# Question 4 - Gravity

• 36 Replies
• 4779 Views
?

#### DaviJaca

• 29
##### Question 4 - Gravity
« on: March 26, 2017, 11:04:44 PM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

?

#### Semnomic

• 172
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2017, 11:47:42 PM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

The claim is its not real and we dont need it anyway?

Every day they use it in their calcs but are simply ignoring it. Try doing  a basic problem like this without (G)

Man drops a 1 Kg weight of a 100ft tower.
How many seconds does it take to reach the floor?

You can not answer that basic question without gravity 9.81ms/s. End of story.

Easy way to prove you need G.

kg - The si unit used by FE's everyday needs (G) in the formula, no (G) no kg = No weight ?

If they produce an equation it must have 9.81 in it, ask where they get this constant/number from ? Ask what they call it? (we call it (g)).

Some slippery types will use 9.81 and say its a known number, ask them why 9.81 does NOT work on moon?  RE: mass/density of moon vs mass/density of earth.

They often state you do not need G as buoyancy & density are all that's needed ? They simply do not understand we need (G) to get the buoyancy & density.
The main problem is they simply repeat stuff others have said and dont know what si units are so even when they use/see/quote equations they do not realize they are using (G).

#### JackBlack

• 22657
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2017, 12:23:11 AM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

The claim is its not real and we dont need it anyway?

Every day they use it in their calcs but are simply ignoring it. Try doing  a basic problem like this without (G)

Man drops a 1 Kg weight of a 100ft tower.
How many seconds does it take to reach the floor?

You can not answer that basic question without gravity 9.81ms/s. End of story.

Easy way to prove you need G.

kg - The si unit used by FE's everyday needs (G) in the formula, no (G) no kg = No weight ?

If they produce an equation it must have 9.81 in it, ask where they get this constant/number from ? Ask what they call it? (we call it (g)).

Some slippery types will use 9.81 and say its a known number, ask them why 9.81 does NOT work on moon?  RE: mass/density of moon vs mass/density of earth.

They often state you do not need G as buoyancy & density are all that's needed ? They simply do not understand we need (G) to get the buoyancy & density.
The main problem is they simply repeat stuff others have said and dont know what si units are so even when they use/see/quote equations they do not realize they are using (G).
G is not needed to determine mass and density.

?

#### physical observer

• 1026
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2017, 03:47:44 AM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

Density, buoyancy, electromagnetism.

"does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?"

No, they circle above the earth, carried by the aether winds. But even in the heliocentric model, the sun does not revolve around earth.

?

• 2525
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2017, 04:10:51 AM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

Density, buoyancy, electromagnetism.

"does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?"

No, they circle above the earth, carried by the aether winds. But even in the heliocentric model, the sun does not revolve around earth.

can you show us a model that works with sunset, sunrise, moonphases, season, eclipses ...

?

#### physical observer

• 1026
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2017, 05:44:56 AM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

Density, buoyancy, electromagnetism.

"does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?"

No, they circle above the earth, carried by the aether winds. But even in the heliocentric model, the sun does not revolve around earth.

can you show us a model that works with sunset, sunrise, moonphases, season, eclipses ...

I already have, many times. You can find excellent animated examples on youtube, like:

Any other questions?

?

• 2525
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2017, 06:03:50 AM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

Density, buoyancy, electromagnetism.

"does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?"

No, they circle above the earth, carried by the aether winds. But even in the heliocentric model, the sun does not revolve around earth.

can you show us a model that works with sunset, sunrise, moonphases, season, eclipses ...

I already have, many times. You can find excellent animated examples on youtube, like:

Any other questions?

for the first video:

the one part with the diverging line is explained by a video that we showed you a lot of times, if you have looked it you know it.

for the part of the video with the coin on the table, you can clearly see that he set up the camera below the table surface and the coin in on the table surface.
if you would scale it to the size of the earth that would mean:
distance coin to table surface 1/16"
distance camera under table surface (lets say) 1"

hight of the sun according to flat earthers 3000 miles (or what ever it is)

therefor the view on the real earth to the sun would be 16*3000 miles = 48000 miles below the earth surface.

you see what the problem with that is?

it is on purpose set up wrong to show something that is not true and is in reality not possible.

?

• 3268
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2017, 07:35:40 AM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

Density, buoyancy, electromagnetism.

"does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?"

No, they circle above the earth, carried by the aether winds. But even in the heliocentric model, the sun does not revolve around earth.
Density explains nothing.  Bouyancy is dependent on gravity.  Electromagnetism only affects certain metals.  So no, none of those things explain the effect of gravity.

?

#### Semnomic

• 172
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2017, 12:02:13 PM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

The claim is its not real and we dont need it anyway?

Every day they use it in their calcs but are simply ignoring it. Try doing  a basic problem like this without (G)

Man drops a 1 Kg weight of a 100ft tower.
How many seconds does it take to reach the floor?

You can not answer that basic question without gravity 9.81ms/s. End of story.

Easy way to prove you need G.

kg - The si unit used by FE's everyday needs (G) in the formula, no (G) no kg = No weight ?

If they produce an equation it must have 9.81 in it, ask where they get this constant/number from ? Ask what they call it? (we call it (g)).

Some slippery types will use 9.81 and say its a known number, ask them why 9.81 does NOT work on moon?  RE: mass/density of moon vs mass/density of earth.

They often state you do not need G as buoyancy & density are all that's needed ? They simply do not understand we need (G) to get the buoyancy & density.
The main problem is they simply repeat stuff others have said and dont know what si units are so even when they use/see/quote equations they do not realize they are using (G).
G is not needed to determine mass and density.

No g is NOT needed to calc MASS and i did not say that did I ? I clearly said WEIGHT

Show me the calc ? show the formula you would use.

?

#### Semnomic

• 172
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2017, 12:06:46 PM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

Density, buoyancy, electromagnetism.

"does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?"

No, they circle above the earth, carried by the aether winds. But even in the heliocentric model, the sun does not revolve around earth.

can you show us a model that works with sunset, sunrise, moonphases, season, eclipses ...

I already have, many times. You can find excellent animated examples on youtube, like:

Any other questions?

Your moon can not work see >> https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69833.0

Your moon cycles prove FE impossible so stop embarrassing yourself with fake maps and videos.

?

#### Semnomic

• 172
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2017, 12:35:56 PM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

Density, buoyancy, electromagnetism.

"does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?"

No, they circle above the earth, carried by the aether winds. But even in the heliocentric model, the sun does not revolve around earth.

can you show us a model that works with sunset, sunrise, moonphases, season, eclipses ...

I already have, many times. You can find excellent animated examples on youtube, like:

Any other questions?

for the first video:

the one part with the diverging line is explained by a video that we showed you a lot of times, if you have looked it you know it.

for the part of the video with the coin on the table, you can clearly see that he set up the camera below the table surface and the coin in on the table surface.
if you would scale it to the size of the earth that would mean:
distance coin to table surface 1/16"
distance camera under table surface (lets say) 1"

hight of the sun according to flat earthers 3000 miles (or what ever it is)

therefor the view on the real earth to the sun would be 16*3000 miles = 48000 miles below the earth surface.

you see what the problem with that is?

it is on purpose set up wrong to show something that is not true and is in reality not possible.

Any map of FE with a moon on it can instantly be dismissed, its impossible to have a moon over a disc earth and have people across the earth see the same phase of the moon. On FE you would see a different version of the moon depending on where you are located and that's impossible.
Look closely at the moon and its phase on the maps he provided, now project that moon to various parts of the world >> UK, Europe, Asia Africa,India, AUS, etc.
None of them have the same view of the moon, some have full moon, some 3/4, some 1/2, some 1/4 some 1/8, some no moon,  some even get to see the dark side!!

See https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69833.0
« Last Edit: March 27, 2017, 12:38:13 PM by Semnomic »

?

• 2525
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2017, 01:05:16 PM »

Any other questions?

this video is even better to disprove the Flat Earth Idea:

first the view which phase of moon is visible is shows in the height of the sun and moon, not from the surface of the earth.

its get even better:

look at time 2:09 (Day 15 at lunar cycle):

the northern region is shown as a new moon
the southern region is shown as a full moon
and for both regions the moon is at day in the sky near the sun.

thanks physical observer for another video that clearly disprove the flat earth.

#### JackBlack

• 22657
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2017, 01:35:56 PM »
I already have, many times. You can find excellent animated examples on youtube, like:
Except you haven't. You have repeatedly failed.
We have pointed out why you are so blatantly wrong numerous times.

The first video is filled with so much crap it isn't funny.
He acknowledges the need of a filter when he outright dismisses it, and he knows that there are clouds obstructing the view.

The actual explanation part is pure bullshit unless you wish to claim the sun is following that path and thus goes below the horizon.
Parallel lines do not converge at the eye level horizon. The horizon is not eye level. The lines converge at infinite distance. The sun does not reach an infinite distance.
So unless you are claiming the sun is at infinite distance, it doesn't work.

But more importantly, remember the top and bottom of the sun would be following parallel lines, that means, like people have said, that the sun should shrink as it approaches the horizon, becoming an unobservant dot at the horizon. Your shitty video doesn't bother showing that and instead keeps the sun the same size. Why?

Sure, he is using a flat table, but viewing it from below the table such that the table will obstruct the view.
How about he try a more honest approach, which actually matches the model, where the observer is say 1.5 units above the table, while the light source is 5000000 units above it?

I won't bother with your other shitty videos. If you think they have some wonderful explanation, feel free to provide it here yourself.

#### JackBlack

• 22657
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2017, 01:39:22 PM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

The claim is its not real and we dont need it anyway?

Every day they use it in their calcs but are simply ignoring it. Try doing  a basic problem like this without (G)

Man drops a 1 Kg weight of a 100ft tower.
How many seconds does it take to reach the floor?

You can not answer that basic question without gravity 9.81ms/s. End of story.

Easy way to prove you need G.

kg - The si unit used by FE's everyday needs (G) in the formula, no (G) no kg = No weight ?

If they produce an equation it must have 9.81 in it, ask where they get this constant/number from ? Ask what they call it? (we call it (g)).

Some slippery types will use 9.81 and say its a known number, ask them why 9.81 does NOT work on moon?  RE: mass/density of moon vs mass/density of earth.

They often state you do not need G as buoyancy & density are all that's needed ? They simply do not understand we need (G) to get the buoyancy & density.
The main problem is they simply repeat stuff others have said and dont know what si units are so even when they use/see/quote equations they do not realize they are using (G).
G is not needed to determine mass and density.

No g is NOT needed to calc MASS and i did not say that did I ? I clearly said WEIGHT

Show me the calc ? show the formula you would use.
kg is a unit of mass, not weight. Weight is measured in the SI unit of Newtons. It is the product of g and m.
i.e. F=ma=m*g.
Newtons is equivalent to kg m/s^2.

Density is based upon mass, not weight. It is mass per unit volume.

If you would like to claim we need G (or g) for either of those, feel free to tell us the formula used.

And no, the "g" in kg refers to grams, not the gravitational acceleration.

#### Jonny B Smart

• 691
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2017, 08:24:11 PM »
So the Sun hides above his kitchen table and we're all just below it? Or there's a giant kitchen table surrounding Antarctica? Or there's a giant kitchen table hovering above us to block the Sun at night? Well why can't we see this big table if it's really there? Wait! If the great kitchen table is blocking the Sun from my vantage, how does it come out from above it? What shape is this great table? I don't see it in any of the FE models. Wouldn't airplanes run into the table? It looks pretty low in the video.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

?

#### Semnomic

• 172
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2017, 09:47:32 PM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

The claim is its not real and we dont need it anyway?

Every day they use it in their calcs but are simply ignoring it. Try doing  a basic problem like this without (G)

Man drops a 1 Kg weight of a 100ft tower.
How many seconds does it take to reach the floor?

You can not answer that basic question without gravity 9.81ms/s. End of story.

Easy way to prove you need G.

kg - The si unit used by FE's everyday needs (G) in the formula, no (G) no kg = No weight ?

If they produce an equation it must have 9.81 in it, ask where they get this constant/number from ? Ask what they call it? (we call it (g)).

Some slippery types will use 9.81 and say its a known number, ask them why 9.81 does NOT work on moon?  RE: mass/density of moon vs mass/density of earth.

They often state you do not need G as buoyancy & density are all that's needed ? They simply do not understand we need (G) to get the buoyancy & density.
The main problem is they simply repeat stuff others have said and dont know what si units are so even when they use/see/quote equations they do not realize they are using (G).
G is not needed to determine mass and density.

No g is NOT needed to calc MASS and i did not say that did I ? I clearly said WEIGHT

Show me the calc ? show the formula you would use.
kg is a unit of mass, not weight. Weight is measured in the SI unit of Newtons. It is the product of g and m.
i.e. F=ma=m*g.
Newtons is equivalent to kg m/s^2.

Density is based upon mass, not weight. It is mass per unit volume.

If you would like to claim we need G (or g) for either of those, feel free to tell us the formula used.

And no, the "g" in kg refers to grams, not the gravitational acceleration.

I did not say the g in kG is gravity i said you can not get kg with out using g ? twisting words will get you nowhere as its up there for all to  see.

an object with a mass of one kilogram has a weight of about 9.8 newtons ? guess what 9.81 N is ?

The main point is you can not use kg unless you acknowledge gravity is in the equations you use.

When it come to buoyancy we use pressure e.g. 1 ATM or 1G as a base reference. Are you seeing a pattern ?

same for density SI unit    kg/m3  >>>  kg ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density

Gravity is everywhere in every calc its the base unit of everything were talking about.

Do you know what this word means >>  "Derivations"

Go bring yourself up to speed and feel free to "weigh" in if you like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

Post your weight in kg and show the formula you used to arrive at that number and i will show you where g is.

Answer a simple time puzzle 1kg brick will fall 100ft in how many seconds ? show your calcs
« Last Edit: March 27, 2017, 09:52:11 PM by Semnomic »

?

#### Semnomic

• 172
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2017, 10:07:35 PM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

The claim is its not real and we dont need it anyway?

Every day they use it in their calcs but are simply ignoring it. Try doing  a basic problem like this without (G)

Man drops a 1 Kg weight of a 100ft tower.
How many seconds does it take to reach the floor?

You can not answer that basic question without gravity 9.81ms/s. End of story.

Easy way to prove you need G.

kg - The si unit used by FE's everyday needs (G) in the formula, no (G) no kg = No weight ?

If they produce an equation it must have 9.81 in it, ask where they get this constant/number from ? Ask what they call it? (we call it (g)).

Some slippery types will use 9.81 and say its a known number, ask them why 9.81 does NOT work on moon?  RE: mass/density of moon vs mass/density of earth.

They often state you do not need G as buoyancy & density are all that's needed ? They simply do not understand we need (G) to get the buoyancy & density.
The main problem is they simply repeat stuff others have said and dont know what si units are so even when they use/see/quote equations they do not realize they are using (G).
G is not needed to determine mass and density.

No g is NOT needed to calc MASS and i did not say that did I ? I clearly said WEIGHT

Show me the calc ? show the formula you would use.
kg is a unit of mass, not weight. Weight is measured in the SI unit of Newtons. It is the product of g and m.
i.e. F=ma=m*g.
Newtons is equivalent to kg m/s^2.

Density is based upon mass, not weight. It is mass per unit volume.

If you would like to claim we need G (or g) for either of those, feel free to tell us the formula used.

And no, the "g" in kg refers to grams, not the gravitational acceleration.

from wiki -
The distinction between mass and weight is unimportant for many practical purposes because the strength of gravity does not vary too much on the surface of the Earth. In a uniform gravitational field, the gravitational force exerted on an object (its weight) is directly proportional to its mass.

mass -weight both related to gravity dress it up how you like

WIKI -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density
The density, or more precisely, the volumetric MASS density
WIKI -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
If the object is either less dense than the liquid or is shaped appropriately (as in a boat), the force can keep the object afloat. This can occur only in a reference frame which either has a gravitational field or is accelerating due to a force other than gravity defining a "downward" direction (that is, a non-inertial reference frame). In a situation of fluid statics, the net upward buoyancy force is equal to the magnitude of the weight of fluid displaced by the body.

?

#### itsatorus

• 368
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2017, 10:14:28 PM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

The claim is its not real and we dont need it anyway?

Every day they use it in their calcs but are simply ignoring it. Try doing  a basic problem like this without (G)

Man drops a 1 Kg weight of a 100ft tower.
How many seconds does it take to reach the floor?

You can not answer that basic question without gravity 9.81ms/s. End of story.

Easy way to prove you need G.

kg - The si unit used by FE's everyday needs (G) in the formula, no (G) no kg = No weight ?

If they produce an equation it must have 9.81 in it, ask where they get this constant/number from ? Ask what they call it? (we call it (g)).

Some slippery types will use 9.81 and say its a known number, ask them why 9.81 does NOT work on moon?  RE: mass/density of moon vs mass/density of earth.

They often state you do not need G as buoyancy & density are all that's needed ? They simply do not understand we need (G) to get the buoyancy & density.
The main problem is they simply repeat stuff others have said and dont know what si units are so even when they use/see/quote equations they do not realize they are using (G).
G is not needed to determine mass and density.

No g is NOT needed to calc MASS and i did not say that did I ? I clearly said WEIGHT

Show me the calc ? show the formula you would use.
kg is a unit of mass, not weight. Weight is measured in the SI unit of Newtons. It is the product of g and m.
i.e. F=ma=m*g.
Newtons is equivalent to kg m/s^2.

Density is based upon mass, not weight. It is mass per unit volume.

If you would like to claim we need G (or g) for either of those, feel free to tell us the formula used.

And no, the "g" in kg refers to grams, not the gravitational acceleration.

I did not say the g in kG is gravity i said you can not get kg with out using g ? twisting words will get you nowhere as its up there for all to  see.

an object with a mass of one kilogram has a weight of about 9.8 newtons ? guess what 9.81 N is ?

The main point is you can not use kg unless you acknowledge gravity is in the equations you use.

When it come to buoyancy we use pressure e.g. 1 ATM or 1G as a base reference. Are you seeing a pattern ?

same for density SI unit    kg/m3  >>>  kg ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density

Gravity is everywhere in every calc its the base unit of everything were talking about.

Do you know what this word means >>  "Derivations"

Go bring yourself up to speed and feel free to "weigh" in if you like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

Post your weight in kg and show the formula you used to arrive at that number and i will show you where g is.

Answer a simple time puzzle 1kg brick will fall 100ft in how many seconds ? show your calcs

It's possible to measure the mass of an object without measuring its weight. It's just that measuring weight is the simplest method.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2017, 01:08:55 AM »
It's possible to measure the mass of an object without measuring its weight. It's just that measuring weight is the simplest method.
Yes, measure the force required to cause it to accelerate at a known rate.
There are plenty of accurate accelerometers, here are some all sorts of measurement things!
and "force gauges", want one, it's a link?
Of course, gravity is a very convenient source if an "acceleration" the does not need the object to move.

The usual way to accurately measure mass is to compare it to standard masses in a balance,
but that is not really a "measurement", just a comparison.

#### JackBlack

• 22657
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2017, 02:08:38 AM »
I did not say the g in kG is gravity i said you can not get kg with out using g ? twisting words will get you nowhere as its up there for all to  see.
I never said you did.
I was just making sure that is clear.

You said you cannot get kg without using g. Care to back that up?

an object with a mass of one kilogram has a weight of about 9.8 newtons ? guess what 9.81 N is ?
Yes. That is right. An object with a mass of 1 kg. No G required.

9.81 N is a measure of force, which can be the force due to gravity, but it isn't measured in kg.

The main point is you can not use kg unless you acknowledge gravity is in the equations you use.
Sure you can. Chemists/physisists use it very often, almost every time they do EDS or MS.
Both are based upon the mass of the particle in question and completely ignore gravity.
Even some density meters function completely independently of gravity.

So no, I can use kg without using gravity at all.

When it come to buoyancy we use pressure e.g. 1 ATM or 1G as a base reference. Are you seeing a pattern ?
No. We do not use 1 G as a reference. We use 1 atmosphere. Again, pressure can be measured completely independently of gravity.
In fact, the standard unit is Pa, which is 1 kg m/s^2.

But yes, I am seeing a pattern, you trying to stick gravity in where it isn't needed.

same for density SI unit    kg/m3  >>>  kg ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density
Yep, same for density. No gravity required.

Gravity is everywhere in every calc its the base unit of everything were talking about.
Really? Because so far the only calc you have "provided" is to determine the weight due to gravity of an object.
It is the base unit of no SI unit.
So no, it isn't in everything we are talking about.

Do you know what this word means >>  "Derivations"
Yes. Are you trying to make a point with it?

Go bring yourself up to speed and feel free to "weigh" in if you like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
I am up to speed, far more so than you.

Post your weight in kg and show the formula you used to arrive at that number and i will show you where g is.
That is physically impossible, akin to asking someone to show the volume of a container in amps.
It makes no sense.
kg are a unit to measure mass. Weight is measured in newtons (or kgweight if you like).

Yes, my weight in N will depend on G, but my mass in kg does not.

Answer a simple time puzzle 1kg brick will fall 100ft in how many seconds ? show your calcs
Yes, the time taken for an object to fall will depend on gravity. So what?
That doesn't refute anything I said.
I never said nothing is based upon gravity.
All I did was point out that you were wrong, kg doesn't depend on gravity, nor does density.

from wiki -
The distinction between mass and weight is unimportant for many practical purposes because the strength of gravity does not vary too much on the surface of the Earth. In a uniform gravitational field, the gravitational force exerted on an object (its weight) is directly proportional to its mass.
Yes, for practical purposes, weight can be expressed in kg, but that is not actually using the SI unit.
That does not make kg based upon gravity.
It does not mean mass is based upon gravity.

mass -weight both related to gravity dress it up how you like
The relation between mass and gravity is that the strength of gravity is proportional to mass.
But mass does not require gravity.
You can lie about it as much as you want, it won't make it true.

WIKI -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density
The density, or more precisely, the volumetric MASS density
Yes. Notice the key word?
MASS
Not weight, mass.

Density is mass per unit volume, not weight per unit volume.

WIKI -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
If the object is either less dense than the liquid or is shaped appropriately (as in a boat), the force can keep the object afloat. This can occur only in a reference frame which either has a gravitational field or is accelerating due to a force other than gravity defining a "downward" direction (that is, a non-inertial reference frame). In a situation of fluid statics, the net upward buoyancy force is equal to the magnitude of the weight of fluid displaced by the body.
Yes, buoyancy is based upon density and some other real or apparent force. I never said it wasn't.
But notice how even now it isn't actually dependent upon gravity and instead is just dependent on some real or apparent force that is proportional to mass.
In this case not even weight is necessarily based upon gravity. It is based upon whatever real or apparent force is acting.

Considering you seem so intent on calcs, perhaps you can answer this and show me exactly where gravity shows up:
I have a fluid. I inject it into a u-tube with a volume of roughly 0.1 ml.
This filled u-tube has an oscillation period of 0.036 seconds, and the relevant constants are 1000 g/(ml s^2) and 0.1 g/ml.
What is the density of this fluid?
What is the mass of this fluid?

?

#### DaviJaca

• 29
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2017, 09:28:19 PM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

Density, buoyancy, electromagnetism.

"does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?"

No, they circle above the earth, carried by the aether winds. But even in the heliocentric model, the sun does not revolve around earth.

can you show us a model that works with sunset, sunrise, moonphases, season, eclipses ...

I already have, many times. You can find excellent animated examples on youtube, like:

Any other questions?

Alright, how does density, buoyancy and electromagnetism have to do with with the force the pulls everything down? Please elaborate on that, I'd like to know your reasoning behind that.

But about the videos you posted, I'll try and go about each video and share what my impressions.

For the first video, about the sunset being an optical illusion of sorts, a matter of perspective. Although "interesting" the way it's explained, there is literally zero scientific evidence or argument behind it. One example that was clearly flawed was the one where the author uses two videos of sunrises. On the second video, he claims that the sun clearly moves forward and grows in size. Now that was an optical illusion and for that argument, I'll provide why it was. First, the sun rises from behind a very visible layer of clouds or just general pollution, which could be dust or fog or whatever that is. Rising from behind that layer, the sun will not shine as bright. Now it may seen that it grows after it surfaces that layer, but that is only because more rays of sun light are reaching the camera uninterrupted. For instance, you can see this for yourself trying it at home. If you look at the sun in naked eye, it will seem like this barely distinguishable beam of light. Now if you filter it with sunglasses or any dark see-through material, it will become more distinguishable and appear smaller. You can test this, and measure the size of the sun in the sky yourself, and it will always be the same. Another reason for this effect is the atmosphere. The sunlight during noon travels through about 30 miles of dense, visible atmosphere (the part that gives the skies it's blue color). During sunset, the sunlight travels those 30 miles, plus whatever distance there is between you and the horizon. For instance, if you're looking into the horizon 500 miles away, than the sunlight is travelling 16 times further to reach you. This is what causes the sun to have a different color during sunset than during noon. Refraction of light, basically. That's my main issue with video number one, and I have many more, but I don't want to say too much now.

For the second video, the seasons. If the sun was too move around up and down like that, it would have to accelerate. For instance, when it's positioned in the north, it would take a lot less speed to rotate around the northern part, while it would take a considerably higher speed to rotate the south. If this was the case, the sun would move a lot faster in our visible skies, specially in the south. As someone who grew up in southern Brazil and now live's in the mideast of the USA, the sun moves the same, it's the same size, and looks the same. Second, during winter in the southern half of the disk, for example, the sun would never rise above a center angle in the sky. It would move from side to side in the sky, but not across it. But that is only the case in the world for the places way further north and south, causing the 1 day, 1 night per year effect at the poles. Like the first video, this is the only issue I wanna mention for now.

For the last video of the moon phases, it made no sense at all. For instance, at moments where the moon resides within the area of daylight, those phases would never be visible during night time. So sure, we'd see the moon during daytime in that phase, but never at night time. So pretty much inconceivable to be anywhere close to reality on that example, since we can clearly see all the phases of the moon at night time.

I'm not looking for an exchange of curses, so feel free to disagree and give me your counter arguments.

?

#### DaviJaca

• 29
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2017, 09:39:49 PM »

The relation between mass and gravity is that the strength of gravity is proportional to mass.
But mass does not require gravity.
You can lie about it as much as you want, it won't make it true.

Mass does not require gravity, true. But that is because mass is the "cause" of gravity. The higher the mass, the higher it's gravitational effect, but the opposite does not work. Gravity is dependent on mass.

Reason why we can't say how much earth weights because that's relative. We can say it's mass is 5.972 × 10^24 kg, but you are right in your argument that it's not it's weight.

What I don't understand about your standing point of view is why do you feel like gravity is "unnecessary"? How would you explain how masses, no mattering how dense, float when exposed to 0g?

#### JackBlack

• 22657
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2017, 11:54:59 PM »

The relation between mass and gravity is that the strength of gravity is proportional to mass.
But mass does not require gravity.
You can lie about it as much as you want, it won't make it true.

Mass does not require gravity, true. But that is because mass is the "cause" of gravity. The higher the mass, the higher it's gravitational effect, but the opposite does not work. Gravity is dependent on mass.

Reason why we can't say how much earth weights because that's relative. We can say it's mass is 5.972 × 10^24 kg, but you are right in your argument that it's not it's weight.

What I don't understand about your standing point of view is why do you feel like gravity is "unnecessary"? How would you explain how masses, no mattering how dense, float when exposed to 0g?
I wasn't saying it is entirely unnecessary. I am saying it is unnecessary for many things.

?

#### Twerp

• Gutter Sniper
• Flat Earth Almost Believer
• 6540
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2017, 11:56:51 PM »
I know I sure like it. Except for once in a while when I accidentally fall out of a plane or something.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

#### wise

• Professor
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 25874
• Soul Transformer
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2017, 03:17:47 AM »
I've seen people saying gravity isn't real. Then what is? How do you explain how everything falls onto the earth? If there is no gravity, why, in this theory, does the sun and the moon revolve around the earth?

We see everything is dropping away too. But this doesn't mean of there is a gravity. Something pulling everything down, there is a force such us but this is not gravity. Because in nature, nothing pulls others. We have several experiments about that. Objects don't pulls other objects. So earth doesn't pull anything.

There is a power pushing everything down. There is three main thesis about it.

First one is the most basic one and I'm one of its defender: "sky is pushing us to down".

Two: Atmospheric tightness causes it. You can think it as air pressure. sceptimatic defends it.

Third: John Davis the CIA agent site admin defend that theory is The earth is moving upward. This is a stupid theory. He's already a fool.

Anyway. First two are accepted by majority (second one is more stronger) and third one is accepted by John Davis and a bit fools.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 03:20:06 AM by İntikam »
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

İgnored:
bulmabrif

#### JackBlack

• 22657
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2017, 03:19:14 AM »
We see everything is dropping away too. But this doesn't mean of there is a gravity. Something pulling everything down, there is a force such us but this is not gravity. Because in nature, nothing pulls others. We have several experiments about that. Objects don't pulls other objects. So earth doesn't pull anything.
Except we have experiments showing the exact opposite, that things do attract one another, they don't just push.

There is a power pushing everything down. There is three main thesis about it.

First one is the most basic one and I'm one of its defender: "sky is pushing us to down".

Two: Atmospheric tightness causes it. You can think it as air pressure.

Third: John Davis the CIA agent site admin defend that theory is The earth is moving upward. This is a stupid theory. He's already a fool.

Anyway. First two are accepted by majority and third one is accepted one John Davis and a bit fools.
The first 2 are pure bullshit which don't work at all.
The third one can actually explain it, but not the slight variations.

#### Gaia_Redonda

• 652
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2017, 04:39:31 AM »

The relation between mass and gravity is that the strength of gravity is proportional to mass.
But mass does not require gravity.
You can lie about it as much as you want, it won't make it true.

Mass does not require gravity, true. But that is because mass is the "cause" of gravity. The higher the mass, the higher it's gravitational effect, but the opposite does not work. Gravity is dependent on mass.

Reason why we can't say how much earth weights because that's relative. We can say it's mass is 5.972 × 10^24 kg, but you are right in your argument that it's not it's weight.

What I don't understand about your standing point of view is why do you feel like gravity is "unnecessary"? How would you explain how masses, no mattering how dense, float when exposed to 0g?
0g doesn't exist.

Replicating "weightlessness" in a vomit comet countering g with -g (acceleration) doesn't make gravity 0.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

?

#### sciencer

• 29
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #27 on: March 29, 2017, 04:54:07 AM »
Yes it does, since it means a acceleration of 0 m/s^2.
All is relative.

#### Gaia_Redonda

• 652
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #28 on: March 29, 2017, 05:07:13 AM »
No, it doesn't.

Assume a tredmill that revolves with 5 km/h (or accelerates with a constant 5 km/h^2). If you walk in the opposite direction with a constant v or a also 5 km/h or km/h^2 it doesn't mean that suddenly the tredmill has stopped (0 v or a).

0 g is impossible; gravity is the omnipresent force of the Universe. No escape from it.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

?

#### DaviJaca

• 29
##### Re: Question 4 - Gravity
« Reply #29 on: March 29, 2017, 11:32:26 AM »

The relation between mass and gravity is that the strength of gravity is proportional to mass.
But mass does not require gravity.
You can lie about it as much as you want, it won't make it true.

Mass does not require gravity, true. But that is because mass is the "cause" of gravity. The higher the mass, the higher it's gravitational effect, but the opposite does not work. Gravity is dependent on mass.

Reason why we can't say how much earth weights because that's relative. We can say it's mass is 5.972 × 10^24 kg, but you are right in your argument that it's not it's weight.

What I don't understand about your standing point of view is why do you feel like gravity is "unnecessary"? How would you explain how masses, no mattering how dense, float when exposed to 0g?
I wasn't saying it is entirely unnecessary. I am saying it is unnecessary for many things.

Would you mind elaborating a little more? I feel like I'm still missing something to understand your argument on why it's unnecessary for some things.