Disproving the gravity in 30 seconds

I think it's interesting to read.

Not really.
It is just a bunch of unsubstantiated (and in some cases refuted) nonsense.
It claims that only planets display gravity (in our solar system). Yet it has absolutely no justification or basis for this. It is also refuted by things like satellites orbiting the moon. It isn't not being promoted because it is inexplicable. It is not being promoted because it is baseless garbage.
It then completely lies about Cavendish. The experiment has been repeated in many different ways and has repeatedly confirmed the existence of gravity.
It then completely lies about NEAR. And so on.

It seems to just be garbage slamming the west and promoting their Russian prophet.

VPN dude.

VPN doesn't work.

Quote from: wise on June 14, 2019, 02:08:08 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on June 14, 2019, 04:17:49 AM

I'll give it a go for some but, as I said, my pictures are in a folder on my computer and easy to find, modify and keep track of.

I don't recommend you to move them. Just upload that website when required. I think you can do it. If you can not, so call boydsta to do it. He takes your wish as an order.

I've made an account and uploaded a couple of photos. Can photos be arranged into folders on that site?

I don't know. I just watch videos from there.

It then completely lies about Cavendish. The experiment has been repeated in many different ways and has repeatedly confirmed the existence of gravity.

ха ха ха... No comments

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Wise, this thread has been open for almost 4 months.

You said you'd disprove gravity in 30 seconds, but we're still waiting.

Quote

It then completely lies about Cavendish. The experiment has been repeated in many different ways and has repeatedly confirmed the existence of gravity.

ха ха ха... No comments

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

The guy in this video says that his big mass is 10 kg.
When it was close the little mass is at about 20 cm (0.2 m) center-to-center distance.
Big mass at that distance produces gravitational acceleration of:

a = G * M / d2 = 6.674×10⁻¹¹ * 10 / 0.2² = 1.6685 * 10^-8.

For the end of the rod to move 3-4 mm the smalll mass has to move 1 mm (0.001 m).

At the acceleration caused by big mass for small mass to move for 1 mm would take:

d = v₀ * t + a * t² AND v₀ = 0 =>

t = sqrt(d / a) = sqrt(0.001 / 1.6685 * 10^-8) = 244.8 seconds.

Four minutes to move for 1 millimeter.
Minute hand on your wrist watch moves four times faster.

Did the guy in the video wait for more than 6-7 seconds?
Looks like he didn't.

His goal was not to prove anything.
It was to convince people who don't know enough.

No comments

Yes, no comments to the destruction of your link.
Instead all you can do is provide more garbage.

Showing someone with no idea how to replicate the experiment, completely failing to replicate it, does nothing to the credibility of the experiment.

Wise, this thread has been open for almost 4 months.

You said you'd disprove gravity in 30 seconds, but we're still waiting.

I've proved gravity in 30 seconds for everybody has ordinary logic. If you understand later, so you have delayed in understanding the issue.

Quote from: turtles on June 23, 2019, 03:43:20 AM

Wise, this thread has been open for almost 4 months.

You said you'd disprove gravity in 30 seconds, but we're still waiting.

I've proved gravity in 30 seconds for everybody has ordinary logic. If you understand later, so you have delayed in understanding the issue.

You proved gravity in 30 seconds. This thread can be locked now. OP said gravity is real.

Quote from: wise on June 24, 2019, 06:13:25 AM

Quote from: turtles on June 23, 2019, 03:43:20 AM

Wise, this thread has been open for almost 4 months.

You said you'd disprove gravity in 30 seconds, but we're still waiting.

I've proved gravity in 30 seconds for everybody has ordinary logic. If you understand later, so you have delayed in understanding the issue.

You proved gravity in 30 seconds. This thread can be locked now. OP said gravity is real.

How many seconds passed when you read this? =>

All objects in the earth are under force of gravity, right?

Think an object, like human, has density about 1t/m^3
Water has 1t/m^3 too.

Imagine a person in water. the water at the top of it and the water under it are equal forces him and create a balance.

So; The total force applied to the person by water is zero.

if the force of gravity was present, the person would move downward in the water. but it is not. Anything that is equal to the weight of the self-weight of the water remains in a fixed position within it, not falling down.

<=

If you have read this writing in 30 seconds so you've saw a disprooof which disproves the gravity in 30 seconds. it's your problem that you haven't gone to a fast reading course.

You said you proved gravity.

So; The total force applied to the person by water is zero.

Not zero. Not only by water.
By water and gravity together.

Learn about Archimedes Principle.

Water displaced by the submerged body counteracts gravity force by own weight.

Why else would rock sink under water, and water sink under wood?
What would pull them there?

Quote from: wise on February 28, 2019, 11:49:41 PM

So; The total force applied to the person by water is zero.

Not zero. Not only by water.
By water and gravity together.

Learn about Archimedes Principle.

Water displaced by the submerged body counteracts gravity force by own weight.

Why else would rock sink under water, and water sink under wood?
What would pull them there?

Draw it and prove what you said first. I know what Archimet says but saying the name of Archimet does not magically convert your argument to reality.

Quote from: Macarios on June 24, 2019, 11:43:23 AM

Quote from: wise on February 28, 2019, 11:49:41 PM

So; The total force applied to the person by water is zero.

Not zero. Not only by water.
By water and gravity together.

Learn about Archimedes Principle.

Water displaced by the submerged body counteracts gravity force by own weight.

Why else would rock sink under water, and water sink under wood?
What would pull them there?

Draw it and prove what you said first. I know what Archimet says but saying the name of Archimet does not magically convert your argument to reality.

Its been proven.
Thats how they can build massive ocean liners.
We can add oceanliners to your list of fake news?

I've proved gravity in 30 seconds for everybody has ordinary logic.

Finally some truth.

You finally admit you have proven it, not disproved it.
We can all go home now.

If you wish to cling to your nonsense of your OP disproving gravity (instead of proving it as you just admitted), then you will need to actually address the objections raised.
You ignoring how buoyancy works doesn't change the facts and disprove gravity.

As pointed out before, the initial assumption you make is completely wrong.
The pressure above the object in the water is less than the pressure below the object in the water.
This is due to the pressure gradient as established by gravity.
This pressure gradient then pushes the object upwards.

Again as a reminder if you have a column of fluid with a density of ρ, with a cross sectional area of A and a height of h (and thus with a volume of A h and thus a mass of ρ A h) in a gravitational field which results in an acceleration of g on objects in free fall (and thus the fluid has a weight of g ρ A h, and the pressure at the top of this column is P_t, then the pressure at the bottom P_b will be given as follows:
First, we convert the pressure at the top to a force.
F_t=P_t A.
The bottom needs to provide a force to counter both that force at the top pushing it down and the weight of the fluid (noting that this force is upwards to counter the downwards force from gravity and the downwards force from the pressure at the top)
i.e. F_b=P_t A+g ρ A h.
And now we convert this force into a pressure by dividing by the area:
P_b=(P_t A+g ρ A h)/A=P_t+g ρ h

This means the pressure at the bottom of the column will be greater than at the top. The difference will be equal to g ρ h.

This can easily be tested with a balloon at the beach. Inflate the balloon. Note how large it is. Now dive down. As you do so you will notice the balloon will shrink as it equalises with the pressure outside. While there will be some error due to the tension in the skin of the balloon this is a good simple measuring tool.
If you compare the volume at the surface with the volume at approximately 10 m, you will find it is halved. This corresponds to the pressure being doubled, just as you would expect for water in Earth gravity.

So this clearly shows that the pressure below the object in the water will be greater than the pressure above the object.
Thus the net force on the object from the water will be upwards, and will correspond to the difference in the pressure at the top and the pressure at the bottom and the cross sectional area of the object, i.e. g ρ h A. This works for a simple prismatic shape. For more complex shapes you can break it into prismatic shapes and add up all the contributions, but it ends up being the same. The upwards buoyant force on an object in a fluid is equal to the product of the volume displaced, the density of the fluid and the gravitational acceleration.

In order for something to be neutrally buoyant and remain in place, then the force due to gravity would need to perfectly cancel the force due to buoyancy. This condition is met when the density is equal.

So no, your OP doesn't disprove gravity as it starts with a false assumption which is easily disproven.

I know what Archimet says but saying the name of Archimet does not magically convert your argument to reality.

I was not talking about the Archimedes himself, I was talking about the principle that has his name.

What pulls stone to go under water, and what pulls water to go under wood?

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have a series of grievances that require addressing:

"All objects in the earth are under force of gravity, right?"

"Think an object, like human, has density about 1t/m^3 water has 1t/m^3 too."

The figures presented above are both approximations, water and people have densities that differ by about 12 kg/m^3, but by using tonnes you lose that accuracy.

"Imagine a person in water. the water at the top of it and the water under it are equal forces him and create a balance."

Humans typically float to the top of water because we are less dense than water, but again, the approximation of densities is what causes this logical fallacy.

"So; The total force applied to the person by water is zero."

The phrase you are looking for is net force, and yes this part in theory is correct in accordance with Newton's third law; however, the correct situation is where the human body is pulled down by gravity, but pushed up by the buoyant force of the water, and since the person is less dense than water, the volume of water they displace is equal to their weight, but less than their total volume. Thus, they float.

"if the force of gravity was present, the person would move downward in the water. but it is not. Anything that is equal to the weight of the self-weight of the water remains in a fixed position within it, not falling down."

Again, this does not work because humans are buoyant; however, if you try the same thing with something like a bowling ball (which is denser than water), then you will notice the effects of gravity as the bowling ball sinks to the bottom.

"If you have read this writing in 30 seconds so you've saw a disprooof which disproves the gravity in 30 seconds. it's your problem that you haven't gone to a fast reading course."

This sentence is just too full of grammatical errors for me to understand.

Thank you for your time.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have a series of grievances that require addressing:

"All objects in the earth are under force of gravity, right?"

"Think an object, like human, has density about 1t/m^3 water has 1t/m^3 too."

The figures presented above are both approximations, water and people have densities that differ by about 12 kg/m^3, but by using tonnes you lose that accuracy.

"Imagine a person in water. the water at the top of it and the water under it are equal forces him and create a balance."

Humans typically float to the top of water because we are less dense than water, but again, the approximation of densities is what causes this logical fallacy.

"So; The total force applied to the person by water is zero."

The phrase you are looking for is net force, and yes this part in theory is correct in accordance with Newton's third law; however, the correct situation is where the human body is pulled down by gravity, but pushed up by the buoyant force of the water, and since the person is less dense than water, the volume of water they displace is equal to their weight, but less than their total volume. Thus, they float.

"if the force of gravity was present, the person would move downward in the water. but it is not. Anything that is equal to the weight of the self-weight of the water remains in a fixed position within it, not falling down."

Again, this does not work because humans are buoyant; however, if you try the same thing with something like a bowling ball (which is denser than water), then you will notice the effects of gravity as the bowling ball sinks to the bottom.

"If you have read this writing in 30 seconds so you've saw a disprooof which disproves the gravity in 30 seconds. it's your problem that you haven't gone to a fast reading course."

This sentence is just too full of grammatical errors for me to understand.

Thank you for your time.

You forget that it is gravity that gives your direction, of buoyancy.
Without gravity there is no up.

time

Prove the existance of buoyancy force first. It is absent. It is imaginary. It is fake.

Quote from: wise on June 24, 2019, 06:13:25 AM

I've disproved gravity in 30 seconds for everybody has ordinary logic.

    I've talking BS. I have no evidence so I am doing mathematic salad to claim I know many things. 

Nah! Try it again.

Quote from: wise on June 24, 2019, 02:02:00 PM

I know what Archimet says but saying the name of Archimet does not magically convert your argument to reality.

I was not talking about the Archimedes himself, I was talking about the principle that has his name.

What pulls stone to go under water, and what pulls water to go under wood?

Difference of "weight".

Quote from: Macarios on June 24, 2019, 03:28:39 PM

Quote from: wise on June 24, 2019, 02:02:00 PM

I know what Archimet says but saying the name of Archimet does not magically convert your argument to reality.

I was not talking about the Archimedes himself, I was talking about the principle that has his name.

What pulls stone to go under water, and what pulls water to go under wood?

Difference of "weight".

Now you are getting somewhere.

Why swimmer needs water to swim?

Wouldn't he just drop to the bottom if there was no water to sink below him and hold him?

(Hold him against what?)

Prove the existance of buoyancy force first. It is absent. It is imaginary. It is fake.

Your own argument proves it.
Things float on water.
That is buoyancy.

The pressure difference is easily proven by taking a balloon filled with air and diving into water.

You have disproven gravity.
Instead, your argument, when all the errors are corrected, supports gravity.

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 12:11:12 PM

Quote from: Macarios on June 24, 2019, 03:28:39 PM

Quote from: wise on June 24, 2019, 02:02:00 PM

I know what Archimet says but saying the name of Archimet does not magically convert your argument to reality.

I was not talking about the Archimedes himself, I was talking about the principle that has his name.

What pulls stone to go under water, and what pulls water to go under wood?

Difference of "weight".

Now you are getting somewhere.

Why swimmer needs water to swim?

Wouldn't he just drop to the bottom if there was no water to sink below him and hold him?

(Hold him against what?)

Simple Because, self-weight of water is more than self-weight of human. Your magic  buoyancy has not a role here.

Simple Because, self-weight of water is more than self-weight of human. Your magic buoyancy has not a role here.

But it is gravity that produces the "self-weight of water" and "self-weight of human" and the  "self-weight of water" is the "buoyancy".

Is wise arguing that easily measurable and verifiable displacement and floating doesnt exist?

Quote from: themagicker on June 24, 2019, 04:35:43 PM

time

Prove the existance of buoyancy force first. It is absent. It is imaginary. It is fake.

Ships float, is the action of buoyancy, when object displaces it's weight in a fluid, it floats, this action we call buoyancy.
A hot air balloon, displaces its weight, so it floats, and we call this buoyancy of the hot air balloon.
These are actions that you can see daily.
The problem appears to be why this occurs.
The object that floats, is displacing its weight in the fluid that it is in.
This action that you see, we call buoyancy.
There is nothing to prove, or disprove. It happens all the time.

Displacing its volume in liquid.
The liquid weight.

Simple Because, self-weight of water is more than self-weight of human. Your magic  buoyancy has not a role here.

No magic is needed.
Again, these pressure variations are measurable. There is plenty of evidence supporting their existence.

Like I said, go get a balloon, inflate it above water, then dive down.
You will observe that as you go deeper, the pressure of the water increases causing the balloon to be compressed to equalise the pressure. You can even take a pressure gauge with you and measure the pressure. You can even set up a little experiment to do it above the water by putting a pressure gauge at the bottom of a container and measuring the pressure as a fluid is added.
This will allow you to confirm that the pressure is proportional to height.
If you can measure the density of a fluid (such as by weighing a known volume) you can then try different fluids and confirm that it is proportional to density.
That will allow you to confirm that the pressure differential is proportional to the product of density and height, with the constant of proportionality being ~9.8 m/s².
You can then also confirm that that 9.8 m/s² corresponds to the rate of acceleration of an object in free fall in various ways.

Regardless, even confirming this pressure differential exists is enough to confirm buoyancy.
That means if you place an object in this fluid the pressure below will be greater than the pressure above which will result in an upwards force. This upwards force is the buoyant force.

You can even measure it directly if you have a scale. A good one to use is a hanging scale. Get a weight and see how much it weighs by hanging it from the scale. Then submerge the weight in water and you will observe that the weight decreases. If you accurately know the volume of the weight and the density of the fluid, you can even check if the mass difference reported by the scale matches the mass of fluid displaced.
The other important part is that an object heavier than water still has its weight reduced by water.

So it isn't a case of your magic sentient density.

These are all experiments you can go and do yourself.

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 12:08:08 PM

Quote from: themagicker on June 24, 2019, 04:35:43 PM

time

Prove the existance of buoyancy force first. It is absent. It is imaginary. It is fake.

Ships float, is the action of buoyancy, when object displaces it's weight in a fluid, it floats, this action we call buoyancy.

You are completely ignorant about how weight issues go. the rate of weight to volume of the ship does not sink if it is less than water and sink if it is heavier. that's all.

there is no need a buoyancy or such magic words; which only created to a supportive argument of gravity. It is clear that no need to so called buoyancy.

Quote from: wise on June 25, 2019, 03:12:20 PM

Simple Because, self-weight of water is more than self-weight of human. Your magic  buoyancy has not a role here.

No magic is needed.
Again, these pressure variations are measurable. There is plenty of evidence supporting their existence.

Nope. There is nothing can prove the buoyancy. If something has unit weight less than water stands on it; if more than sinks. Why do you need to create a magic word as buoyancy? What is its role here other than being a fake argument?