Gravity.

Gravity is the core belief supporting the solar system theory.

If you were to debunk gravity you'd debunk the entire universe theory.

Is gravity real?

The theory of gravity claims we are kept on the world by being pulled towards the ground by this supposed force. This implies we naturally are in fact floating beings.

Are we floating beings?

Try jumping out of a tree?
See how that works out for you...

I would love to be able to fly, mind over matter etc. but unfortunately gravity has proven itself to be an existing force time and time again.

a reply to: GreenGunther

So you agree with the claim we are floating?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: GreenGunther

So you agree with the claim we are floating?

A simple yes or no will suffice to prove your ignorance.

In a sense, yes, but so is the entirety of the universe. Inertial mass equals gravitational mass. The fact that you have mass and can move is the very definition of space-time.

If you suoer cranked up the gravity, it eventually slows time to a stand-still, like at the edge of a black-hole. As gravity decreases to nothing, would the inverse be true? We don’t know.

The fact that we live in a universe of mass means we can never measure something isolated from that gravity well. That gravity well is the space-time in which we exist. That’s the essence of relativity really.

With this level of scrutiny, you can't even prove whether or not you exist at all.

However, I agree that there MUST be more to gravity than we currently understand.

We can't explain the orbits of the vast majority of objects in the universe, without placing an asterisk and calling it dark matter/dark energy.

There are discrepancies that do not uniformly match what we would expect, and it is endemic to the point that we have created a constant that fits in that place.

The "mystery of dark matter" cast aside, our formulas would work and could explain all celestial interactions.

However, without adding in an allowance for non-optical matter affecting gravitational fields, the argument falls apart.

In the mainstream, this is just accepted, because everything "works" except for this "teeny tiny detail" so we think we know it well enough to teach it, save for whatever dark matter or dark energy actually is.

I am of the belief that there is a fundamental error in our formula for gravitational force, when comparing celestial bodies at vast distances. I don't think it's wrong, I just think the equation is incomplete. We are probably just missing some fundamental action from the math.
(Like all armchair physicists on the internet, I have my own idea that may explain the missing piece.)

However, I don't post my idea until I either have evidence to back it up, OR I have a way that it can be experimentally tested and peer reviewed. Given that I don't have a good way to do that yet for my specific viewpoint, I openly accept the mainstream explanations. Behind closed doors, I wonder and speculate for myself. I don't want to put my idea out there, if it is wrong. I do not want to influence others and make them believe an incorrect idea is the truth.

So, as far as a succinct answer to your post.

We "mostly" get gravity. Should we call it fake because there are issues? No. The evidence we do have, is substantial, and has been experimentally tested. The pieces we are missing, are incomplete or misunderstood. They are not "lies".

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

The theory of gravity claims we are kept on the world by being pulled towards the ground by this supposed force. This implies we naturally are in fact floating beings.

Are we floating beings?

Everything is 'floating' unless acted upon by an external force
Mr Newton had some famous words relative to that realisation
f=m.a therefore a=f/m and gravity manifests itself as an example of a (acceleration)

a reply to: Pilgrum

Well, being pulled towards and object doesn't mean you're not floating, it actually proves you float.

In this case being pulled towards the surface of the earth.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

My first recommendation would be to learn what we know about gravity. It is not a force that pulls you down. Dont know where you heard that but its wrong. Gravity is the acceleration of objects towards each other. Any objects with mass will attract each other.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

My first recommendation would be to learn what we know about gravity. It is not a force that pulls you down. Dont know where you heard that but its wrong. Gravity is the acceleration of objects towards each other. Any objects with mass will attract each other.

Are we discussing here whether it's a push or a pull?

The problem isn’t if gravity is real and it certainly isn’t because gravity is less then we understand the reality is gravity is more than we can currently comprehend it is.. For example you probably believe there is only one type of gravity...

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance


Gravity is the core belief supporting the solar system theory.

If you were to debunk gravity you'd debunk the entire universe theory.

Is gravity real?

The theory of gravity claims we are kept on the world by being pulled towards the ground by this supposed force. This implies we naturally are in fact floating beings.

Are we floating beings?

This is a disingenuous argument due to an unrealistic view of scientific theory.
Thread end.
I would suggest the OP would benefit from their own research from available sources.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

My first recommendation would be to learn what we know about gravity. It is not a force that pulls you down. Dont know where you heard that but its wrong. Gravity is the acceleration of objects towards each other. Any objects with mass will attract each other.

Are we discussing here whether it's a push or a pull?

No matter it being a push or a pull, it still would mean we naturally are floating beings.

The surroundings we experience make it look like we aren't.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Are we born and do we exist in a vacuum or even a near vacuum like outer space? Or how about even in a medium like, well let’s say water for argument sake... Of course the answer is no, So that being said we are not naturally floating beings... So we are then unnatural floating beings because of how we exist naturally...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Are we born and do we exist in a vacuum or even a near vacuum like outer space? Or how about even in a medium like, well let’s say water for argument sake... Of course the answer is no, So that being said we are not naturally floating beings... So we are then unnatural floating beings because of how we exist naturally...

My point is, if we are kept on the ground by a push or a pull it proves we as humans are naturally floating beings.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

If you are held down by a push or a pull how can you be floating?
What you are really saying is if there was no gravity I would be floating...
And that’s almost right...
Without any gravity or too much gravity you wouldn’t even be you any more you would spread out from yourself with every single particle until you were nothing essentially...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

No, what I'm saying is if there would be gravity (as push or a pull which keeps us on earth) it would mean we are floating.

We are floating and so the pull has effect on us keeping us on the ground.
Or we are floating and so the push has effect on us keeping us on the ground.

If we wouldn't be floating no force could have an effect on us.

FYI Most of the mathematical constructs are just that. Physical experiments , not since newton (exaggerated).
for the sake of discussion , here are some notes I made regarding Gravity and such...

What I understand so far (pure) 18+ Conjecture.

Gravity

The whole universe is electromagnetic gravity is no exception
gravity somehow () related to London force ,
however unlike electromagnetism it's incoherent.

Light

Further more lightspeed is the rate of induction. Light is a potential(somehow)
A wave is not a physical object but a mathematical concept , therefore there is no wave particle duality , that is a wave is something that DOES a thing (), not something that IS .

No Spacetime.

Spacetime it a mathematical concept. Time is a series of events , how can there be events in ONLY spacetime.
Spacetime is not an othogonal if time dependent on space , so time not the 4th dimension.

No Darkmatter / dark[everything] blackholes and such.

Artifacts to describe events with a faulty theory (Astrophysics will find even more dark stuff to compesate their lack of insight)

Universe size

Universe is somewhat smaller. Redshift doesn't always imply distance. Symetrical De seifert galaxy's with their ridiculous property's hint at another process. So 387? found all symetrical , hardly a coincidence

Neutron stars

How can a star be made by neutrons , doesn't a neutron decay during a coffeebreak ?
Some Quasars/pulsars exeed the maximal rotation limit (?) Strange(darky) matter to the rescue.

Constants

Are all constants , contant ? Measure something one time and it will be always everywhere the same ? That's a assumption not a proof. Maybe 'constants' like lightspeed are dependent on other factors ?

Unification Zoo.

'they that we call scientist' keep finding new 'particles' . Maybe to Tweak the standard model who knows ?
But I would hardly call that Zoo of particles Unification.

So many dimensions so many theories.

So it makes good sci-fi but how many dimensions are there ? Basically it's still a theory flashing einstein all the time doesn't make it a fact. A mathematical concept (even if it works) , doesn't make it a physical property.
Seems to me that the dimension 'trick' (Tao says so) is used to get rid of parameters/(maybe constants) in the model. Instead of parameters we have dimensions.

Universe useless.

Basically is the whole universe is useless (except moon/sun). The whole solarsystem could have been evolved independent of the universe . So a solarsystem only universe is more likely to be generated from random fluctuations than a entire universe. That is chances for living in an entire universe are very unlikely. Still there is this awfull big and empty universe. Seems to me that the current theory is flawed at this point.

Entropy.

Live evolves towards a lower point of entropy (localy). Most processes however increase in entropy. Take some dust wait a couple of biljon years and we have computers. Where is the inversionpoint of entropy

Superposition

Simply put where starts QM and ends CM and why ... Superposition of what exactly. Can a mosquito be at superposition. The whole QM works very well but instead of seeing it as another 'physical' world (niels bohr) it might be better to see it as a pure mathematical concept (that works).

Greetings

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

My first recommendation would be to learn what we know about gravity. It is not a force that pulls you down. Dont know where you heard that but its wrong. Gravity is the acceleration of objects towards each other. Any objects with mass will attract each other.

Are we discussing here whether it's a push or a pull?

No. Gravity is more complicated than this.

We should establish a level of discussion: What is your knowledge about physics? Can we discuss SRT?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: 5StarOracle

No, what I'm saying is if there would be gravity (as push or a pull which keeps us on earth) it would mean we are floating.

We are floating and so the pull has effect on us keeping us on the ground.
Or we are floating and so the push has effect on us keeping us on the ground.

If we wouldn't be floating no force could have an effect on us.

What do you mean by "floating"?

Motionless staying in one place? But motionless in which relation? To the sun? Earth? The next closest appletree?