory is a theory. Curvature of space-time is a theory.

Gravity is reality.

Yes, it is a theory. HOWEVER, Theory doesn't mean what OP thinks it does; it means that we have proved beyond resonable doubt that it is TRUE, unlike a hypothesis, which is what OP's implied definition seems to correlate with. Fg = -G(m1m2)/(r²⁾ as far as we can tell; nothing contradicts that.

Do you think a vacuum in space has force or power or something? It's just a relatively low pressure area with nothing but hydrogen atoms. Gravity keeps our relatively high pressure atmosphere intact. Without gravity, our high pressure atmosphere would move into the vacuum of space.

Don't take the word 'vacuum' literally.

If you're having trouble grasping this: think about a submarine. The submarine is a relatively low pressure environment surrounded by a high pressure environment (the ocean). When the hull of the submarine breaks, the water rushes in (and NOT because the submarine 'vacuums' the water). The opposite effect will happen if you are in a high pressure capsule surrounded by a low pressure field (like space); the opposite effect being one where things rush out (instead of in), and again, not because it is 'vacuumed'. Gravity is the only thing keeping our high pressure environment intact by keeping it from escaping into the low pressure environment.

Another example: farting. Farting involves moving high pressure gas OUT of your body and into a low pressure environment. The low pressure environment is not vacuuming your fart.

The low pressure environment is not vacuuming your fart.

No, but that's exactly how I'm going to think of it from here on out.

Gravity is an observed force, not a theory. The theory of gravity is science's best explanations for how the force called gravity works.

Either take this to /r/science or /r/astronomy. People here have told you the answer, and it is a bit more complicated than they say, but basically gravity. Don't call people shilld for giving you an answer you don't agree with. I'm under the impression you just posted this to make this sub look dumb as this sub is not the place for this at all. If you really are curious, find an educational astronomy website or book and look up escape velocity.

To everyone else, don't feed the troll.

To be fair. My name literally is a_shill, and I'm the one that was directed at.

And you probably shouldn't tell other people not to call a_shill a shill and then proceed to call that person a troll. Seems a bit disingenuous, wouldn't you say?

Well I've seen more and more of these posts that:

1) OP asks a question that goes way against the grain, then disregards any evidence presented against his/her opinion;

2) have to do with flat earth, hollow earth, impossibility of space and whatnot, when again, all it takes is a little bit of research to uncover over a thousand years of evidence spanning from the middle east to Italy to Spain to the US.

The more I see these, the more I think they're posts to discredit theorists. "Oh you're a conspiracy theorist, so you're one of those people that believes JFK was killed by CIA and the world is flat!" And again, OPs post doesn't belong in this sub. Now if OP had come across evidence of his opinion and presented it, then asked for further opinion and discussion I'd be more receptive. But asking an extremely open ended question and providing no discussion on OPs end raises some red flags for me.

Fair enough, I suppose.

Yeah, this thread is linked in /r/SubredditDrama and most of the comments are about how crazy everybody here is for believing it.

It doesn't help that this thread was linked in /r/SubredditDrama and the top comment associates this gravity bullshit with JIDF.

Please clarify. Saying I'm JIDF? Or what?

No, just associating people who talk about JIDF shills with this gravity fucknut

Top comment: "Fun fact: The reason that objects appear to fall towards the Earth when in the air is actually that there are millions of microscopic JIDF shills all around us in the air. They swarm around the objects & pull them towards the Earth to keep the sheeple believing in the "official" narrative of physics."

rest of the comments

Is your username a reference to Doakes from the show Dexter?

Yes sir! Greatest 4 seasons of television ever!

And yeah, saw the thread. Nothing we can do about it, dumbasses gonna dumbass. They just enjoy talking trash about other people because they don't enjoy their lives.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Nvm just checked. Love how they don't acknowledge my post calling OP out on thus crap. Seems....I was right!

Hiya. So... this is part of the field I work in (namely, astronomic spectroscopy. Focusing on planet forming regions). The reason that it doesn't work exactly as you think is because a vacuum has no actual force. In space, the vacuum that you are thinking of is a literal absence of other things. Gravity is an extremely weak force, you are correct - however, in the case of space, you have to realize that there are basically no other forces to counter it. Gravity might be weak, but it works at very long range and only gets stronger as you get closer.

As a result of that, molecules in space tend to eventually cluster and form objects - clouds, stars, asteroids, pulsars, black holes (I'm stretching there), planets, etc...

In the case of Earth, you need to keep in mind that the atmosphere doesn't suddenly stop. There is no hard line at where you can poke your hand out and have it explode because of the shift to 10^-12 torr. Instead, as you get farther and farther from the surface of the earth, the atmosphere gets thinner and thinner. From one perspective, you could actually say that there is no real difference between the surface and outer space - it's just that due to the gravity of this giant rock we're on, there is a much larger concentration of nitrogen, oxygen, and other gases near the surface of that rock.

[deleted]

Anytime. I think your choice of subreddit led to the majority of your problem, as /r/conspiracy is just generally full of trolls. In the future I recommend /r/askscience, /r/explainlikeimfive, or possibly just /r/science. They tend to be pretty helpful for this sort of stuff.

According to accepted physics, all matter is just conglomerations of interacting frequencies of energy. Therefore the universe is created similar to cymatics. The vacuum of space represents the empty area in this experiment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtiSCBXbHAg

If it's true that space is a vacuum, doesn't that just suck?

A vacuum doesn't mean something with suction. Space being a vacuum isn't the same as a vacuum cleaner. A vacuum in the context of space just means that it is empty and has very little matter.

Look at the brigading in here. This subject seems to be hit hard whenever it's mentioned anywhere on reddit. I wonder why...

Can I point out that your probably miss defining vacuum as something that sucks and the kind of vacuum that space is is more of a lack of stuff i.e. air.

Just turn around: this guy is a troll

Sadly, these idiots will claim they understand gravity and parrot information but not a one of them I bet has read the Principia or even the book Gravity. Neither book proves gravity, also not one scientist has been able to make a dense or large enough object to attract anything.

also not one scientist has been able to make a dense or large enough object to attract anything.

Technically any object of mass will attract anything else, given time and a sufficient absence of resistance (For instance, 'space').

That means that if you place a pair of dice, or bowling balls etc. In space, they will eventually meet given enough time.

Such a thing cannot be done on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Brilliant, I was thinking of the friction involved in balls rolling towards one another by gravity alone being too great.

Of course it has to be done where no one is allowed to go because it is impossible to go into space, nature abhors a vacuum. Why can't they make a mountain of tungsten carbide and place a ping pong ball 1 mm away from it by all the laws of gravity it would prove gravity by pulling that ping pong ball towards it, but it can't, it won't, and they won't. Stop bowing down to your masters. Freemasonry knows this all architects know this, the earth is flat an there is no outer space.

Why can't they make a mountain of tungsten carbide and place a ping pong ball 1 mm away from it by all the laws of gravity it would prove gravity by pulling that ping pong ball towards it, but it can't, it won't, and they won't.

Here's a similar experiment to what you're describing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment

It was conducted by measuring the effect the gravity of a mountain had on a pendulum. By estimating the volume of the mountain, its density could be calculated and used as an approximation for the density of the Earth.

Holy cow this was done in Scotland in 1774 and none of us nor our great great grandparents were around to witness it. This is called appeal to authority ( logical fallacy) as is the other experiment Cavendish did in the 1800s.

Where are the current gravity proofs. I do not debate I weigh a certain amount due to density, what I am stating is the magic pull of two objects towards each other non magnetic has not been proven.

I do not debate I weigh a certain amount due to density

You should debate that, actually, as it's incorrect. You have a certain weight due to the overall amount of matter you contain and due to gravity, not due to density. For example, if you have 1 pound of feathers in a large bag, then compress those feathers into a smaller bag to decrease the overall density, their mass (and, likewise, weight) would not increase or decrease due to a change in density.

Also, you only have weight (not to be confused with mass, which exists independent of gravity) due to gravity, and this weight is variable based on the force of gravity being exerted on you.

While your mass remains constant (relatively, as it will grow and shrink due to eating, pooping, etc.), your weight on Earth, in Earth gravity, is more than your weight on the moon, in the moon's gravity.

You have no idea what that logical fallacy means and even if you did it wouldn't make your argument.

You said no such experiments had been performed. He proved you wrong.

it's not like those experiments were done once and and people were like 'heheheh we've proven science'. they've been repeated. hell, you can repeat them yourself if you want. the best way to make people agree with you, expecially when your claims are as socially outlandish as they are, is to produce evidence, not simply say that your opposition's evidence is wrong.

Your proof:

https://youtu.be/P5LzJrVKmBk https://youtu.be/60Du0G7FA_Y

There are many more but this ought to whet your appetite, if you are earnest about truth I will send you more.

I think I am 'earnest about truth', though I'm definately what you'd consider a skeptic. I'd love to hear more feedback on this though.

The video was interesting, but flawed. In the first part about sunrays, sunrays ARE (almost)parallel. They appear to converge do to perspective. The examples they show of "actual" Distant sun rays are done with the wrong perspective. In the first, fully cg scene, the observed sun rays are observed converging on a point in front of the viewer. The distant sun rays point directly above the viewer. In the scene with the photograph, the photograph is oriented so the sun is on the left of the viewer, while the parallel rays point to the right. In both cases the sun is in different locations than the picture. No wonder the rays dont align. In the second scene, you can even see how the actually parallel lines appear to converge at a point. This is caused, like the sun rays you see converging, by perspective. The sun rays in the images appear to come from the clouds straight down, diverging drastically. In actuality, they extend forward towards you, the percieved angle coming from the same source as the percieved angle between two parallel train tracks.

In the second argument with the reflection of the sun, the reflection behaves as if the earth is flat because the eArth essentially is. Its radius is so great and its curvature therefore so low that any divergence in behaviour from that of a plane is hard to detect. When interfered with by the comparatively huge perturbations of even gentle waves, it would be almost impossible. I dont know how to the "following reflection "thing because they dont explain it.

The sun shines in ALL Directions. It can shine on you and the ocean at the same time.

The reason your shadow never moves upwards is because as soon as the earth rotates so that the sun is even a bit below your head, it is almost instantly occluded by the horizon.

The image of the galaxy is either an artists impression or an image of a different galaxy. Nasa has never, ever claimed to have an image of the milky way from the outside.

Imagine the earth is a globe for a second. Now imagine the earth was tilted so the north pole faced the sun. Obviously, at certain time of year, the entire northern hemisphere would have 24 hour sunlight. In reality, the tilt is not so extreme, so only smaller parts of the globe can have 24 hour day/night.

The tilt is what causes varrying days and seasons, as different parts of the earth are exposed to the sun differently.

The poles have seasons, but one summer isn't enough to have enough effect before winter resets it.

The moon phase/ day swapping argument doesnt make sense to me, cant say anything to it until I get it. Haldway through the vid and a ginormous message so ill stop here for now. Again this is pretty interesting.

So your only proof that space travel isn't real is because of an old idiom?

Why can't they make a mountain of tungsten carbide and place a ping pong ball 1 mm away from it by all the laws of gravity it would prove gravity by pulling that ping pong ball towards it, but it can't

Why can't it? Is gravity not real?

This is literally just high school physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Microgravity as a result of a "small" mass has been observed by the Rosetta comet mission. The lander, Philae, had to "hop" on the comet to go to a non-shaded spot so it can get sunlight for its solar cells. The hops were extremely light in force to make sure Philae doesn't hit escape velocity of the comet and fly off into space. This shows that an object no matter how "small" it is has gravity.

mass of comet 67p: 10¹³ kg

dimensions: roughly 4x3x2 km around

escape velocity on the comet: ~1 meter/sec

So the lander essentially had to hop at a speed less than 1/m a second in order to stay below the escape threshold and remain on the astral body. Also this post shows the irrationalities of lizard believers.

https://youtu.be/CgoORq0AC_8 The appeal to authority and your belief in lying NASA IS WORSE THAN ANY LIZARD BELIEVER.

ANY serious investigation into flat earth or NASA comes up with the same results. If you choose to be a part of the heaping mass that will vote, will pay taxes, will bow down to the flag, will believe that 11 years after NASA came about they landed on the moon.

You have to seriously question EVERYTHING. I was a NASA fan too at one point but my investigation into all the lies led me here to the truth. Flat Earth, no space travel, that is a fantasy.

joks on u. ESA did it not nasa. no connection to WTC 7 here. This shows taht your "NASA HURR BAD FAKE" is a purely reflex action that automatically activates whenever someone puts the combines two "A" vowels with the consonants N and S. This whole thread is a joke lmao.

Time to go back to writing school my friend unless you were too busy laughing so hard you could barely type.

The first sign of losing an argument is to directly attack the grammar.

You didn't have an argument but ok. The first sign of losing a job as a shill is people waking up to the fact that Illuminati, Freemasonry and satanic groups are all sun worshippers therefore like Busta Rhymes stated flip mode squad went around with pseudoscience claiming sun was the center of it all and here we are now with over 300,000 supposed free thinkers who will think of anything but flat earth as the real solution. Honestly when people understand this is the biggest conspiracy of all is when humanity can become free because governments hand are all over this one the biggest fucking lie ever constructed and has shown all the results of thinking we are tiny worthless beings on a tiny speck flowing through the universe. Nope we are absolutely the pinnacle of this creation who has been poorly taught and educated about who we are and what we are supposed to be doing.

Protip: when someone stops responding to you, it doesn't mean you won the argument. It means they don't see you as someone worthy of arguing against. Also if the FE theory is true, how do you explain the extreme north or south having 100% light days or 100% darkness nights?

http://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif

The sun and moon move in rythmic cycles think yin and yang over the flat earth look at the UN flag for what the map really looks like. In the winter months the sun is near the center hence the never setting sun seen in north polar climates and why Antarctica is in darkness during this time.

Can you draw a picture? What you've described doesn't really make sense to me.

Skip to 3:45 on this video and it should make better sense. https://youtu.be/n13pAy3mC2Y

Pretty neat idea. Too bad it doesn't line up with what is observed!

What causes the odd shape and spots? And what causes the Sun and Moon to orbit each other?

It lines up exactly with what is observed. You would not have long shadows in the morning and night and 0 shadows at high noon with a sun 93 million miles away. It would be on or off and similar shadows all day long. Go out in nature and pay attention to how the clouds surrounding the sun are extremely brights and away from the sun darker this would not be the observation if it was 93 million miles away the clouds would have no shadows on the side away from the sun.

Where are you getting these beliefs? I see no citations so I'm assuming there's no evidence to back it up. Is it just logic?

They are not beliefs, that is for the ignorant. What I am telling you are logical observations. I'm going to trust my own brain and senses and math over the current paradigm of enslaved people who think they are free and believe in absolute utter bullshit because a television told them it is so. I have watched dozens of flat earth videos and read several books on the subject. I'm not here to prove flat earth I an here to spark interest into others looking into it. I'm as truthful and honest as I can be that we are on a flat plane with two objects that encircle us. I'm not going to convince anyone of anything that is the job of the self not me, I can only offer truth it's up to you to figure it out.

What math?! If you could mathematically disprove the distance from the Earth to the Sun, or prove that the Earth is flat just using math, I'd be very surprised.

dozens of flat earth videos and read several books on the subject

Wow! Dozens! Several!

What type of existence you must live. I'm sorry you have parental abandonment issues. It's okay you can always keep cashing those checks they send you to stay on here. This is my last response to you good day.

Show the math.

google airplanes images = 99% real. google Satellite images = 99% cartoons. not "some"

Yes, I never made any claims otherwise. Care to expoud on how you think that particular image is fake?

still waiting on you to answer how much you trust the government and your 9/11 stance.

Sounds like ad hominem territory to me, which of course, instead of actually addressing any of my points, you'll just resort back to

So your only proof that space travel isn't real is because of an old idiom?

Why can't they make a mountain of tungsten carbide and place a ping pong ball 1 mm away from it by all the laws of gravity it would prove gravity by pulling that ping pong ball towards it, but it can't

Why can't it? Is gravity not real?

Why can't they make a mountain of tungsten carbide and place a ping pong ball 1 mm away from it by all the laws of gravity it would prove gravity by pulling that ping pong ball towards it, but it can't, it won't, and they won't.

Here's a similar experiment to what you're describing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment

It was conducted by measuring the effect the gravity of a mountain had on a pendulum. By estimating the volume of the mountain, its density could be calculated and used as an approximation for the density of the Earth.

Brilliant, I was thinking of the friction involved in balls rolling towards one another by gravity alone being too great.

Please clarify. Saying I'm JIDF? Or what?

Nvm just checked. Love how they don't acknowledge my post calling OP out on thus crap. Seems....I was right!

joks on u. ESA did it not nasa. no connection to WTC 7 here. This shows taht your "NASA HURR BAD FAKE" is a purely reflex action that automatically activates whenever someone puts the combines two "A" vowels with the consonants N and S. This whole thread is a joke lmao.