Is theory of gravity proposed by Einstein correct?

According to Einstein, gravity isn’t a force, but it is the earth which accelerates (upward) towards the falling objects if left in space and time. I don’t know much about the theory of gravity proposed by Einstein, but it seems he forgot that all other objects even if small as compared to celestial bodies also have their own masses or energies therefore all free fall objects must also accelerate (depending upon their masses) upward together with earth.

Thus, if the aforementioned is true then the striking time of earth and heavier object must be greater as compared to striking time of earth and lighter object if dropped (let go) from the same height simultaneously --- RIGHT?

Moreover, how did Einstein measure the invisible time for acceleration or speed? It seems Einstein just copied the measurements of Newton.

Also, if gravity isn't a force, then why did Einstein use gravitational constant "G" (Unit of force "N" can be seen in the unit of "G") in his equations?

Correction:

The striking time of earth and heavier object must be less than the striking time of earth and lighter object if dropped (let go) from the same height simultaneously --- RIGHT?

No idea which one of above is correct but they don't fall at the same rate.

Newton and Einstein are full of shit.

Objects fall not according to a pull toward other objects but because of a surface tension matrix known as the force of buoyancy.

This is why attempts to construct the universe through this system always run into unresolvable problems that are rule-patched by creating more complications.

If you want to imagine buoyancy, think of a tiger pit, where the ground is bamboo spikes below, and a layer of soil and leaves above. A rat can cross the trap without incident, but a tiger putting all fours on the trap breaks the surface. Einstein theorized that if a man wiping windows fell from a patent office, in terms of his hat, wiper, and himself, all would appear to hang together in midair.  He was right, but not because of gravity or relativity. Back to the rat and the tiger. If the rat is nearby the pit when it breaks, it now also falls. In the same way, a feather tends to fall at the same rate as a nearby falling anvil. The anvil displaces the air around it, and air rushes in to fill the gap, catching the feather in thin air suction. This is called wake, it's essentially an object creating a "splash" in the air.

We can prove gravity is false by observing that water in the same elevation (say, a fish tank) always moves from more dense to less dense. Just as a more dense rock falls through the less dense air, bouncing or rolling as it hits solid ground, in our fish tank model, if I construct a removable glass separator and fill one side with water, then I lift the separator, the water rushes toward the other side until it levels. At no observable point is there a force that draws objects to objects of more mass. Rather the bird that stops flapping its wings falls through air of less mass than itself.

Now, some of Einstein's or Newton's ideas have some merit, or half-truths. But some are real lies.

Also, if gravity isn't a force, then why did Einstein use gravitational constant "G" (Unit of force "N" can be seen in the unit of "G") in his equations?

Because stooges tend to agree with one another. What, you think two people agreeing is proof?

And how do you account for a hollow rock?

If I take a rock that's completely hollow except for a very thin layer, and put it into water.  By your logic, the layer of rock is more dense and seeks other rock so it should sink.  But, as metal ships show us, it would not.



Also, if you did your fishtank experiemtn in freefall, the water would not move to the other side.

Also, if you did your fishtank experiemtn in freefall, the water would not move to the other side.

Let we have a balloon filled with water (not completely). Place the said balloon on a flat surface of a glass at reasonable height h from ground surface.  Note carefully the flat bottom shape of a balloon when it rests on a flat glass.   

Would the balloon of the subject maintain its previous shape in its freefall if the support of flat glass has suddenly removed/disappeared?

I have never done experiment, but I believe the water would accumulate at bottom of balloon during freefall.

You can also imagine and observe the shape of the above said fish tank with no top in freefall if all of its four sides are removed via a remote control during free fall.

Quote

Also, if you did your fishtank experiemtn in freefall, the water would not move to the other side.

Let we have a balloon filled with water (not completely). Place the said balloon on a flat surface of a glass at reasonable height h from ground surface.  Note carefully the flat bottom shape of a balloon when it rests on a flat glass.   

Would the balloon of the subject maintain its previous shape in its freefall if the support of flat glass has suddenly removed/disappeared?

I have never done experiment, but I believe the water would accumulate at bottom of balloon during freefall.

You can also imagine and observe the shape of the above said fish tank with no top in freefall if all of its four sides are removed via a remote control during free fall.

In a vaccume, yes it would retain its shape.   

In a vaccume, yes it would retain its shape.   

But gravity models suggested by Einstein and Newton don’t support this. Beware of hocus-pocus in the fancy videos!!!!

Every falling mass also has its own "g=Gm/r^2". As the "g" of heavier mass > the "g" of lighter mass therefore, the striking time of earth and heavier object must be lesser than the striking time of earth and lighter object if dropped (let go) from the same height one by one.

Inertia is what keeps the acceleration constant regardless of mass.

And how do you account for a hollow rock?

If I take a rock that's completely hollow except for a very thin layer, and put it into water.  By your logic, the layer of rock is more dense and seeks other rock so it should sink.  But, as metal ships show us, it would not.

By my logic?  No, by your (flawed) logic.

But pumice floats. It's not dense. Neither is a metal ship when compared with a metal block.

Gravity asserts that heavier objects attract lighter ones. So the ground under the sea and all the Earth beneath should be pulling at that floating log like crazy. But until the wood becomes waterlogged, we don't see it sinking.

---

Also, if you did your fishtank experiemtn in freefall, the water would not move to the other side.

Why don't you jump out of a plane without a parachute, and you can film this happening?

Here's the truth, a fishtank in freefall has the tank and the water separate, and travel at their own momentum. Objects in motion somewhat ignore their tendency to sink or float, which is why you can swim above your body's natural buoyancy, or dive below. So maybe it won't move, but I'm gonna need you to test that out.

---

You guys are cultists. You are more interested in defending your beliefs than figuring out if those work in reality.

Inertia is what keeps the acceleration constant regardless of mass.

It seems you are missing the crux.

Einstein's Gravity
If the freefall earth can accelerate @ 9.8 /s/s then all other freefall objects must also accelerate (depending upon their masses or energies - bending of spacetime) in the invisible fourth dimension. No idea how movements happen in time because time is not force.

Newton's Gravity
Both the heavier and lighter masses fall on earth due to the “g” of earth.
The earth also falls on heavier mass due to the “g₁” of heavier mass.
The earth also falls on lighter mass due to the “g₂” of lighter mass.

Since g₁>g₂ therefore, earth would accelerate more towards heavier mass than lighter mass if fall from the same height but one by one.

So, the striking time of the earth and heavier mass would be less as compared to the striking time of the earth and lighter mass.

Quote from: Lorddave on June 20, 2026, 11:32:04 PM

And how do you account for a hollow rock?

If I take a rock that's completely hollow except for a very thin layer, and put it into water.  By your logic, the layer of rock is more dense and seeks other rock so it should sink.  But, as metal ships show us, it would not.

By my logic?  No, by your (flawed) logic.

But pumice floats. It's not dense. Neither is a metal ship when compared with a metal block.

Gravity asserts that heavier objects attract lighter ones. So the ground under the sea and all the Earth beneath should be pulling at that floating log like crazy. But until the wood becomes waterlogged, we don't see it sinking.

---

Quote

Also, if you did your fishtank experiemtn in freefall, the water would not move to the other side.

Why don't you jump out of a plane without a parachute, and you can film this happening?

Here's the truth, a fishtank in freefall has the tank and the water separate, and travel at their own momentum. Objects in motion somewhat ignore their tendency to sink or float, which is why you can swim above your body's natural buoyancy, or dive below. So maybe it won't move, but I'm gonna need you to test that out.

---

You guys are cultists. You are more interested in defending your beliefs than figuring out if those work in reality.

Gravity asserts that all objects attract each other, not just a heavier object (more mass you mean).
You can see this with the very famous Cavendish Experiment.

Gravity asserts that all objects attract each other, not just a heavier object (more mass you mean).
You can see this with the very famous Cavendish Experiment.

Newton's gravity is all about action at a distance (w/o direct contact) which he himself unable to explain/clarify.

As all masses of the whole assembly in Cavendish Experiment connected to one another one way or the other therefore Sir Cavendish fails to explain the newton's gravity. He also forgot the role of local attraction in his experiment.

Quote

Gravity asserts that all objects attract each other, not just a heavier object (more mass you mean).
You can see this with the very famous Cavendish Experiment.

Newton's gravity is all about action at a distance (w/o direct contact) which he himself unable to explain/clarify.

As all masses of the whole assembly in Cavendish Experiment connected to one another one way or the other therefore Sir Cavendish fails to explain the newton's gravity. He also forgot the role of local attraction in his experiment.

Explain?
He proved it.  The orbs would not move towards each other without it.

"Local attraction" like gravity.

Cavendish's experiment relies on several balls suspended on a wobbly device.

It's yet another in a long line of RE hoaxes.

He fails to rule out electromagnetism. Or tension. Or anything really.

He just assumes gravity, and says the experiment proves it.

In 1797, Henry Cavendish, the British scientist, Freemason, and wealthy grandson of the Duke of Devonshire, created an experiment which he claimed successfully proved the existence of gravity, measured its constant, and provided accurate figures for the exact masses of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and Planets.  How did Cavendish achieve this quantum leap for heliocentric pseudo-science?  He fixed two large lead balls on opposite ends of a torsion balance and hung them from the roof of his shed.  By watching and recording slight motions of the contraption via telescope through his shed window so his mass would not affect the reading, Cavendish claimed to have proven gravity.  Two small lead balls were hung near the large ones and any motion observed towards one another was touted as being the influence of gravity.

Now, the Cavendish experiment has been widely criticized by the scientific community because never in over two centuries since its creation has anyone been able to replicate it!  Firstly, the balls simply do not always attract one another, as they must for the so-called gravitational constant to be constant at all.  Sometimes the torsion balance turns towards the balls and sometimes away as it is impossible not to give some slight tremulous motion when interacting with it.  Henry even complained in his notes how often as he was performing the measurement the contraption was still in oscillation.  Secondly, since his calculated force of gravity was 10^39 weaker than the force of electro-magnetism, from which all material objects are composed, there is no control for the experiment which can factor out and positively differentiate the alleged gravitational force, from the known stronger electro-magnetic force.  In other words, the balls could simply be attracting each other through static electricity, a known force existing in all things, billions of times stronger than gravity, and impossible to control for the experiment.  Even though no one could replicate Cavendish’s findings, the experiment went down in history as a great success, and is still taught as veritable proof of universal gravitation in science textbooks today.

Quote from: markjo on June 22, 2026, 05:08:31 AM

Inertia is what keeps the acceleration constant regardless of mass.

It seems you are missing the crux.

Einstein's Gravity
If the freefall earth can accelerate @ 9.8 /s/s then all other freefall objects must also accelerate (depending upon their masses or energies - bending of spacetime) in the invisible fourth dimension. No idea how movements happen in time because time is not force.

Newton's Gravity
Both the heavier and lighter masses fall on earth due to the “g” of earth.
The earth also falls on heavier mass due to the “g₁” of heavier mass.
The earth also falls on lighter mass due to the “g₂” of lighter mass.

Since g₁>g₂ therefore, earth would accelerate more towards heavier mass than lighter mass if fall from the same height but one by one.

So, the striking time of the earth and heavier mass would be less as compared to the striking time of the earth and lighter mass.

---

Invisible fourth dimension. You guys mock theists for unscientifically believing in a supernatural God, when evidence this world is created is all around. But you invoke an invisible fourth dimension to handwave away motion of speed that shows the math to gravity doesn't add up.
Then you yourself admit that time isn't a force, and I would tell you that time doesn't actually exist. We have solar motion events, we have causal events, but there isn't a dimension of time, only objects in frames of motion.

Newton and Einstein are full of shit.

Objects fall not according to a pull toward other objects but because of a surface tension matrix known as the force of buoyancy.

This is why attempts to construct the universe through this system always run into unresolvable problems that are rule-patched by creating more complications.

If you want to imagine buoyancy, think of a tiger pit, where the ground is bamboo spikes below, and a layer of soil and leaves above. A rat can cross the trap without incident, but a tiger putting all fours on the trap breaks the surface. Einstein theorized that if a man wiping windows fell from a patent office, in terms of his hat, wiper, and himself, all would appear to hang together in midair.  He was right, but not because of gravity or relativity. Back to the rat and the tiger. If the rat is nearby the pit when it breaks, it now also falls. In the same way, a feather tends to fall at the same rate as a nearby falling anvil. The anvil displaces the air around it, and air rushes in to fill the gap, catching the feather in thin air suction. This is called wake, it's essentially an object creating a "splash" in the air.

We can prove gravity is false by observing that water in the same elevation (say, a fish tank) always moves from more dense to less dense. Just as a more dense rock falls through the less dense air, bouncing or rolling as it hits solid ground, in our fish tank model, if I construct a removable glass separator and fill one side with water, then I lift the separator, the water rushes toward the other side until it levels. At no observable point is there a force that draws objects to objects of more mass. Rather the bird that stops flapping its wings falls through air of less mass than itself.

In regard to Newton's gravity, the moon never pulls the Earth, it supposedly pulls the lighter water. So yes, the proposed gravity model is that a paperclip never moves a boulder, the boulder supposedly moves the paperclip. But again, all of this is explained above. Heavier objects diffuse through a lighter layer.

Boulder is lighter than mountain. It doesn't fall through the mountain. Boulder is heavier than the air. It falls through the air (when pushed by assholes who think nothing of smashing up natural landmarks) and hits the bottom, where it shatters.

I don’t know much about the theory of gravity proposed by Einstein, but it seems he forgot that all other objects even if small as compared to celestial bodies also have their own masses or energies therefore all free fall objects must also accelerate (depending upon their masses) upward together with earth.

I’m not great on it either (I’m alright at classical/Newtonian mechanics).

However, if you want to say that Einstein forgot something that obvious while saying you don’t fully understand it, the more likely explanation is that he didn’t.

Bearing in mind that general relativity is well over a hundred years old, accepted as mainstream physics, studied by god knows how many people, and the probability that no one else has found such an obvious flaw drops to near zero.

Cavendish's experiment relies on several balls suspended on a wobbly device.

It's yet another in a long line of RE hoaxes.

He fails to rule out electromagnetism. Or tension. Or anything really.

He just assumes gravity, and says the experiment proves it.

How many times do we have to tell you that Eric Dubay is not a reliable source for much of anything, let alone the Cavendish experiment?  Since you trust AI so much, I asked it about the dos and don'ts of setting up the experiment.  Strangely enough, it tells you to take into account the things that Eric says that he didn't.  And yes, the experiment has been reproduced countless times, including at home by amateurs.

AI Overview

The Cavendish experiment measures the incredibly weak gravitational force between macroscopic masses (usually to find the Universal Gravitational Constant, \(G\)). Because the signal-to-noise ratio is so low, your success depends on isolating the torsion pendulum from all environmental and non-gravitational disturbances.

The Dos

DO isolate the apparatus: Place the experiment in an enclosed space (like a sealed box or a basement corner) to prevent air currents from nudging the delicate torsion balance.

DO level the platform: Use a bubble level and the adjustable feet to perfectly balance the platform in multiple directions before collecting any data.

DO measure remotely: The experiment is highly sensitive to the gravity of the human body. Leave the room or step as far back as possible while the pendulum is swinging.

DO use an optical lever: Because the twist is imperceptible to the naked eye, attach a tiny mirror to the center of the wire/rod and reflect a laser pointer onto a wall (or use a photodiode) to amplify and measure the angle.

DO take multiple readings: Switch the large masses back and forth across equilibrium positions and record the oscillations to average out statistical errors and dampening effects.

The Don'ts

DON'T touch the torsion wire: The fiber (often tungsten or a fine metal ribbon) is extremely delicate and can be permanently stretched, kinked, or broken if handled improperly.

DON'T cause sudden movements: When moving the large masses into positions close to the small masses, do so slowly and gently. Bumping the enclosure can cause severe vibrations that take up to 20 minutes to dampen out.

DON'T ignore electrostatic buildup: The masses can build up a static charge, causing electrical attraction that masks or outweighs the gravitational force. Always ground the balance assembly using wire mesh or a specific grounding screw.

DON'T use ferromagnetic materials: Ensure none of your masses or structural components contain iron, nickel, or cobalt, as magnetic fields will cause false attractions.

DON'T forget to factor in the beam: When doing the math to calculate \(G\), don't treat the torsion rod as massless. Account for its rotational inertia and the gravitational pull it experiences, not just the balls at the end.

Explain?
He proved it.  The orbs would not move towards each other without it.

"Local attraction" like gravity.

Do you really understand what local attraction is? Gravitational attraction due to masses in the surrounding area of experiment.
*No physical connection in Newton's idea*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cavendish_experiment#No_physical_connection_in_Newton.27s_idea

The whole universal law of gravitation is wrongly formulated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation/Archive_1#Does_%22g_=GM/d^2%22_conform_with_%22F_=_GMm/d^2%22_mathematically?
F=GMm/d^, F=mg where g=GM/d^2

Acceleration due to gravity of either of the mass doesn’t remain best in situ in above equation. FYI, Gauss's law is derived from Newton's law

Invisible fourth dimension. You guys mock theists for unscientifically believing in a supernatural God, when evidence this world is created is all around. But you invoke an invisible fourth dimension to handwave away motion of speed that shows the math to gravity doesn't add up.
Then you yourself admit that time isn't a force, and I would tell you that time doesn't actually exist. We have solar motion events, we have causal events, but there isn't a dimension of time, only objects in frames of motion.

I never mock non-believers. According to the scripture, “there is no force in the acceptance of this religion”. At least they try to research/understand the signs of God.

God says in His scripture, He created the moon for time keeping. So, time exists but it doesn’t have the dimension of length. Therefore, IMPOV 3D space can’t be combined with time for understanding the behavior of universe. Time is uncountable noun while 3D space is countable. We can’t count time. It just passes by. We measure time in terms of physical length for our conveniences. Usually, I avoid religion in such discussion unless it deems necessary to use it for references.

You mean the flawed solar system by “solar motion”.

In regard to Newton's gravity, the moon never pulls the Earth, it supposedly pulls the lighter water.

According to F=GMm/d^, F=mg where g=GM/d^2, moon must start orbiting the sun when F of moon and sun becomes greater than the F of earth and sun in its orbit around the earth.

Bearing in mind that general relativity is well over a hundred years old, accepted as mainstream physics, studied by god knows how many people, and the probability that no one else has found such an obvious flaw drops to near zero.

Most people just understand things but lack critical thinking.

Why wouldn’t an object go upward on the curve during freefall (in the absence force) instead of going downward earth? There must be something which pushes the object on the curve otherwise it must have rested at its own position on curve.

similarly, I don't understand how does photon get its speed “c” instantly? How can a pulse of light in a moving vertical light clock change its vertical direction to diagonal at such a high-speed c (more than escape velocity of celestial bodies).

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 24, 2026, 07:21:06 AM

Cavendish's experiment relies on several balls suspended on a wobbly device.

It's yet another in a long line of RE hoaxes.

He fails to rule out electromagnetism. Or tension. Or anything really.

He just assumes gravity, and says the experiment proves it.

How many times do we have to tell you that Eric Dubay is not a reliable source for much of anything, let alone the Cavendish experiment?  Since you trust AI so much, I asked it about the dos and don'ts of setting up the experiment.  Strangely enough, it tells you to take into account the things that Eric says that he didn't.  And yes, the experiment has been reproduced countless times, including at home by amateurs.

You can tell me all you want.

But Eric Dubay is a much-needed source of logic in a world filled with sheeple who choose shepherds for themselves.

His point is valid. Did Cavendish test this using yarn and wooden balls? Nope, they're good sturdy metal balls. Gravity does not have that much of a pull when compared with the other forces.

So. No. He did not rule out electromagnetism.

AI Overview

The Cavendish experiment measures the incredibly weak gravitational force between macroscopic masses (usually to find the Universal Gravitational Constant, \(G\)). Because the signal-to-noise ratio is so low, your success depends on isolating the torsion pendulum from all environmental and non-gravitational disturbances.

The Dos

DO isolate the apparatus: Place the experiment in an enclosed space (like a sealed box or a basement corner) to prevent air currents from nudging the delicate torsion balance.

DO level the platform: Use a bubble level and the adjustable feet to perfectly balance the platform in multiple directions before collecting any data.

DO measure remotely: The experiment is highly sensitive to the gravity of the human body. Leave the room or step as far back as possible while the pendulum is swinging.

DO use an optical lever: Because the twist is imperceptible to the naked eye, attach a tiny mirror to the center of the wire/rod and reflect a laser pointer onto a wall (or use a photodiode) to amplify and measure the angle.

DO take multiple readings: Switch the large masses back and forth across equilibrium positions and record the oscillations to average out statistical errors and dampening effects.

The Don'ts

DON'T touch the torsion wire: The fiber (often tungsten or a fine metal ribbon) is extremely delicate and can be permanently stretched, kinked, or broken if handled improperly.

DON'T cause sudden movements: When moving the large masses into positions close to the small masses, do so slowly and gently. Bumping the enclosure can cause severe vibrations that take up to 20 minutes to dampen out.

DON'T ignore electrostatic buildup: The masses can build up a static charge, causing electrical attraction that masks or outweighs the gravitational force. Always ground the balance assembly using wire mesh or a specific grounding screw.

DON'T use ferromagnetic materials: Ensure none of your masses or structural components contain iron, nickel, or cobalt, as magnetic fields will cause false attractions.

DON'T forget to factor in the beam: When doing the math to calculate \(G\), don't treat the torsion rod as massless. Account for its rotational inertia and the gravitational pull it experiences, not just the balls at the end.

Here's an AI for your AI.

No, you should not trust AI without questioning it for yourself. AI can provide incorrect or biased information, so it's important to verify its answers against reliable sources.

Not necessarily. “AI says it’s reliable” is not the same as “it’s demonstrably reliable,” because the AI can be wrong, cherry-pick, or misinterpret evidence—and it may lack full context.

A good way to decide whether to trust it:

    Check the original source directly (or at least confirm the claim is consistent across multiple independent sources).
    Look for primary evidence (data, original documents, peer-reviewed work) rather than summaries alone.
    Compare with what other credible references say (especially experts/authoritative institutions).
    Watch for signs of low quality: vague citations, overly confident language, missing context, or claims that sound unusually absolute.

Yes—using your own logic to set expectations, then using AI only as a check or helper, usually yields better results.

A practical workflow:

    Decide what you believe or what would make sense based on your own reasoning (your “hypothesis”).
    Ask AI for evidence, definitions, assumptions, and counterarguments—not just an answer.
    Compare AI’s claims to your hypothesis and look for mismatches.
    Verify the key pieces with primary/reputable sources when it matters.
    Update your decision only when the evidence clearly outweighs your initial reasoning.

Which is what I do in regards to AI.
Which is what I do in regards to Eric Dubay.
Which is what I do in regards to anything.

Yeah but your logic and reasoning skills suck.

That being said, metal balls were used likely because that would give enough mass.


Also, I want to point out your gravity doesn't exist because it's buoyancy:

What is the formula for buoyancy?

And if buoyancy is why things fall down..   Why do they accelerate?  If it were buoyancy, all objects should fall at the same speed all the time.  They should not, in any way, speed up.

Obviously not, what a silly question.

We acknowledge that General Relativity is at best incomplete.

Obviously not, what a silly question.

We acknowledge that General Relativity is at best incomplete.

Know what we call something that works when you use it?

Functional.

Right but the question wasnt if it was functional but if its correct.

Right but the question wasnt if it was functional but if its correct.

If it wasn't correct, why does it work?

Quote from: disputeone on June 25, 2026, 11:02:38 PM

Right but the question wasnt if it was functional but if its correct.

If it wasn't correct, why does it work?

Because it’s close enough for now while we wait for someone to figure out something better.