If the light bends how can you trust what you see?

Quote from: sokarul on May 16, 2014, 05:24:59 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 05:21:56 PM

Quote from: sokarul on May 16, 2014, 05:16:18 PM

Why are you only responding to him? Are you afraid of what I posted?

Of course not, sokarul. I just ignored it because it was off topic. Theoretical physics do not explain yawning. Also, I cannot find this "study" you speak of? Link please.

There was a link to it in the article I posted. You didn't look very hard.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938414001784

Perhaps science is just too advanced for you. Would you like a link to finger painting?

According to that paper, would not a sigh "cool the brain" better than a yawn?  Sounds to me that someone had some extra grant money that they needed to justify.

I consider a sigh as just the exhaling part where as a yawn in inhalation and exhalation. So no, I don't

I consider a sigh as just the exhaling part where as a yawn in inhalation and exhalation. So no, I don't

So you've read the study now?

Quote from: sokarul on May 16, 2014, 05:46:42 PM

I consider a sigh as just the exhaling part where as a yawn in inhalation and exhalation. So no, I don't

So you've read the study now?

Some of it. Why do you ask?

So, just to sum up for clarity:

• Gravity doesn't act as expected at galactic scales. so why take it seriously?
• It works perfectly up to those scales and only requires a simple step to work even there.
• Does it explain yawning?
• No, it only works for things related to gravity.
• How does that explain yawning? It doesn't. Good, thought so. Moving on.

That about right?

You said your theory explained everything. Are you retracting that statement?

You said your theory explained everything. Are you retracting that statement?

I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 06:31:51 PM

You said your theory explained everything. Are you retracting that statement?

I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.

Why does your science of grativy only attract when every other force in your same science has opposites? That's a plot hole to me.

Also, why is gravity so weak when compared to other forces and why does mass determine its potency?

Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles and electrons?

There are many things that your theory does not explain or touch upon. It certainly doesn't "explain" it all.

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 16, 2014, 07:01:40 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 06:31:51 PM

You said your theory explained everything. Are you retracting that statement?

I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.

Why does your science of grativy only attract when every other force in your same science has opposites? That's a plot hole to me.

Also, why is gravity so weak when compared to other forces and why does mass determine its potency?

Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles and electrons?

There are many things that your theory does not explain or touch upon. It certainly doesn't "explain" it all.

Gravity was repulsive in the first few moments of the universe, it is called inflation.
Scientists do not yet know why gravity is so weak. Do you know what caused the big bang?
Gravity does apply to electrons. I have no idea where you got that.

That is true only if we assume that globularist's models of gravitation are correct. Since this is the very thing in doubt, I hope you can see why your assertion is silly.


Inversely, "Gravity" only works on the galactic scale if we assume large amounts of hypothetical and otherwise unobserved and unpredicted matter. Just as jroa stated.

That's the beauty of a good working model, it helps you discover things that you didn't know before.  Case in point, gravity (GR) works well enough for scientists to realize that there is a great deal of matter out there that we didn't know about.  We know that the matter must be out there because the effects of gravitational lensing can be observed.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/04/20/how-gravitational-lensing-show/

You said you were going to find the pictures. I'm still waiting.

Pitdroid provided us with this fine example:


Rig Navigator with another:


29Silhouette provided us a bridge showing the vertical compression of perspective (though not the sinking ship phenomena):



I may be missing some, but those are the ones whose img location I have saved on file. I'm sure you can search their post history if you believe me to be lying for some reason.

Quote from: sokarul on May 16, 2014, 04:28:49 PM

You said you were going to find the pictures. I'm still waiting.

Pitdroid provided us with this fine example:

Mirage. Plus they seem to be the same size.

Rig Navigator with another:

Still behind the horizon, unless you think oil rigs sit on the water. Plus getting bigger doesn't mean you see more.

29Silhouette provided us a bridge showing the vertical compression of perspective (though not the sinking ship phenomena):

Which has nothing to do with this thread.

I may be missing some, but those are the ones whose img location I have saved on file. I'm sure you can search their post history if you believe me to be lying for some reason.

Ok i'll look it up.
Ok I looked it up. From this thread:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50707.0#.U3bjb_ldXT8
The picture you spliced together are from two different altitudes. Way to be dishonest, although I'm not surprised.

For the others reading. Check that thread out. Quite a good one.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 07:28:47 PM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 16, 2014, 07:01:40 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 06:31:51 PM

You said your theory explained everything. Are you retracting that statement?

I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.

Why does your science of grativy only attract when every other force in your same science has opposites? That's a plot hole to me.

Also, why is gravity so weak when compared to other forces and why does mass determine its potency?

Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles and electrons?

There are many things that your theory does not explain or touch upon. It certainly doesn't "explain" it all.

Gravity was repulsive in the first few moments of the universe, it is called inflation.
Scientists do not yet know why gravity is so weak. Do you know what caused the big bang?
Gravity does apply to electrons. I have no idea where you got that.

Link me to an experiment that shows gravity acting on electrons. Good luck.

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 16, 2014, 07:01:40 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 06:31:51 PM

You said your theory explained everything. Are you retracting that statement?

I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.

Why does your science of grativy only attract when every other force in your same science has opposites? That's a plot hole to me.

Also, why is gravity so weak when compared to other forces and why does mass determine its potency?

Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles and electrons?

There are many things that your theory does not explain or touch upon. It certainly doesn't "explain" it all.

! Actually, EM is the only one with a repulsive force, so if anything, that's the odd ball. Plot hole filled.

my thought on why gravity is so weak compared to others is because it has infinite range. While this is also true of EM, you would need an infinitely large power source to get infinite range, so it's practically impossible.

Gravity doesn't work on the small scale because gravity requires mass. Those small particles are virtually mass-less, thus, no gravity.

my thought on why gravity is so weak compared to others is because it has infinite range. While this is also true of EM, you would need an infinitely large power source to get infinite range, so it's practically impossible.

You don't need a power source to have an EM field. An electron creates a field which has an infinite range, just like a massive object creates a gravitational one with an infinite range.

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 17, 2014, 05:07:50 AM

my thought on why gravity is so weak compared to others is because it has infinite range. While this is also true of EM, you would need an infinitely large power source to get infinite range, so it's practically impossible.

You don't need a power source to have an EM field. An electron creates a field which has an infinite range, just like a massive object creates a gravitational one with an infinite range.

Mmm, I will defer to you then. Thats why it was a "thought"

I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.

I am happy to do my best to be excruciatingly specific and unambiguous if you think it's entirely necessary. Just try not to take it as patronising.

Why does your science of grativy only attract when every other force in your same science has opposites? That's a plot hole to me.

All three or four fundamental interactions are attractive except electromagnetism. That's simply what we observe, and any "plot holes" are the responsibility of reality. Or God, if you're that way inclined.

Also, why is gravity so weak when compared to other forces and why does mass determine its potency?

An interesting question with a lot of competing answers, currently. But my original assertion was only that if you assume universal gravitation of this particular strength you will accurately predict the outcome of interactions where it's relevant. Which you will, and which people have been doing successfully for some time.

Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles and electrons?

It does. Gravitational lensing is a common and easily visible effect of gravity on photons. To the best of my recollection, gravity is accounted for in some very precise models of particle interaction. I'm not aware of any experiments which specifically demonstrate gravitational effects on electrons.

There are many things that your theory does not explain or touch upon. It certainly doesn't "explain" it all.

The claim of universal gravitation is only that all masses attract each other by a certain amount. All observations are consistent with that hypothesis until certain speeds or scales are encountered, at which point observations begin to diverge from predictions. The original point of contention here was the assertion that because gravitation alone is not sufficient to fully explain the movement of Mercury, galaxies etc, then it could be dismissed in its entirety, or at least be put on an equal footing with Ætheriç winds.

I asserted, and still assert that within a well defined range, gravity is an excellent model of observed phenomena. It doesn't explain the difference between good and evil, nor predict the next fashion in the music industry, but the existence of those things do not preclude all masses attracting all other masses. In fact, nothing seems to.

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 16, 2014, 07:01:40 PM

I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.

I am happy to do my best to be excruciatingly specific and unambiguous if you think it's entirely necessary. Just try not to take it as patronising.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 07:28:47 PM

Why does your science of grativy only attract when every other force in your same science has opposites? That's a plot hole to me.

All three or four fundamental interactions are attractive except electromagnetism. That's simply what we observe, and any "plot holes" are the responsibility of reality. Or God, if you're that way inclined.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 07:28:47 PM

Also, why is gravity so weak when compared to other forces and why does mass determine its potency?

An interesting question with a lot of competing answers, currently. But my original assertion was only that if you assume universal gravitation of this particular strength you will accurately predict the outcome of interactions where it's relevant. Which you will, and which people have been doing successfully for some time.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 07:28:47 PM

Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles and electrons?

It does. Gravitational lensing is a common and easily visible effect of gravity on photons. To the best of my recollection, gravity is accounted for in some very precise models of particle interaction. I'm not aware of any experiments which specifically demonstrate gravitational effects on electrons.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 07:28:47 PM

There are many things that your theory does not explain or touch upon. It certainly doesn't "explain" it all.

The claim of universal gravitation is only that all masses attract each other by a certain amount. All observations are consistent with that hypothesis until certain speeds or scales are encountered, at which point observations begin to diverge from predictions. The original point of contention here was the assertion that because gravitation alone is not sufficient to fully explain the movement of Mercury, galaxies etc, then it could be dismissed in its entirety, or at least be put on an equal footing with Ætheriç winds.

I asserted, and still assert that within a well defined range, gravity is an excellent model of observed phenomena. It doesn't explain the difference between good and evil, nor predict the next fashion in the music industry, but the existence of those things do not preclude all masses attracting all other masses. In fact, nothing seems to.

You claim that gravity acts on electrons and other small particles. Where is the proof of this? Certainly there's a paper or something out there that details this interaction. I have looked, however, and there is not. No experiments or tests have been done to determine whether gravity acts on electrons.

Also, you're wrong about the forces. Why does it seem like I know more about RE science than you? Electromagnetism has a positive and negative force associated with it, so do weak and strong nuclear forces (see the names: weak/strong, opposites. Like I said earlier)... don't just say "you're wrong" (like you did here) because you can spend 5 seconds of your time finding this information on wikipedia.

Like so many RE'ers tell me, "show me some graphs or numbers". Science is not about making statements with no supporting evidence (which was your entire post, btw). You claimed that your theory explains everything, but my questions still stand because you have not provided any evidence other than "this is this because this".




Another thing I don't understanding about gravity: why is it so precise? If your force of gravity was any stronger it would tear the universe apart. The chances of something like gravity popping up, using just the right amount of force to support life across the universe (assumption, but my personal belief), is ridiculous. It's almost as if (like you said) "God did it". I personally believe it has nothing to do with God and everything to do with the fact that "gravity" is a made up force that tries to explain some things in the universe, but can't explain nearly enough. Its existence poses more questions than it answers.

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 17, 2014, 08:09:03 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 16, 2014, 07:01:40 PM

I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain cell that the implication was anything that gravity is supposed to explain, it does.

I am happy to do my best to be excruciatingly specific and unambiguous if you think it's entirely necessary. Just try not to take it as patronising.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 07:28:47 PM

Why does your science of grativy only attract when every other force in your same science has opposites? That's a plot hole to me.

All three or four fundamental interactions are attractive except electromagnetism. That's simply what we observe, and any "plot holes" are the responsibility of reality. Or God, if you're that way inclined.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 07:28:47 PM

Also, why is gravity so weak when compared to other forces and why does mass determine its potency?

An interesting question with a lot of competing answers, currently. But my original assertion was only that if you assume universal gravitation of this particular strength you will accurately predict the outcome of interactions where it's relevant. Which you will, and which people have been doing successfully for some time.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 07:28:47 PM

Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles and electrons?

It does. Gravitational lensing is a common and easily visible effect of gravity on photons. To the best of my recollection, gravity is accounted for in some very precise models of particle interaction. I'm not aware of any experiments which specifically demonstrate gravitational effects on electrons.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 16, 2014, 07:28:47 PM

There are many things that your theory does not explain or touch upon. It certainly doesn't "explain" it all.

The claim of universal gravitation is only that all masses attract each other by a certain amount. All observations are consistent with that hypothesis until certain speeds or scales are encountered, at which point observations begin to diverge from predictions. The original point of contention here was the assertion that because gravitation alone is not sufficient to fully explain the movement of Mercury, galaxies etc, then it could be dismissed in its entirety, or at least be put on an equal footing with Ætheriç winds.

I asserted, and still assert that within a well defined range, gravity is an excellent model of observed phenomena. It doesn't explain the difference between good and evil, nor predict the next fashion in the music industry, but the existence of those things do not preclude all masses attracting all other masses. In fact, nothing seems to.

You claim that gravity acts on electrons and other small particles. Where is the proof of this? Certainly there's a paper or something out there that details this interaction. I have looked, however, and there is not. No experiments or tests have been done to determine whether gravity acts on electrons.

Also, you're wrong about the forces. Why does it seem like I know more about RE science than you? Electromagnetism has a positive and negative force associated with it, so do weak and strong nuclear forces (see the names: weak/strong, opposites. Like I said earlier)... don't just say "you're wrong" (like you did here) because you can spend 5 seconds of your time finding this information on wikipedia.

Like so many RE'ers tell me, "show me some graphs or numbers". Science is not about making statements with no supporting evidence (which was your entire post, btw). You claimed that your theory explains everything, but my questions still stand because you have not provided any evidence other than "this is this because this".

Strong and weak nuclear aren't "opposites" any more than "wet" and "damp" are.

British physicist James Chadwick discovered that the nucleus of atoms contain neutrons in 1932. Soon after this Hungarian-American physicist Eugene Wigner suggested that the electromagnetic force was not involved in holding the nucleus together and that there are two different nuclear forces. The strong nuclear force is the nuclear binding force, the force that provides the attraction between protons and protons, proton and neutrons and neutrons and neutrons, keeping the nucleus of atoms together. The weak nuclear force causes beta decay. It was reasoned that the weak force was weaker than the strong force because beta decay is relatively common within atoms, yet it requires a lot of energy to split the nucleus of an atom. - See more at: http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/Strong.html#sthash.NMdIieF4.dpuf

Another thing I don't understanding about gravity: why is it so precise? If your force of gravity was any stronger it would tear the universe apart. The chances of something like gravity popping up, using just the right amount of force to support life across the universe (assumption, but my personal belief), is ridiculous. It's almost as if (like you said) "God did it". I personally believe it has nothing to do with God and everything to do with the fact that "gravity" is a made up force that tries to explain some things in the universe, but can't explain nearly enough. Its existence poses more questions than it answers.

According to whom? Jupiter has a gravitational field 2.5 times as strong as the earth, it, we and the universe, are still here. A black hole has a gravitational field nearly infinitely strong, strong enough to prevent light or any other matter from escaping, and yet here we are.

In a universe with stronger gravity; galaxies, planets, and stars would all be smaller. Planets would oftentimes be pulled out of orbit by passing stars, and stars themselves would burn for less time. "Life" as we know it would probably not exist because of the chaotic nature of the universe if gravity was even just a smidgen stronger. Any galaxies formed in the universe would be very small with tightly packed stars whose interactions would prevent the formation of stable "planetary" orbits.

Blackholes and other large masses don't conflict with this theory. They work because the equation relating to mass and gravity works out (I'm not a physicist, keep in mind. and this is according to RE science). Jupiter is not pulling other heavenly bodies out of orbit, and black holes are rare and localized. However, if a black hole were to pop up in our solar system we'd be doomed. However, black holes haven't even been observed. There's no evidence that black holes even exist.  Your science just assumes that they must exist (to fill in one of your plot holes, again).

Your RE theory of gravity is finely tuned, I'll give you that. Any variation in the strength of gravity itself relating to mass would have catastrophic consequences for the universe, though. To deny this would just be admitting your ignorance.

In a universe with stronger gravity; galaxies, planets, and stars would all be smaller. Planets would oftentimes be pulled out of orbit by passing stars, and stars themselves would burn for less time. "Life" as we know it would probably not exist because of the chaotic nature of the universe if gravity was even just a smidgen stronger. Any galaxies formed in the universe would be very small with tightly packed stars whose interactions would prevent the formation of stable "planetary" orbits.

Blackholes and other large masses don't conflict with this theory. They work because the equation relating to mass and gravity works out (I'm not a physicist, keep in mind. and this is according to RE science). Jupiter is not pulling other heavenly bodies out of orbit, and black holes are rare and localized. However, if a black hole were to pop up in our solar system we'd be doomed. However, black holes haven't even been observed. There's no evidence that black holes even exist.  Your science just assumes that they must exist (to fill in one of your plot holes, again).

Your RE theory of gravity is finely tuned, I'll give you that. Any variation in the strength of gravity itself relating to mass would have catastrophic consequences for the universe, though. To deny this would just be admitting your ignorance.

This is true for any other force. If the fine structure constant was different, the universe would be completely different from what we see.

A lot of that was you not reading my post. Here:
-Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles~"
-It does. Gravitational lensing is a common and easily visible effect of gravity on photons. To the best of my recollection, gravity is accounted for in some very precise models of particle interaction.

-~and electrons?
-I'm not aware of any experiments which specifically demonstrate gravitational effects on electrons.

-Also, you're wrong about the forces. Electromagnetism has a positive and negative force associated with it, so do weak and strong nuclear forces (see the names: weak/strong, opposites. Like I said earlier)
-All three or four fundamental interactions are attractive except electromagnetism.
My particle physics is beyond rusty, and it is actually the case that the electroweak interaction manifests as both electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force and it is attractive/repulsive depending on unlike/like charge and spin.
However, I stand by what I said:
-That's simply what we observe, and any "plot holes" are the responsibility of reality. Or God, if you're that way inclined.

I'm not certain what your third paragraph is asking for, if you want me to teach you modern physics from scratch "with graphs and numbers" when you already have a conclusion in mind, then you are out of luck. Fortunately, because this is reality, there are many places you can learn these things (even whole buildings!), not just from a handful of forum posters. I've heard good things about this place but I've not used it.

As for the question "why is the universe so finely tuned for life?", it's an old question, but the anthropic principle gives one answer: if it weren't, we wouldn't be here asking. Also, would life be impossible if the physical constants were a little different, or would the universe and any life in it simply be different? I've heard various answers, but while it's a (vaguely) interesting philosophical distraction it's not exactly an experiment we can run at this time and I'd refer you to my earlier point: all these things are simply what we observe, if you think they're weird, take it up with God.

/edit: a black hole "popping up" in our solar system wouldn't doom anyone if it was in a stable orbit. Or at least, it wouldn't doom them any more than something else with the same mass "popping up" would. They aren't all powerful devourers, just very steep gravity wells.

Pitdroid provided us with this fine example:

Mirage. Plus they seem to be the same size.

Light travels the same path to the lens regardless of magnification. They are the same size because i made them so, as to highlight the restoration for you.

Quote

Rig Navigator with another:

Still behind the horizon, unless you think oil rigs sit on the water. Plus getting bigger doesn't mean you see more.

No, but unless I'm really bad at math, the object gained more height than it did width under magnification. Curious, no doubt for you -- no such restoration has ever been seen, according to you afterall, but it again confirms the predictive power of Dr. Rowbotham's perspective.

Quote

29Silhouette provided us a bridge showing the vertical compression of perspective (though not the sinking ship phenomena):

Which has nothing to do with this thread.

Odd, I thought the true nature of perspective and the effects of magnification were completely on topic...

The picture you spliced together are from two different altitudes. Way to be dishonest, although I'm not surprised.

Yes, after several posts arguing that the restoration was due to a mirage, the poster finally realized that this is impossible and changed his story about the pictures being taken from the same height. You can see the date/time the post was altered.

No, but unless I'm really bad at math, the object gained more height than it did width under magnification. Curious, no doubt for you -- no such restoration has ever been seen, according to you afterall, but it again confirms the predictive power of Dr. Rowbotham's perspective.

Not by an incredibly large amount though. By my math, there is a 2.67x increase horizontally, and a 2.76..., vertically. However, you're trying to cut through a lot of haze, with a highly pix-elated image, trying to determine where exactly an object begins and ends.

A lot of that was you not reading my post. Here:
-Why doesn't the theory of gravity seem to apply to small particles~"
-It does. Gravitational lensing is a common and easily visible effect of gravity on photons. To the best of my recollection, gravity is accounted for in some very precise models of particle interaction.

-~and electrons?
-I'm not aware of any experiments which specifically demonstrate gravitational effects on electrons.

-Also, you're wrong about the forces. Electromagnetism has a positive and negative force associated with it, so do weak and strong nuclear forces (see the names: weak/strong, opposites. Like I said earlier)
-All three or four fundamental interactions are attractive except electromagnetism.
My particle physics is beyond rusty, and it is actually the case that the electroweak interaction manifests as both electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force and it is attractive/repulsive depending on unlike/like charge and spin.
However, I stand by what I said:
-That's simply what we observe, and any "plot holes" are the responsibility of reality. Or God, if you're that way inclined.

I'm not certain what your third paragraph is asking for, if you want me to teach you modern physics from scratch "with graphs and numbers" when you already have a conclusion in mind, then you are out of luck. Fortunately, because this is reality, there are many places you can learn these things (even whole buildings!), not just from a handful of forum posters. I've heard good things about this place but I've not used it.

As for the question "why is the universe so finely tuned for life?", it's an old question, but the anthropic principle gives one answer: if it weren't, we wouldn't be here asking. Also, would life be impossible if the physical constants were a little different, or would the universe and any life in it simply be different? I've heard various answers, but while it's a (vaguely) interesting philosophical distraction it's not exactly an experiment we can run at this time and I'd refer you to my earlier point: all these things are simply what we observe, if you think they're weird, take it up with God.

/edit: a black hole "popping up" in our solar system wouldn't doom anyone if it was in a stable orbit. Or at least, it wouldn't doom them any more than something else with the same mass "popping up" would. They aren't all powerful devourers, just very steep gravity wells.

You didn't understand my questions. Of course you can make statemnts that "gravity works on electrons" but you can't even prove that electrons or gravity exist in the first place. If you can't demonstrate an experiment that proves gravity working on electrons then all you're doing is talking out of your ass.

Please bring something factual to the table, with evidence. This is typical of you Clown. Stop spouting nonsense as fact without proof. I have reported you again.

You've reported me again? To the authorities?

So specifically, this one phenomena that's not (to my knowledge) been observed, that of electrons being affected by gravity, that one thing is your problem with all of natural science? Because other particles are known to be affected, as I told you. So is it that you just don't like the conclusions, so any gap or lack or uncertainty is clung to for dear life?

For example, are you claiming that the entire electronics industry is mistaken about the existence of electrons?

You've misquoted me twice in a row about electrons (which is impressive with the text right there). I've said twice that they've not (afaik) been observed to be affected by gravity. In what way didn't I understand your questions? What particular evidence would you like me to google and then spoonfeed you, exactly?