No Gravity, No Sphere.....Flat Earth!!

Without dodging, answer the question.

How is gravity even needed, when density, buoyancy, the medium, and the variable being measured, explain the phenomenon perfectly?

If the variable is dropped in air, it falls in a downward direction, because air (the medium), does not hold the properties to hold it up (levitate). Most people ask why it falls in a straight down trajectory then, as opposed to left or right (for some reason). Because if the variable falls left or right, than the air is still holding it up.

If the same variable is dropped in water (the medium), the results differ. If the apple fell next to Newton in water, he would of noticed the apple fell through air, yet floated in water (different mediums).

If the variable is lighter than than air, it rises (defying the alleged gravity). A balloon filled with air, will float on water, yet "gravity" is holding all that water beneath it to the ground. Is one saying that, the balloon should be able to lift all the water beneath it? Because if "gravity" cannot pull the balloon down through the water, then the balloon is overcoming the force that all that water is being held down by?

Is Newton saying that if it wasn't for "gravity", when you drop something it simply levitates where it was dropped?

 

Your premise is faulty. Without gravity nothing would "fall". We wouldn't need a word for the phenomenon because we wouldn't observe it. In space(vacuum)absent gravity objects weigh nothing and so dont move, in any direction, unless acted upon by outside force. Without gravity nothing would be lighter than anything else because nothing would have weight.

 

What is your independent and dependent variables, for "gravity"?

 

What Newton is saying is that IF YOU ACCEPT WITHOUT PROOF that there are such things as force, mass and acceleration that are related in the following way

Force = mass * acceleration

Then the GRAVITATIONAL force on two objects that have mass is related in the following way

Fg = -G * (m1 * m2) / r**2

Where
Fg = gravitational force
G = gravitational constant
m1 = mass of object one
m2 = mass of object two
r = radial distance between the centers of mass of the two objects
r**2 = r * r

 

Yes, density, buoyancy, the medium, pressure, electromagnetism, electricity, and so much more, give us a realm in which "weight" can be measured.

 

Concepts like density and buoyancy are based on the notion of mass which is something that is postulated to exist without proof.

 

Since we are talking about physics, I might as well add that it was none other than Albert Einstein who, taking a different approach than Newton, said that the resulting motion was due to objects with mass creating warps in spacetime.

 

No motion has ever been detected, measured, and most importantly "observed'.

 

You could also say that NOTHING has ever been observed, because you cannot prove that there is a such thing as an observer.

 

Mods please move this bullshit to the conspiracy forum, with the dozens of other identical threads this poster has spammed over the years.

 

Well if BS was the criteria, then there would be very little left here!

 

Why would they do such a thing, there is no "conspiracy" within a question.....is there? Is this question a conspiracy?

 

You mention density, and your answer lies there: The water is dense enough and the balloon buoyant enough and light enough that it floats on the surface of the water. Its still held to that surface by gravity, the force which makes things "fall" ie have weight as an effect of the force of gravity on their mass.

What your equation misses is that things fall in the first place. Why does this happen? A force pulls on them: we call that force gravity.

 

yes, this is another of your batshit crazy flat earther threads, and has no business being anywhere other than the conspiracy forum.

 

And please ding him for wasting forum space and soiling my mind.

 

If a gas planet is 100 times larger than earth, which planet is more "dense"? For the gas is nowhere near that of rock, so what "planet" should be tugging on the other, and what is used to determine and or measure this?

 

For you to say that something is "dense", you need to say that it has mass, and you cannot prove that mass exists. All you can do is assume that it does. And the definition of mass requires an assumption of the existence of force AND position and time, at least in classical Newtonian physics.

 

I'm not arguing that point, I actually agree. What I'm arguing is why we are told larger planets attract smaller planets, when in fact there should be a variety. For a gas planet could be larger than a rock planet, yet the rock planet would be more "dense". Would you not agree. Such as a rock that is smaller than a tennis ball. You could crush the tennis ball with your hand but not the rock, so which is more dense, and how do they measure or determine such, in the alleged space?

 

There would be no density either. Gravity is what holds everything together.

But maybe he's describing Trumpworld.

Where lies are facts, up is down, and orange is the new hair!

 

Why are you relating such a topic to politics? Besides, left wing, right wing, it's still the same bird. Why do you think nothing ever changes? Your drinking the kool-aid, in a mindset in which they want you. Good job!

 

Uh........the title of this forum is "Political Forum".......in case you hadn't noticed.

 

Actually there is a strong force holds the protons in a nucleus together. It is not gravity. Actually it is the energy from that force that is basis of the power of nuclear fission.

 

I have never seen a physics book that said it was based on the size of a planet.

 

Have you seen a physics book or anything that shows a smaller planet having a larger one orbit it, due to the smaller planets "density"?

 

No, the title is "Political opinions and beliefs". Why did you not present the full title. Are you a liar?