Does this not disprove gravity?

Why would it disprove gravity?

Coulomb's law, which describes electrostatic force, actually corresponds to Newtons law of universal gravitation.

It seems there is a "law" for everything.  My god, can't you all just admit there might be another explanation for objects falling to Earth (or UA towards objects)?

Maybe if you understood the laws of physics...........you wouldn't be so confused?

I'm interested in knowing how you think electrostatic force would disprove gravity. Very interested.

It seems there is a "law" for everything.  My god, can't you all just admit there might be another explanation for objects falling to Earth (or UA towards objects)?

There's a law for many things because that is how we explain the universe.

It seems there is a "law" for everything.

Most things yes. These laws explain how stuff works. Would you prefer it if we knew nothing?

Everything is energy...matter is energy.  Everything is electrically charged, including us.   So by saying, "gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass", it doesn't explain WHAT the force is.  It's too general.  Scepti has done a great job explaining his theory of what it is.  This video has another good explanation.  Ok, so maybe it doesn't DISPROVE gravity itself, but it shows that there are BETTER explanations of it.

Scientists group all known forces (or interactions) into four fundamental forces:

• Strong force
• Electromagnetic force
• Weak force
• Gravitational force

The force discussed in that video is number 2

Scepti has done a great job explaining his theory of what it is.

He did a great job of making up gibberish that in no way could be possible in real world.

Ok, so maybe it doesn't DISPROVE gravity itself, but it shows that there are BETTER explanations of it.

Science hasn't completely unlocked all the answers yet which is why scientist still research physics and come up with new and exciting stuff every day.

It's too general? Have you ever read any of the laws of physics in depth? They are anything but general.

Einstein, by the way, didn't believe gravity to even be a force.

And the fact that it hasn't been completely figured out yet doesn't mean science hasn't been going in the right direction.

Scientists group all known forces (or interactions) into four fundamental forces:

• Strong force
• Electromagnetic force
• Weak force
• Gravitational force

The force discussed in that video is number 2

Tell me how the EM force differs from GF.

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 02:35:10 PM

Scientists group all known forces (or interactions) into four fundamental forces:

• Strong force
• Electromagnetic force
• Weak force
• Gravitational force

The force discussed in that video is number 2

Tell me how the EM force differs from GF.

You see two kind of forces in that video:

• Gravitational force that keeps the straw on the lid of the bottle, and the bottle on the table, and the table on the ground
• Electromagnetic force that makes the straw spin following his hand

So both forces are there and one cannot replace the other.

Everything is energy...matter is energy.

Technically yes, but no.  It can be transformed to energy without loss, and it exerts itself on the SEM tensor, but strictly speaking matter is not energy.  Mass is, though, if that's what you mean.

Everything is electrically charged, including us.

Again, yes but no.  There are several particles that aren't electromagnetically charged, photons and neutrinos for instance.  Any force carrier, actually, and possibly a few more that slip my mind.  It could easily be noted that photons, while not electromagnetically charged, are still very slightly affected by gravitation.  While we haven't observed any other particles having a similar effect, this can be attributed to our lack of ability to detect neutrinos at long range.

So by saying, "gravity is the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass", it doesn't explain WHAT the force is.  It's too general.

See General Relativity, the current gravitational theory.  It explains what gravitation is.

You see two kind of forces in that video:

• Gravitational force that keeps the straw on the lid of the bottle, and the bottle on the table, and the table on the ground
• Electromagnetic force that makes the straw spin following his hand

So both forces are there and one cannot replace the other.

How do you know it's not the EM force keeping the straw on the lid of the bottle, the bottle on the table and the table on the ground?

Quote from: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 02:45:54 PM

You see two kind of forces in that video:

• Gravitational force that keeps the straw on the lid of the bottle, and the bottle on the table, and the table on the ground
• Electromagnetic force that makes the straw spin following his hand

So both forces are there and one cannot replace the other.

How do you know it's not the EM force keeping the straw on the lid of the bottle, the bottle on the table and the table on the ground?

What you cannot see from that video is when the man was charging the straw or the comb with electrostatic. He did it twice for the straw at the beginning and in the middle. Without that charge, there is no EM force while the gravity remains throughout the video.

What's your point of posting another video again EarthIsASpaceship? We all know it's electrostatic force.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on October 09, 2013, 02:31:25 PM

Everything is electrically charged, including us.

Again, yes but no.  There are several particles that aren't electromagnetically charged, photons and neutrinos for instance.  Any force carrier, actually, and possibly a few more that slip my mind.  It could easily be noted that photons, while not electromagnetically charged, are still very slightly affected by gravitation.  While we haven't observed any other particles having a similar effect, this can be attributed to our lack of ability to detect neutrinos at long range.

That's TWO, not "several".
"Neutrino - a neutral subatomic particle with a mass close to zero and half-integral spin, rarely reacting with normal matter. Three kinds of neutrinos are known, associated with the electron, muon, and tau particle."
If they aren't charged and rarely react with normal matter then they are insignificant.  My point is, that almost everything is electrically charged.

My point is, that almost everything is electronically charged.

Most objects are actually neutrally charged in the sense that the number of negative charges equals the number of positive charges, giving a net charge of zero. When certain types of materials are rubbed against each other, some of the charges from one material can be transferred to the other material. One object will be positively charged, the other will be negatively charged.

I think what OP is demonstrating is that experiments that supposedly prove gravity mechanics are really just electrostatic forces. This is quite possible and some gravity theories even try to explain gravity as electromagnetic forces on a massive scale, however the totality of the evidence for gravity overall is lacking.

I think what OP is demonstrating is that experiments that supposedly prove gravity mechanics are really just electrostatic forces. This is quite possible and some gravity theories even try to explain gravity as electromagnetic forces on a massive scale, however the totality of the evidence for gravity overall is lacking.

I don't think the evidence is lacking but even if gravity is caused by electrostatic forces why would this prove that the earth is flat?

I don't think the evidence is lacking but even if gravity is caused by electrostatic forces why would this prove that the earth is flat?

Where was it mentioned in the OP that he thinks the Earth is flat?

So then, it all depends on the atmosphere around the object.  Scepti is right.

While gravity has not been proven to exist......Einstein's theory on the subject has been put through test after test for nearly a century and still remains rock solid which is why belief in gravity remains strong. It's not a proven theory because it lacks enough evidence. But his framework has withstood the test of time.

Scepti is right.

Are we talking about the same guy that thinks there is an ice dome covering the flat earth and stars are reflections from light inside the earth shining up?

Yeah..........I'm sure he has it all figured out.

I think what OP is demonstrating is that experiments that supposedly prove gravity mechanics are really just electrostatic forces. This is quite possible and some gravity theories even try to explain gravity as electromagnetic forces on a massive scale, however the totality of the evidence for gravity overall is lacking.

Which part of the video disproves the gravity?

My conclusion is, change the electric charge of the atmosphere surrounding an object and you will change the EM or G force affecting the object.

While gravity has not been proven to exist

Do you mean graviton, the particle responsible for the gravity?

My conclusion is, change the electric charge of the atmosphere surrounding an object and you will change the EM or G force affecting the object.

Can you then explain why objects are still attracted to the ground in a vacuum chamber although there is practically no air?

"practically no air"
That air is charged.

In a vacuum chamber, there is practically no air, and objects still fall to the ground.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Feather and Ball Bearing Dropped in Vacuum

You will see it as many times as you behave like scepti.