Debunking the Density model of Gravity

So one thing I have seen on here is the idea that gravity isn't actually a thing, and that instead buoyancy, and so by extension density, is what causes objects to fall down, now there is a couple of flaws in this model but I am not here to debate those. Instead I have written an experiment you can do yourself from home that will disprove this model of Gravity. I have tested it myself, so I know it works, but the most important thing is that believers test it so they know in themselves that it works.

So what you do is you take two of the same bottle (any object will do, but water/any liquid makes it a bit easier) Now fill one bottle up with water and leave one empty.

Density is the mass of the object over the volume of the object, so with this experiment both bottles will have the same volume as they are the same bottle, but the filled bottle should be around an extra 0.5kg heavier due to the liquid this means it will have a a larger density.

So by the density model of Gravity, the heavier one should fall first as it has a higher density, now what you do is you hold them up as high as you can in the same orientation (as a control) and then you drop them. They should both hit the ground at the same time assuming you let go of them at the same time.

Human error will be the biggest cause for failure in this experiment as you could let go of one faster than the other so to get an accurate result, some kind of simultaneous release system could be built and a high speed camera can record the landing.

Note, I have chosen to use two of the same object as that will lessen the effect drag has since using an object with a larger surface area would cause more drag meaning that it would hit later (not a problem in a vacuum chamber)

So if anyone wants to do this experiment, I would be interested in seeing your results.

Also, the value for the acceleration due to gravity can be worked out using the equation
2s/t˛
Where S is the distance from the top to the bottom, and t˛ is the time taken squared.

This value should come out close to 9.81m/s˛

I'd be interested in seeing how many FE proponents support the "density" model. It really is terrible.

Not to fret, however, the density model and standard model for gravity can both be wrong.

I saw a large debate on it kicked off the other week so I thought I'd help put it to bed, what model of Gravity do you believe in?

I saw a large debate on it kicked off the other week so I thought I'd help put it to bed, what model of Gravity do you believe in?

I prefer the UA/EA model when it comes to FET. Not without its flaws, but it is better than what I am seeing over here recently. I am not sure when the shift happened, but I haven't been around much lately so whatevs.

Quote from: JackSchitt on April 25, 2017, 12:41:25 PM

I saw a large debate on it kicked off the other week so I thought I'd help put it to bed, what model of Gravity do you believe in?

I prefer the UA/EA model when it comes to FET.

why do you prefer the UA/EA model

Not without its flaws,

what flaws?

but it is better than what I am seeing over here recently. I am not sure when the shift happened, but I haven't been around much lately so whatevs.

Sorry, what's the UA/EA model?

Sorry, what's the UA/EA model?

Universal/electromagnetic acceleration.

Is that the everything is accelerating upwards or another model I haven't heard of?

Is that the everything is accelerating upwards or another model I haven't heard of?

Yes, the acceleration model.

Quote from: JackSchitt on April 25, 2017, 01:05:21 PM

Is that the everything is accelerating upwards or another model I haven't heard of?

Yes, the acceleration model.

If FE don't believe in space, it accelerate upwards in what?

Quote from: JackSchitt on April 25, 2017, 01:05:21 PM

Is that the everything is accelerating upwards or another model I haven't heard of?

Yes, the acceleration model.

at what speed do we travel upwards at the moment?

If FE don't believe in space, it accelerate upwards in what?

I don't know any FE proponents that do not believe in space.

at what speed do we travel upwards at the moment?

A percentage of c. I could give you a more precise number if we knew T. The motion is relative anyway, so it isn't like the current speed is particularly important.

Quote from: mysticalcreature on April 25, 2017, 01:18:36 PM

If FE don't believe in space, it accelerate upwards in what?

I don't know any FE proponents that do not believe in space.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 01:20:36 PM

at what speed do we travel upwards at the moment?

A percentage of c. I could give you a more precise number if we knew T. The motion is relative anyway, so it isn't like the current speed is particularly important.

yes, because what happen if we reach lightspeed?

yes, because what happen if we reach lightspeed?

We won't reach light speed. That isn't possible.

Quote from: Junker on April 25, 2017, 01:26:10 PM

Quote from: mysticalcreature on April 25, 2017, 01:18:36 PM

If FE don't believe in space, it accelerate upwards in what?

I don't know any FE proponents that do not believe in space.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 01:20:36 PM

at what speed do we travel upwards at the moment?

A percentage of c. I could give you a more precise number if we knew T. The motion is relative anyway, so it isn't like the current speed is particularly important.

yes, because what happen if we reach lightspeed?

Just need a little info.  I am not a physics expert, so I don't quite understand.  Why would the UA theory require that we are heading towards light-speed.  I have seen many posts regarding that, but I don't understand.  In RE, we are traveling through the universe at a certain speed, but not accelerating towards light-speed...

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 01:28:24 PM

yes, because what happen if we reach lightspeed?

We won't reach light speed. That isn't possible.

but if we accelerate with a=9.81 m/2^2

that will bring us to lightspeed of 299792458 m/s
in 30559883 s
or in 353 days
thats not even a year.

according to you claim that we will never reach lightspeed, that would mean that we are not accelerating with 9.81 m/s^2

what is the acceleration?

Just need a little info.  I am not a physics expert, so I don't quite understand.  Why would the UA theory require that we are heading towards light-speed.  I have seen many posts regarding that, but I don't understand.  In RE, we are traveling through the universe at a certain speed, but not accelerating towards light-speed...

No worries. In UA, we are in a non-inertial frame of reference accelerating ~9.81m/s², so velocity is increasing. In the RE model, we are not uniformly accelerating but we are travelling at a mostly constant speed through the solar system/galaxy/universe.

but if we accelerate with a=9.81 m/2^2

that will bring us to lightspeed of 299792458 m/s
in 30559883 s
or in 353 days
thats not even a year.

according to you claim that we will never reach lightspeed, that would mean that we are not accelerating with 9.81 m/s^2

what is the acceleration?

You are using Newtonian mechanics in an instance where you need to be using Special Relativity. Undergoing constant acceleration of ~9.81m/s² will asymptotically approach the speed of light, however will never reach it.

Quote from: justaguy on April 25, 2017, 01:34:27 PM

Just need a little info.  I am not a physics expert, so I don't quite understand.  Why would the UA theory require that we are heading towards light-speed.  I have seen many posts regarding that, but I don't understand.  In RE, we are traveling through the universe at a certain speed, but not accelerating towards light-speed...

No worries. In UA, we are in a non-inertial frame of reference accelerating ~9.81m/s², so velocity is increasing. In the RE model, we are not uniformly accelerating but we are travelling at a mostly constant speed through the solar system/galaxy/universe.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 01:36:47 PM

but if we accelerate with a=9.81 m/2^2

that will bring us to lightspeed of 299792458 m/s
in 30559883 s
or in 353 days
thats not even a year.

according to you claim that we will never reach lightspeed, that would mean that we are not accelerating with 9.81 m/s^2

what is the acceleration?

You are using Newtonian mechanics in an instance where you need to be using Special Relativity. Undergoing constant acceleration of ~9.81m/s² will asymptotically approach the speed of light, however will never reach it.

hmmm why you use special relativity?

thats what i found about the relation between special relativity and gravity.

Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity is one of the towering achievements of 20th-century physics. Published in 1916, it explains that what we perceive as the force of gravity in fact arises from the curvature of space and time. Einstein proposed that objects such as the sun and the Earth change this geometry.

as you seem to claim that gravity does not exist than the special relativity can not be correct and therefore you can not use that in your explanation.
or you have to come up with a modified special relativity.

Quote from: Junker on April 25, 2017, 01:30:20 PM

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 01:28:24 PM

yes, because what happen if we reach lightspeed?

We won't reach light speed. That isn't possible.

but if we accelerate with a=9.81 m/2^2

that will bring us to lightspeed of 299792458 m/s
in 30559883 s
or in 353 days
thats not even a year.

according to you claim that we will never reach lightspeed, that would mean that we are not accelerating with 9.81 m/s^2

what is the acceleration?

Why 9.81?  g varies across the earth.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 01:36:47 PM

Quote from: Junker on April 25, 2017, 01:30:20 PM

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 01:28:24 PM

yes, because what happen if we reach lightspeed?

We won't reach light speed. That isn't possible.

but if we accelerate with a=9.81 m/2^2

that will bring us to lightspeed of 299792458 m/s
in 30559883 s
or in 353 days
thats not even a year.

according to you claim that we will never reach lightspeed, that would mean that we are not accelerating with 9.81 m/s^2

what is the acceleration?

Why 9.81?  g varies across the earth.

because the earth is not perfect homogeneous.

hmmm why you use special relativity?

Because it fits observation.

thats what i found about the relation between special relativity and gravity.
Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity is one of the towering achievements of 20th-century physics. Published in 1916, it explains that what we perceive as the force of gravity in fact arises from the curvature of space and time. Einstein proposed that objects such as the sun and the Earth change this geometry.

SR works just fine.

as you seem to claim that gravity does not exist than the special relativity can not be correct and therefore you can not use that in your explanation.

I'd suggest you work on your logic a bit more, as you are incorrect.

Why 9.81?  g varies across the earth.

Celestial bodies can have a minor gravitational influence. It could also be improperly calibrated equipment yielding the small differences allegedly recorded.

Quote from: inquisitive on April 25, 2017, 01:54:43 PM

Why 9.81?  g varies across the earth.

Celestial bodies can have a minor gravitational influence. It could also be improperly calibrated equipment yielding the small differences allegedly recorded.

Unlikely as it is measured by accredited and respected organisations across the world.

The tests have been conducted so that they are pretty much beyond error, for the obvious reason. This means that there is proof that the acceleration is greater on parts of the world, fits with RE. And if it was accelerating upwards, one there is the speed of light issue, and two if different parts of the Earth are accelerating at different rates then within the day the Earth will be in pieces

The tests have been conducted so that they are pretty much beyond error...

I don't mind conceding that point.

This means that there is proof that the acceleration is greater on parts of the world, fits with RE.

It isn't greater in UA and fits fine in FE as celestial bodies may have a slight gravitational influence.

And if it was accelerating upwards, one there is the speed of light issue

There is no speed of light issue, as stated by SR.

and two if different parts of the Earth are accelerating at different rates then within the day the Earth will be in pieces

Good thing the earth is acceleration uniformly in UA, then.

I am not familiar with SR but what part of it stops a basic function of maths working?

Oh and also numerous experiments have shown that the earth is not uniformly accelerating beyond the point of zero error

I am not familiar with SR but what part of it stops a basic function of maths working?

Oh and also numerous experiments have shown that the earth is not uniformly accelerating beyond the point of zero error

SR does predict that an accelerating object can never reach c. It can reach 99.999% c, but never exactly c. I'm skipping the bits about time dilation and other general tomfoolery, for simplicity.

But I have to agree. I've sern the 'gravity map' which shows thr gravity variances, and they don't appear to be caused by far distant and symmetrical objects to me. But then again, if there is an explanation I'm all for it.

EDIT: Found the gravity anomaly map.
http://www.lithoflex.org/IRENA/imgs/Global_Grav_Disturbance_N250_ESAPress.JPG

I am not familiar with SR but what part of it stops a basic function of maths working?

Newtonian mechanics do not work at relativistic velocities. You have to use a SR equation for acceleration near light speed. Specifically:
v = c tanh(aT/c)

What I'm curious about is the driving force behind this buoyancy. It doens't appear out of thin air. Why is it directed downwards?

Quote from: JackSchitt on April 25, 2017, 02:35:29 PM

I am not familiar with SR but what part of it stops a basic function of maths working?

Newtonian mechanics do not work at relativistic velocities. You have to use a SR equation for acceleration near light speed. Specifically:
v = c tanh(aT/c)

Can you tell me what each letter in that stands for please

Quote from: Junker on April 25, 2017, 02:44:21 PM

Quote from: JackSchitt on April 25, 2017, 02:35:29 PM

I am not familiar with SR but what part of it stops a basic function of maths working?

Newtonian mechanics do not work at relativistic velocities. You have to use a SR equation for acceleration near light speed. Specifically:
v = c tanh(aT/c)

Can you tell me what each letter in that stands for please

V: velocity
C: speed of light
A: acceleration
T: dunno, but it'll be on a cursory google search.