Utter stupidity.

If gravity wasn't real, the atmosphere would not have weight. The only thing preventing the atmosphere from floating off into deep space is gravity.

Besides, if this theory was true, anything launched above the atmosphere would never come back down, because there would be no atmosphere above it to push it down.

This is even more ridiculous than the "flat earth" bullshit.

This is even more ridiculous than the "flat earth" bullshit.

What's sad but fascinating is that the best posters on this subreddit, such as KiwiBattlerNZ, somehow aren't skeptical enough to suspect these type of "Everything Is Fake/Hoax" posts to be part of an organized program.

Whether this program is the promised Cass Sunstein "cognitive infiltration" or JTRIG or the FBI or DOD or some private effort, smart conspiracy theorists should recognize by now: Don't take anybody at face value. We live in a Secret Police state full of Secret Police.

If gravity isn't real what gives the atmosphere "weight"?

its mass

But if not gravity, what causes the mass of the atmosphere to be attracted to the mass of the earth? And why would the mass of the atmosphere go towards the earth, but not the mass of everything else? I'm just not following the logic here.

Is not attracted. It just sits on top of. Layers of density. Why is it that a helium balloon can resist the gravity of the whole earth.

Because the density of helium is less than that of Nitrogen, So there is a net force away from the earth as the gasses in the atmosphere are pulled down by gravity with greater force than the helium. When the helium balloon eventually pops, the helium doesn't escape into space, it becomes part of the atmosphere, settling into a layer that has a similar density.

If there was no gravity, wouldn't the gases in the atmosphere escape in to space? Without gravity what makes the atmosphere "just sit on top of" the earth? Gravitational attraction is what gives mass "weight", so you can't really say that we're all held down by the "weight" of the atmosphere, but gravity doesn't exist. Oh and speaking of weight, if your theory was true, shouldn't everything on earth weigh the same? Shouldn't everything weigh the exact amount of atmospheric pressure that is "holding down" the object?

well if you are in a newtonian heliocentric paradigm. Then yes gravity is real. go back to sleep. everything is ok.

if you are curious i'll send you here

oh, so... flat earth then. Right, no point in continuing this discussion.

OR electric universe with a mix of Russelian science.

Orbital mechanics caused by harmonic effects not gravity. Possiblity of The Ether.

many different ways to look at it.

i mean... if various asian traditions (being and nothingness are the same, reality is an illusion, etc.) and modern science (neil degrasse tyson recently stated, "it is highly probable our universe is a simulation.") agree that reality is an illusion then gravity would be not real. Like everything else.

Neil Tyson is not a scientist and doesn't represent science.

The theories of Eric Verlinde and Nassim Haramein are relevant and agree with you, and those two are scientists.

Says the snake with a B.A. Physics from Harvard; an M.A. in Astronomy from University of Texas at Austin; and a Ph. D in Astrophysics from Columbia University? Oh, wait, that's Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Have you looked into his Ph. D. thesis? It's quite unimpressive and suggests the role of affirmative action in all of his "credentials."

It's not that it wouldn't be real, it would just be coded/defined physics in a simulation. GTA has defined physics, yet if you mod those physics you can jump 10x higher than you "normally" could (example).

this is really more suited for r/metaphysics...

he said "highly probable"?

ruh-roh. my misquote. "very likely"

is this the new flat earth type of conspiracy?

GTFO OP

I'm not going to try and sum up the problems with the current model of gravitation. You are right to question it. Read this:

http://milesmathis.com/third.html

"Gravity is universal expansion at the microlevel, hidden by proportional expansion."

What do people with PHD's in physics think about these theories? This fellow doesn't appear to have any sort of degree. Further more "In the winter of 2007, while on vacation in Spain, Miles solved what has been billed as the oldest surviving math problem in the world." huh? "http://milesmathis.com/euclid.html" This guy is a joke. He knows how to read fancy books which make him sound intelligent but given how crackpot his math is, I have pretty serious doubts about the rest of his work. My credentials? MS in mathematics. His? BA in what appears to be philosophy.

Miles Mathis is bird-poop. But I suspect it's a military intelligence disinfo type of bird-poop. And the users of this subreddit who promote him are the same posters.

OK I am with you here in a way.

I wouldn't say that gravity doesn't exist, that isn't quite right. I would say that gravity does not exist between any two objects neither of which are the earth.

The phenomenon that keeps us on the surface of the earth could be called gravity, but the equation for gravity (the idea that the force of gravity is determined by the mass of two objects and the distance between them) is not easily replicated and is therefore bad science.

The cavendish experiment is the only experiment that demonstrates the value for g and it is virtually impossible to replicate. Henry Cavendish was autistic and a member of the royal society who's motto is "Nullius in verba" which means "take no man's word." Yet his experiment that is virtually impossible to replicate is the only way we have to prove the existence of gravity as we know it.

I look at it as yet another slap in the face of our anti intellectual society that blindly accepts what authority tells them.

Forgive my formatting I am on mobile.

I would say that gravity does not exist between any two objects neither of which are the earth.

That's great! Did you know you can perform experiments confirming that you are wrong?

Do you know others besides the Cavendish experiment?

I know that the orbits of the planets presumably prove the existence of gravity as well, but do you know any other way to confirm that I am wrong?

A way that can be replicated by we the people here on the surface?

Do you know others besides the Cavendish experiment?

You are asking the following:

Name an experiment which tests the gravitational attraction between two or more masses, where one of those masses is not the earth, and which can be performed on the surface of the earth.

Meanwhile, the Cavendish experiment:

• Measures the force between masses, none of which are the earth,
• can be performed at the surface of the earth, and
• has to be carefully designed and built to work with neither systemic nor random error introduced by interaction of the apparatus with the earth's gravity, magnetic field, and 24 hour rotation about its axis.

The Cavendish experiment answers your question and neither you nor your friend users have brought up any valid criticisms of the experimental apparatus.

Consider it a challenge to yourself: in your own mind, design an experiment that meets your own question but is a new invention. If you do it, you should be recognized as pretty valuable to society -- not because we need further confirmation of gravity, but because whatever you build would show your ingenuity in coming up with something that thousands of other people could not think of.

My view is that the "problem" you claim to recognize, wherein nobody, including you, is able to answer your question is that you have worded it wrongly: The question is very specifically asking for the Cavendish experiment, or an experiment so similar to it that you could argue it to be the same thing. I am sure you cannot even imagine an experiment that matches your answer and is not the Cavendish experiment. There are other experiments, which you go on to point out, but if even you cannot imagine an experiment that is an acceptable answer to your question and is something other than the Cavendish experiment, I assert this is because your question is so specific that Cavendish experiment is the only valid answer.

In particular, needing the experiment to work on the surface of the earth requires it to somehow exclude earth's gravity and other forces on the experiment. That is the purpose of the torsion balance and other details.

On the other hand, there are some other pretty obvious explanations that are not mechanisms, but already exist: One of those experiments is called "High Tide."

You see, the tide is a bulge in the earth caused by the moon's gravity. And, in your world, where the ocean isn't held to the earth by gravity, but instead has a "falling property" or is "pushed by a force from above", the water still bulges toward the moon and sun. Why is it, in your model where gravity doesn't exist, that tides bulge toward nearby masses?

There are also voltage standard force cells in which 1kg of mass is balanced by an electromagnetic. These also measure tidal forces when the moon and sun pull on the masses.

You can also go watch a rocket launch and see the second stage arc over the horizon. You can calculate the orbital elements from what you saw. You can wait for the satellite to rise above the opposite horizon. You will find that it is in exactly the predicted place and moving with exactly the predicted orbit. Your success at creating technology, such as satellites, will reassure you that gravity is what it is.

And you can do that from the surface of the earth. You can go to the rocket launch site with a sextant, map, and compass. You can take measurements. Then, you can hand-build a 10" reflecting telescope, and you can build one. You can also hand-build a directional Yagi antenna on the communications frequency of the satellite. You can literally look at the satellite through the telescope, take movies of it, eavesdrop on its radio with the directional antenna pointed at it, and measure its orbital parameters. You can calculate its mass and verify the force equation for gravity that way.

I know that the orbits of the planets presumably prove the existence of gravity as well, but do you know any other way to confirm that I am wrong?

So, now you have mentioned the second obvious way to confirm gravity, and discarded it without comment. You don't give any reason as to this.

I would like to ask you: what prevents you from building your own hand-made 10" refracting or reflecting telescope, a little observatory shed to keep it in, and using it to measure the motions of satellites launched from a launch site, such as Cape Kennedy, Florida? Is there any reason, in principle, that you couldn't do that?

I ask because I have enjoyed access to a hand-built 10" compound telescope, built entirely by a person's civilian money. (Because he hand-built it, we can be sure it doesn't have funny electronics in it generating government shill imagery.) I have looked through that telescope at all sorts of human-built satellites. In some cases, like ISS, you can discern a lot of detail through a 10" telescope -- seeing the modules and connections, and solar arrays.

In other words, here on the surface, there's plenty of confirmation that gravity is real.

More interesting is to look into the new parts that are being figured out just now. Worth noting is that Nassim Haramein has unified nuclear physics (the strong and weak forces), with gravity. That is, the same force, with relativity incorporated, explains all those forces, and accurately predicts the measured acceleration of masses by those forces. This work is leading to all kinds of new experiments being possible -- experiments related to blurring the lines between the conditions in which we feel gravity, and the conditions in which the protons in Uranium feel gravity for each other.

Anyway, again, you shouldn't disregard the Cavendish experiment, and you should be aware that there is so much related corroborating information that gravity is real.

I appreciate your response.

I was vague in my critiques because I have discussed this various times in other places on reddit.

I do not disregard the Cavendish experiment entirely, and as you pointed out, it demonstrates the exact phenomenon that I was asking about.

The issue is that it was performed over two centuries ago and it is still the only way we have to demonstrate gravity between two objects here on the surface.

I actually set out to perform this experiment myself and I immediately hit roadblocks. First of all, the movements are very slight, and without proprietary hardware it is virtually impossible to make accurate measurements. Second, I cannot even stand near the experiment site to make my measurements because my mass would effect the results. In one instructional source, it recommended that I make my measurements from a distance using binoculars or a telescope....

It appears that this experiment is not something that an amateur like myself can plausibly replicate. It turns out that in my case I must take someone else's word that the experiment works. That isn't to say that I think it is faulty, I just want to find a method of measuring gravity that I can do myself without having to take anyone else's word.

The high tide phenomenon is an interesting one, but I won't go into that now.

I am intimately familiar with Nassim Haramein's work and it is refreshing that we can disagree so vehemently about one aspect of this discussion and then share interest in what some consider to be "pseudo science." I hadn't considered the fact that gravity plays a crucial role in Nassim's theories and I will have to take a moment to think on that.

Here:

I have enjoyed access to a hand-built 10" compound telescope, built entirely by a person's civilian money. (Because he hand-built it, we can be sure it doesn't have funny electronics in it generating government shill imagery.) I have looked through that telescope at all sorts of human-built satellites. In some cases, like ISS, you can discern a lot of detail through a 10" telescope -- seeing the modules and connections, and solar arrays.

It sounds like you are speaking to a space denier or a flat-earther. I myself am not a flat-earther. I do acknowledge that there are man made objects in our sky that appear to be "orbiting" around the earth. I am unsure why this would prove or disprove gravity between objects however.

There are alternative theories that explain all of this (including the tide phenomenon) without gravity.

Gravity does not exist in that there is no force between two objects that attracts based on their masses. The force pushing us downwards is something else.

there is no force between two objects that attracts based on their masses

Are you aware that you can construct mechanical experiments which measure the force between two objects that is proportional to their masses?

Are you sure about that? The Cavendish experiment is the one that is frequently cited, but it is extremely problematic. See here for some criticism of it: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Its bs, gravity as a force of attraction between two objects based on their mass does not exist. There is a pushing force that comes down from above.

That's a terrible criticism of the Cavendish experiment. Most of what it asserts is obviously deranged. The fact that he goes on at great length regarding his disbelief that modern experiments could function with smaller masses, or the brick construction of Cavendish's shed, or anything similar to that, is an example of deranged thinking. He also cites a 1983 experiment that reports a "7.5 in 10 to the 3rd power" discrepancy in the measured force. Put in decimal format that is 0.0075, or 0.75%, less than 1%. Three-quarters of one percent. Put in those terms, does this item seem especially relevant, or disprove a gravitational force? At worst, if it were confirmed, it might suggest changes to the constant G, or consideration of other forces, including previously unknown forces.

So, this criticism is really bad and not convincing in any way.

This is the sort of thing that we have as proof though. Its extremely thin and inaccessible. Gravity is a fraud.

That's a terrible criticism of the Cavendish experiment. Most of what it asserts is deranged.

Article goes on at great length regarding his disbelief that modern experiments could function with smaller masses, or the brick construction of Cavendish's shed, or anything similar to that, are examples of deranged thinking.

He also cites a 1983 experiment that reports a "7.5 in 10 to the 3rd power" discrepancy in the measured force. Put in decimal format that is 0.0075, or 0.75%, or, in other words: less than 1%. Three-quarters of one percent. Put in those terms, does this item seem especially relevant, or disprove a gravitational force? At worst, if it were confirmed, it might suggest changes to the constant G, or consideration of other forces, including previously unknown forces.

More to the point, a scientist reading about the experiment with 0.75% discrepancy would typically assume that an interesting source of systemic experimental error has been reported. Although the 0.75% discrepancy could relate to what they were trying to measure, it probably reflects something we haven't thought of yet about the experimental set-up.

As an example, the lifetime of neutrons is measured by their behaviors in relativistic particle beams, and by their lifetime at low speed in a magnetic jar. Those two types of experiments differ from each other. Scientists don't wonder whether there is some sort of mistake in their theory. They wonder what in their experiment is inducing systemic error.

Yet the link you provide has an author who calls that 0.75% discrepancy publication, "dangerous sounding." That's drama that a scientist wouldn't engage in. A better description of the result would be "trivial sounding."

So, this criticism is really bad and not convincing in any way.

Actually, you fucking idiot, the surface of the planet earth consists of an artificial biosphere dome constructed on the tip of a giant "space submarine" and the forward motion through a three dimensional "space" pushes matter on the surface in the opposite direction.

I wonder if this thread is under paid attack?

That should tell you something...

Username relevant

and

if this thread IS under paid attack

FTFY

Nice, like this idea, not sure i agree though

It's not that it wouldn't be real, it would just be coded/defined physics in a simulation. GTA has defined physics, yet if you mod those physics you can jump 10x higher than you "normally" could (example).

Neil Tyson is not a scientist and doesn't represent science.

The theories of Eric Verlinde and Nassim Haramein are relevant and agree with you, and those two are scientists.

he said "highly probable"?