I Don't Believe in Gravity!

[Profound Realization]

Put it in a sealed clear box them vacuum the air out. You can make a vacuum chamber for about $300 or maybe less if your resourceful.

Elaborate if you're willing to, how this is not simply explainable using mass, weight, density, volume.

 

[Enoch07]

Elaborate if you're willing to, how this is not simply explainable using mass, weight, density, volume.

Here ya go. So simple even a child can understand.

 

[Profound Realization]

Here ya go. So simple even a child can understand.

View attachment 18902

Thanks for being simplistic and proving my point.... no "gravity" required.

 

[Profound Realization]

Sounds like a silly statement, doesn't it?

So why do we buy into gravity? Is it because we buy into Newton's mathematical equation? Is it because of evidence presented through scientific method? Or is it because we know the earth spins at 1000 miles per hour (at the equator) and we have an understanding that without it, we would be flung into space like fleas being shaken off of a dog (until they hit the ground because of gravity)?

So is it fair to say that we buy into this scientific theory because we have subjective experience, and not because of evidence presented through scientific method?

Another scientific theory is Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection. Like gravity, it is a scientific theory arrived at through use of the scientific method. Yet 42% of the population (according to a poll I made up for this thread) does not buy into evolution or natural selection even though it uses the same scientific method used to arrive at the theory of gravity (systematic observation, measurement, experimentation, formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses). One can hypothesize (as I do) that the only reason that one would not believe in evolution is because s/he lacks subjective experience.

So In this thread, I would like to hear from those that believe in gravity and do not believe in evolution through natural selection. Why is gravity more valid to you than evolution?


Edited for typos

I don't think it's silly. There is no evidence that the Earth and its atmosphere spin 1000 miles per hour. Perhaps it does, but no sound evidence has shown this. The evidence that is presented and accepted can be easily refuted.

Anyone can also design a model, and make the math work for said model.

 

[Enoch07]

Thanks for being simplistic and proving my point.... no "gravity" required.

They wouldn't fall without gravity.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't think it's silly. There is no evidence that the Earth and its atmosphere spin 1000 miles per hour. Perhaps it does, but no sound evidence has shown this. The evidence that is presented and accepted can be easily refuted.

Anyone can also design a model, and make the math work for said model.

Have you heard of the Foucault Pendulum? Here is a time lapse of a 24 hours period...

If you take that and consider this:

"The earth rotates once every 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.09053 seconds, called the sidereal period, and its circumference is roughly 40,075 kilometers. Thus, the surface of the earth at the equator moves at a speed of 460 meters per second--or roughly 1,000 miles per hour."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/


By all means, please refute.

 

[Profound Realization]

Have you heard of the Foucault Pendulum? Here is a time lapse of a 24 hours period...

If you take that and consider this:

"The earth rotates once every 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.09053 seconds, called the sidereal period, and its circumference is roughly 40,075 kilometers. Thus, the surface of the earth at the equator moves at a speed of 460 meters per second--or roughly 1,000 miles per hour."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/


By all means, please refute.

I have heard of, yes.

They don't swing uniformly in one direction. They don't start on their own. Many have been observed going clockwise and counterclockwise. I can construct one and simply by how I construct it using the ball joint and socket, can make it perform any trick that I want.

And as already stated, the math adds up because anyone can make the math work in any model that they want.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I have heard of, yes.

They don't swing uniformly in one direction. They don't start on their own. Many have been observed going clockwise and counterclockwise. I can construct one and simply by how I construct it using the ball joint and socket, can make it perform any trick that I want.

And as already stated, the math adds up because anyone can make the math work in any model that they want.

Show me.

 

[David T]

If you don't believe, do believe, or are agnostic? If this does not cover the spectrum of everyone, pray tell, what other category is there in relation to beliefs? It seems to me, that this response was more a misdirection, than an answer to the questions. Although in light of this last post, they have changed to: a. What other category? and b. Insulting to whom?

Of stupidity certainly but it is not the entire spectrum by a remotely close amount.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It is the philosophy of the nature of falsification, which Popper justifiably proposed that any claim of proof can be disproved by new evidence and experiment that finds the claim of proof false, which has factually indeed happened over the years.

Okay, but that still doesn't support your claim that science doesn't prove anything. Did science not prove the world is round? That the earth revolves around the sun? That the sun is the center of our solar system? That Down Syndrome is caused by an extra copy of chromosome 21?

 

[Onyx]

I don't think it's silly. There is no evidence that the Earth and its atmosphere spin 1000 miles per hour. Perhaps it does, but no sound evidence has shown this. The evidence that is presented and accepted can be easily refuted.

What would qualify as sound evidence? Would the fact that rocket launches into space require the rotation of the Earth to be taken into account, and even use it to gain extra acceleration? Wouldn't all the missions fail if the calculations were incorrect?

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/launch-windows/en/

Anyone can also design a model, and make the math work for said model.

The speed of rotation is based on direct observation, not contrived formulas. FTFY.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure. As soon as you provide some evidence to back up your claim that science doesn't prove anything.

I believe this in part stems from the belief that evolution is a fact, and proven. The problem is nature of the claim of proof and fact. Evolution is demonstrated as falsified beyond any reasonable doubt, but according to the current philosophy of science, theories and hypothesis, they are never proven as fact, they subject to change as new knowledge and evidence, which may well revise and improve theories and hypothesis.

There is a problem of finality in the concept of 'proof' in science.

proof noun 1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Facts are objective verifiable evidence that science uses to falsify theories and hypothesis. Falsified scientific theories, like in the science of evolution, may be considered factually based, but not a fact in and of themselves.

Again, the evidence you request is simply the history of scientific theories and hypothesis have never been proven facts, but represent the evolving fact based knowledge of science.

 

[Profound Realization]

Show me.

What would you like shown? A pendulum must have a constant source or it will cease to keep moving. It shouldn't cease to keep moving unless the Earth and its atmosphere ceased to keep moving. It takes a biased force to start, while it should start on its own. That is the #1 precaution that must be taken with a pendulum. . it must have no outside force other than alleged "gravity." It should never swing in any other direction, which can also be shown easily to do. We can get into magnetism and electricity which a pendulum does prove. I am not attempting to discredit that the Earth is spinning, I am discrediting the pendulum as sound evidence that the Earth is spinning. It neither proves nor disproves.

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay, but that still doesn't support your claim that science doesn't prove anything. Did science not prove the world is round? That the earth revolves around the sun? That the sun is the center of our solar system? That Down Syndrome is caused by an extra copy of chromosome 21?

These listed above are demonstrated facts, either by observation, or scientific methods based on the falsification of hypothesis, and not theories and hypothesis themselves, which are not proven, that are the foundation of modern science. As I said in the previous post, facts are the basic foundation of science, and the results.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What would you like shown? A pendulum must have a constant source or it will cease to keep moving. It shouldn't cease to keep moving unless the Earth and its atmosphere ceased to keep moving. It takes a biased force to start, while it should start on its own. That is the #1 precaution that must be taken with a pendulum. . it must have no outside force other than alleged "gravity." It should never swing in any other direction, which can also be shown easily to do. We can get into magnetism and electricity which a pendulum does prove. I am not attempting to discredit that the Earth is spinning, I am discrediting the pendulum as sound evidence that the Earth is spinning. It neither proves nor disproves.

I have no idea what you're driving at here, so I'll just leave this here...

What’s Up With That: How a Swinging Pendulum Proves the Earth Rotates

 

[Profound Realization]

What would qualify as sound evidence? Would the fact that rocket launches into space require the rotation of the Earth to be taken into account, and even use it to gain extra acceleration? Wouldn't all the missions fail if the calculations were incorrect?

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/launch-windows/en/


The speed of rotation is based on direct observation, not contrived formulas. FTFY.

I disagree, nobody has directly observed the Earth spinning. It is all a formula based on dimensions and speeds to fit said model.

I disagree on the Rocket as well. Not only is the Earth said to be spinning, the atmosphere is said to be spinning with it. A rocket launch would be assumed relative to the speed of the spin of the Earth and atmosphere. It is why if I jumped 100 feet into the air, I wouldn't travel 1000 mph with the direction of the spin. Why would it need taken into account if the speed is the same?

 

[Polymath257]

I don't think it's silly. There is no evidence that the Earth and its atmosphere spin 1000 miles per hour. Perhaps it does, but no sound evidence has shown this. The evidence that is presented and accepted can be easily refuted.

Anyone can also design a model, and make the math work for said model.

It's comparing the model to observations of the real world and keeping it working that is the trick.

 

[SalixIncendium]

These listed above are demonstrated facts, either by observation, or scientific methods based on the falsification of hypothesis, and not theories and hypothesis themselves, which are not proven, that are the foundation of modern science. As I said in the previous post, facts are the basic foundation of science, and the results.

You also stated in a previous post that science doesn't prove anything, which I think we've demonstrated to be an inaccurate statement.

 

[Profound Realization]

I have no idea what you're driving at here, so I'll just leave this here...

What’s Up With That: How a Swinging Pendulum Proves the Earth Rotates

It is fine for you to accept that.

To me, it would be "How a swinging pendulum proves the Earth has magnetisicm and electricity that causes motion."

 

[Polymath257]

I disagree, nobody has directly observed the Earth spinning. It is all a formula based on dimensions and speeds to fit said model.

I disagree on the Rocket as well. Not only is the Earth said to be spinning, the atmosphere is said to be spinning with it. A rocket launch would be assumed relative to the speed of the spin of the Earth and atmosphere. It is why if I jumped 100 feet into the air, I wouldn't travel 1000 mph with the direction of the spin. Why would it need taken into account if the speed is the same?

But you *do* travel at 1000 mph in the direction of the spin! The point is that you *continue* to do so when you jump.

The speed of the rocket from the rotation of the earth has to be taken into account when figuring out the extra speed required for orbit. It comes up in the amount of fuel required, etc. Launching a rocket that orbits in the same direction as the Earth spins is a quite different matter than launching one that orbits in the opposite direction (or even one that has a polar orbit).