[fisherman]

Yeah, and now we have it.

Newton did not say what Newton did say.

Well, I am no longer going to entertain your total BS show.

Water rolls off any ball. Period.

We understand the mechanisms of magnetism.

Another BS piece of garbage uttered by you.

Along with the rest of the BS mechanisms, like space time warping causing water to stick to a ball.

One big freaking joke

.

The part of the quote you leave out is that Newton left the mechanism of gravity “to the consideration of the reader”.  Einstein took him up on it.

The mechanism of gravity is understood. The motion of all bodies is determined by the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein’s field equations inform us how the field interacts with matter and influences its motion. Just because you reject that explanation, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

No mechanism? Then no force can be claimed

.

Neither do we have an explanation as to why why particles emit magnetic fields, but that lack of explanation doesn’t seem to keep you from accepting that magnetic fields exist. No explanation as to how the UA force works either, but that doesn't keep many people from accepting it.

Gravity isn't a force...so why are you demanding that an explanation of the mechanism is necessary?

[SteelyBob]

Your question isn't straightforward and you know it.

There are two things I know.

The only reason water sticks to any surface has to do with electromagnetic or chemical bonding processes.

Gravity does not exist.

I guess I should relate one more thing.

Just because something has a consistent measured rate does not indicate the something that is being measured actually is the cause.

That would be like me attributing your screen name as the reason why the process of casting out nines when done with your screen name is working.

When it isn't.

It really is pretty simple. If gravity existed, and the earth was round, then would water stick to it?

[AATW]

Thank you for demonstrating that water will fall off a ball

Oh dear. Denying the evidence of your own eyes again? This is “rockets in vacuums” all over again. Those water droplets at the bottom of the ball. They didn’t fall, did they? 

Gravity does not exist.

So what causes things to fall and what is the mechanism behind it?

[Rama Set]

Water didn’t fall off the ball. You shouldn’t make thing up like that. It’s really dishonest.

No mechanism? Then no force can be claimed.

You making up criteria and declaring victory is pretty poor. As has been mentioned many times, there is a mechanism Space-Time curvature and even if that were not so, being unable to explain a mechanism doesn’t negate the existence of something.

Even more telling is the utter failure of FEers to support their own model but projecting that failure on to gravity.

Yes.

No mechanism, no force.

Very simple.

Even Newton knew that and admitted it : "That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

I will take the word of Newton, thanks.

Well Newton surely thought gravity existed so I will take your self-own then. I presented multiple quotes from Newton talking about gravity as a thing he discovered and worked on.

Newton was not perplexed by gravity’s existence, he simply thought that it required a medium to act through, as did everyone up until Einstein mathematicallly proved it wasn’t necessary. His math explained mercury’s orbit, bending light, gravity waves and time dilation as well as all of classical gravity as a result of curving space-time and experiments confirmed the predictions. So curving space time is a perfectly satisfactory explanation for the mechanism by which gravity occurs. Now we just wait for you to combine your cherry picking combined with appealing to authority again or perhaps you can answer substantially? I hope for the latter but fear it will be the first.

[Iceman]

Action80 demonstrating some impressively poor understanding of how anything works!

Take any ball between the size of a golf ball and a soft ball. Immerse it in water. Pull it out and give it a quick shake. The thin film of water remaining on the ball is about the same proportion as the oceans covering the earth. That film stays on the ball, even if you move it around, spin it at 1 rev/dat, whatever. And that's in the presence of an external force acting on the whole mini-system.

Want to put more water onto balls? Freeze some of the water...or add a force like static electricity, or do it in near-zero force environment like the ISS (or vomit comet).

But if you really want lots of water, like trillions of gallons... stick it to a spinning ball with a radius of several thousand km.  2.5km deep ocean on a ~5600 km radius earth equates to a layer of water on a ball that is 0.04% of its radius.

[Action80]

Posting a video of surface tension after effects as being relative to gravity is the only dishonest thing being presented here.

... but you didn't ask for "relative to gravity". You said "Water rolls off any ball. Period."

I cannot help it if you and the rest refuse to discuss a point within the confines of gravity and want to present dishonest evidence in support of your religion.

Nice try though.

Water did fall off the ball. It sure didn't stick to the side of the ball.

Try it with a few different types; basketball, football, squash, ping-pong, golf, globe model, tennis ball, etc.

Immerse in water, then remove. Even if the majority of the water rolls to the lower hemisphere, and remains as droplets, if the side or upper hemi is still wet, water is sticking to the ball.

The test is to take dry tissue paper, and touch the upper surface. If the tissue paper gets wet, water is sticking to the ball.

Seriously. Go try.

Yeah. Already answered.

[Action80]

Yeah, and now we have it.

Newton did not say what Newton did say.

Well, I am no longer going to entertain your total BS show.

Water rolls off any ball. Period.

We understand the mechanisms of magnetism.

Another BS piece of garbage uttered by you.

Along with the rest of the BS mechanisms, like space time warping causing water to stick to a ball.

One big freaking joke

.

The part of the quote you leave out is that Newton left the mechanism of gravity “to the consideration of the reader”.  Einstein took him up on it.

Newton stated any half wit would reject the concept that such a thing as gravity exists.

The mechanism of gravity is understood. The motion of all bodies is determined by the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein’s field equations inform us how the field interacts with matter and influences its motion. Just because you reject that explanation, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

Again, stating another possibility is not stating a mechanism.

No mechanism? Then no force can be claimed

.

Neither do we have an explanation as to why why particles emit magnetic fields, but that lack of explanation doesn’t seem to keep you from accepting that magnetic fields exist. No explanation as to how the UA force works either, but that doesn't keep many people from accepting it.

Gravity isn't a force...so why are you demanding that an explanation of the mechanism is necessary?

BWAHAHAHA!!!

Thanks for the laugh!

[fisherman]

Newton stated any half wit would reject the concept that such a thing as gravity exists.Newton stated any half wit would reject the concept that such a thing as gravity exists

.

Newton wasn't a half-wit, that's why he didn't reject it.  Instead he spent his life describing and studying it.  Perhaps you've heard of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation?  It states that  every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

He was so convinced it existed, he formulated a law to describe its action.

BWAHAHAHA!!!

Thanks for the laugh!

I'm often funny without realizing it.  What exactly is funny about what I said?

[Rama Set]

This is why I hadn’t posted up here in a long time. Multiple reasonable points have rebutted what Lackey said and he dragged us down to his level and beat us with experience.

It’s super obvious that there is a mechanism in GR. It’s super obvious a lack of mechanism doesn’t refute the existence of gravity. It’s super obvious Newton believed gravity existed. The Cavendish experiment gets more and more accurate with every iteration but a “FE of the Gaps” argument will continue to be deployed.

[fisherman]

Again, stating another possibility is not stating a mechanism

.

I don't think you understand the word "mechanism".  It means the means by which an effect is produced.  The inertio-gravitational field is the means by which inertial and gravitational effects are produced.

[c0i9z]

I cannot help it if you and the rest refuse to discuss a point within the confines of gravity...

Is your question what makes water stick to the Earth within the confines of gravity? Gravity is the answer. Gravity is the reason why anything sticks to the Earth, including water, rocks and air. It's also what make the earth stick together at all. But I feel like you must have known that already.

[c0i9z]

Newton stated any half wit would reject the concept that such a thing as gravity exists.

There seems to be a lot of quoting of people that clearly agreed that gravity exists to pretend that they think otherwise. But what seems more likely, that these people, including the person who described for us the equations that form the literal Theory of Gravity, didn't think they exist or that the quoter has simply misunderstood what they were trying to say? By picking out a single quote and placing it wildly out of context, perhaps? Maybe, before quoting a scientist, it would behoove one to think about whether that scientist actually agreed with what one is trying to argue for?

[Action80]

Gravity isn't a force...so why are you demanding that an explanation of the mechanism is necessary? [emphasis mine]

Newton stated any half wit would reject the concept that such a thing as gravity exists.

Newton wasn't a half-wit, that's why he didn't reject it.  Instead he spent his life describing and studying it.  Perhaps you've heard of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation?  It states that  every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force [emphasis mine] that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

He was so convinced it existed, he formulated a law to describe its action.

BWAHAHAHA!!!

Thanks for the laugh!

I'm often funny without realizing it.  What exactly is funny about what I said?

Anyone that will write gravity isn't a force and then within the next few minutes or so write that gravity is a force is awfully funny.

Mad cap I tell you!

BWAHAHAHA!!!

[AATW]

What do you think makes things fall?
And what is the mechanism behind it?
In your own time.

[fisherman]

Newton stated any half wit would reject the concept that such a thing as gravity exists.

Newton wasn't a half-wit, that's why he didn't reject it.  Instead he spent his life describing and studying it.  Perhaps you've heard of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation?  It states that  every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force [emphasis mine] that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

You are conflating the Newton perception of gravity and GR.  In GR, gravity is not a force.  This is why GR "solved" how gravity reaches out and causes an effect from a distance.

Newton was puzzled how a force could do that.  Einstein realized it was because gravity wasn't a force, as Newton thought.  GR solves the problem that Newton struggled with.

[fisherman]

What do you think makes things fall?
And what is the mechanism behind it?
In your own time.

Since Action80 won’t take you up on your challenge, I’ll take a shot and see if he has a response.

Let’s consider an apple on the branch of a tree.  What causes it to fall?  While the apple is still on the tree, we could consider the tree/apple being accelerated up by UA or at rest in a gravitational field.  Either works right up until the apple falls. After it separates from the tree, UA can again explain its motion, but it doesn’t explain why it separated from the tree in the first place. 

GR does explain it.  In GR, the tree and apple, while at rest in a gravitational field, are traveling along a geodesic.  The stem is holding the apple to the tree, so it is following the geodesic of the tree, not its own geodesic.  As the apple ripens the stem weakens and eventually breaks.  When the stem breaks, the apples is no longer prevented from traveling along its own geodesic and beings to travel independently along its own geodesic.

One could argue that when the stem breaks, the apple just stops accelerating up with the tree and waits patiently while the earth rises up.  This is not a valid argument because according to Newton’s first law, if the apple was traveling in uniform motion while it was attached to the tree, it would continue with that uniform motion whether it was attached to the tree or not.  IOW, the apple would continue its acceleration upwards at 9.81 m/s2. “Stopping” is a change in velocity and a change in velocity is acceleration.  UA offers no explanation for that acceleration. This is the fatal flaw of UA.  It rises and falls (pun intended) on the EP, but the EP doesn’t apply to accelerated motion.

Even if, by some miracle FE could come up with some explanation for how the UA force works, or even what it is, they still could not be able to account for why things fall.

[WTF_Seriously]

One could argue that when the stem breaks, the apple just stops accelerating up with the tree and waits patiently while the earth rises up.  This is not a valid argument because according to Newton’s first law, if the apple was traveling in uniform motion while it was attached to the tree, it would continue with that uniform motion whether it was attached to the tree or not.  IOW, the apple would continue its acceleration upwards at 9.81 m/s2. “Stopping” is a change in velocity and a change in velocity is acceleration. 

Newton's 1st says that the apple will continue at the same velocity it had when the stem breaks.  It doesn't say that it will continue accelerating because there is no longer a force being applied to cause the acceleration.

[fisherman]

Newton's 1st says that the apple will continue at the same velocity it had when the stem breaks.  It doesn't say that it will continue accelerating because there is no longer a force being applied to cause the acceleration.

There is still a force being applied to it.  The same force that was being applied to it while it was on the tree. Or have you forgotten our discussion on how FE defines terminal velocity?  "Falling objects" are accelerated up.

[WTF_Seriously]

Newton's 1st says that the apple will continue at the same velocity it had when the stem breaks.  It doesn't say that it will continue accelerating because there is no longer a force being applied to cause the acceleration.

There is still a force being applied to it.  The same force that was being applied to it while it was on the tree. Or have you forgotten our discussion on how FE defines terminal velocity?  "Falling objects" are accelerated up.

Well, yes.  But until TV is established, acceleration up is less than UA acceleration so velocity becomes less,  etc. etc.  Would have to look at it again to see exactly where it ended up.

[AATW]

I'm just interested in Lackey's answer because he has spent the last couple of pages saying that if you can't explain the mechanism behind gravity then that shows that gravity is a load of nonsense. But things demonstrably fall. So I'm interested to know what he thinks causes that to happen and whether he can explain the mechanism behind it. His failure to respond is pretty telling.