[Lastwave88]

Fake may be a harsh word. I have always had this theory that if we are in an enclosed dome then there is no such thing as the "Force" of gravity. It is simply what goes up will fall down if it faces no resistance. So again if we live on a flat plane in a dome there would be no force holding us down, we are simply on a flat surface.

Thoughts?

[JHelzer]

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

[LemarFrench]

You know...gravity has always been the "almost" electro-magnetic force in many ways...but if the electro-magnetic pull from the center of the planetary plane pulls polarized oxygen atoms close enough together to create air pressure...friction...etc.  This force would also therein pull the heaviest atoms closer towards the center...metallics / sediments etc.   Gravity is real...if we base it's identify off electro-magnetism...but fake if we give it, it's own category of force.  Gravity can be the understanding of planetary electro-magnetism...mainly because it's scale of operation...like "magma to lava" 

[BillO]

So this seems to have turned into the weirdest thread on this site. 

The greatest physics  minds so far on this planet have yet to derive a theory that explains both gravity and EM, let alone make them the same thing.  Tow more different forces could not exists.

So, what your trying to say either Gravity is just a from of EM, otherwise it dose not exist? Right...

[AATW]

Fake may be a harsh word. I have always had this theory that if we are in an enclosed dome then there is no such thing as the "Force" of gravity. It is simply what goes up will fall down if it faces no resistance. So again if we live on a flat plane in a dome there would be no force holding us down, we are simply on a flat surface.

Thoughts?

The force of gravity can and has been measured

[J-Man]

Fake may be a harsh word. I have always had this theory that if we are in an enclosed dome then there is no such thing as the "Force" of gravity. It is simply what goes up will fall down if it faces no resistance. So again if we live on a flat plane in a dome there would be no force holding us down, we are simply on a flat surface.

Thoughts?

The force of gravity can and has been measured

The air conditioning duct on the other side of the room could move the lead balls. Silly example. Well played fakery.

Edit: quote error corrected by Rushy

[Erehps]

My understanding of gravity is it is caused by the warping of space around the planet.

The effect is strongest at the Earth's surface, hence air is at it's densest at the surface, and the gravitational pull becomes weaker the further you are from the planet's surface. Thus, air is too thin and unbreathable for humans at much higher altitudes. This is why the cabins of aeroplanes need to be pressurised, otherwise everybody on board would pass out as it reaches certain altitude, including the pilots.

People think gravity pulls you to the planet, but in actuality, it pushes you to the planet.

[Tumeni]

The air conditioning duct on the other side of the room could move the lead balls. Silly example. Well played fakery.

Can you show us the duct you mean?

Did you watch the second half of the video at all? How would air conditioning pull the weight down?

[AATW]

The air conditioning duct on the other side of the room could move the lead balls. Silly example. Well played fakery.

Can you show us the duct you mean?

Did you watch the second half of the video at all? How would air conditioning pull the weight down?

Well, quite. And the main point here is this experiment is repeatable.
If J-Man thinks there's some error or fakery then he can get the appropriate equipment and have a go himself.
FErs claim to be empiricists yet I don't ever see them doing any experiments.

[Sethlawton1]

The force of gravity being fake is completely ridiculous, what do you think keeps us on the ground?

[juner]

The force of gravity being fake is completely ridiculous, what do you think keeps us on the ground?

Please read the FAQ and wiki. You are expected to know at least the basics if you are going to post in the upper fora. Warned.

[QED]

When physicists define a force, what they are really doing is making a statement about energy. I know that sounds strange, but hear me out!

A "force" in physics is a gradient of a potential field. There is a connection between a potential field and energy. Hence, it is convenient to speak about this using forces.

However, if you are a particle physicist, then you have a different approach, because you can measure specific gauge bosons which transmit forces. So in this regime you would say that forces are transmitted by particles exchanging these bosons. Then the forces play out in a intuitively tractable dynamic fashion.

Which view is ultimately correct? That is hard to say. Both describe reality very well in certain regimes. I do not know of any description which has predictive power and abandons the idea of forces.

[Round Eyes]

When physicists define a force, what they are really doing is making a statement about energy. I know that sounds strange, but hear me out!

A "force" in physics is a gradient of a potential field. There is a connection between a potential field and energy. Hence, it is convenient to speak about this using forces.

However, if you are a particle physicist, then you have a different approach, because you can measure specific gauge bosons which transmit forces. So in this regime you would say that forces are transmitted by particles exchanging these bosons. Then the forces play out in a intuitively tractable dynamic fashion.

Which view is ultimately correct? That is hard to say. Both describe reality very well in certain regimes. I do not know of any description which has predictive power and abandons the idea of forces.

thanks for regurgitating definitions you can find in a community college physics class, but that really wasnt an opinion/answer/etc to the OP's original question.   how about your thoughts on the question?

[QED]

When physicists define a force, what they are really doing is making a statement about energy. I know that sounds strange, but hear me out!

A "force" in physics is a gradient of a potential field. There is a connection between a potential field and energy. Hence, it is convenient to speak about this using forces.

However, if you are a particle physicist, then you have a different approach, because you can measure specific gauge bosons which transmit forces. So in this regime you would say that forces are transmitted by particles exchanging these bosons. Then the forces play out in a intuitively tractable dynamic fashion.

Which view is ultimately correct? That is hard to say. Both describe reality very well in certain regimes. I do not know of any description which has predictive power and abandons the idea of forces.

thanks for regurgitating definitions you can find in a community college physics class, but that really wasnt an opinion/answer/etc to the OP's original question.   how about your thoughts on the question?

My man! Thanks!

So the question was: does gravity exist as a force? Is that right?

Well, it does in classical mechanics. We can define a potential for which the negative gradient yields a conservative vector field we call gravity. That is a force, by definition.

But I'm sure you knew that already REs (Round Eyes).

Of course, we encounter difficulties when we expand this idea into QFT. Here, we arrive at an impasse. Perturbation theory does not converge. So the terms grow through successive iterations. That is a problem.

I am sure you knew this also.

Nevertheless, we have a large-scale understanding of what gravity should do at large scales. That is good. Unfortunately, we do not know what gravity does in black holes. That is not so good.

But of course, what gravity does in black holes really doesn't matter when you cannot accurately describe what gravity does outside it. REers can, FEers cannot.

[Humble B]

The force of gravity being fake is completely ridiculous, what do you think keeps us on the ground?

Please read the FAQ and wiki. You are expected to know at least the basics if you are going to post in the upper fora. Warned.

Sorry to say, but reading the FAQ and Wiki doesn't answer his question, because they do not answer what pushes the earth and objects on the earth towards each other. To claim that the earth is constantly accelerating upwards does not solve the problem. If two objects A & B are accelerating towards each other, in physics it doesn't really matter which one of those objects is accelerating. Is A accelerating towards B, or B accelerating towards A, or both accelerating towards each other? What matters here is the question: "What force is causing the acceleration, what is pushing or pulling those objects towards each other?"

In nature the acceleration of an object is an increase of the kinetic energy of that object, which only can be done by a force delivering that energy. (That's why your car needs a powerful engine to deliver the kinetic energy to your car to accelerate, and strong breaks to take that energy out again and transform it into another energy, like heat.)

So no matter if a falling apple is accelerating towards the earth, or the earth accelerating towards the falling apple, in both cases we need a force to make that possible, and this force is what Newton called the "gravitational force". If that force would not exist, nothing would keep us on the ground, because nothing would push your feet towards the earth or the earth towards your feet. Actually, there would be no ground at all to keep us on, neither feet.

[Round Eyes]

The force of gravity being fake is completely ridiculous, what do you think keeps us on the ground?

Please read the FAQ and wiki. You are expected to know at least the basics if you are going to post in the upper fora. Warned.

Sorry to say, but reading the FAQ and Wiki doesn't answer his question, because they do not answer what pushes the earth and objects on the earth towards each other. To claim that the earth is constantly accelerating upwards does not solve the problem. If two objects A & B are accelerating towards each other, in physics it doesn't really matter which one of those objects is accelerating. Is A accelerating towards B, or B accelerating towards A, or both accelerating towards each other? What matters here is the question: "What force is causing the acceleration, what is pushing or pulling those objects towards each other?"

In nature the acceleration of an object is an increase of the kinetic energy of that object, which only can be done by a force delivering that energy. (That's why your car needs a powerful engine to deliver the kinetic energy to your car to accelerate, and strong breaks to take that energy out again and transform it into another energy, like heat.)

So no matter if a falling apple is accelerating towards the earth, or the earth accelerating towards the falling apple, in both cases we need a force to make that possible, and this force is what Newton called the "gravitational force". If that force would not exist, nothing would keep us on the ground, because nothing would push your feet towards the earth or the earth towards your feet. Actually, there would be no ground at all to keep us on, neither feet.

you clearly havent read the wiki or taken any time to try and understand universal acceleration (UA).  UA is based on the fact there is force that is accelerating earth "upward"

[QED]

The force of gravity being fake is completely ridiculous, what do you think keeps us on the ground?

Please read the FAQ and wiki. You are expected to know at least the basics if you are going to post in the upper fora. Warned.

Sorry to say, but reading the FAQ and Wiki doesn't answer his question, because they do not answer what pushes the earth and objects on the earth towards each other. To claim that the earth is constantly accelerating upwards does not solve the problem. If two objects A & B are accelerating towards each other, in physics it doesn't really matter which one of those objects is accelerating. Is A accelerating towards B, or B accelerating towards A, or both accelerating towards each other? What matters here is the question: "What force is causing the acceleration, what is pushing or pulling those objects towards each other?"

In nature the acceleration of an object is an increase of the kinetic energy of that object, which only can be done by a force delivering that energy. (That's why your car needs a powerful engine to deliver the kinetic energy to your car to accelerate, and strong breaks to take that energy out again and transform it into another energy, like heat.)

So no matter if a falling apple is accelerating towards the earth, or the earth accelerating towards the falling apple, in both cases we need a force to make that possible, and this force is what Newton called the "gravitational force". If that force would not exist, nothing would keep us on the ground, because nothing would push your feet towards the earth or the earth towards your feet. Actually, there would be no ground at all to keep us on, neither feet.

you clearly havent read the wiki or taken any time to try and understand universal acceleration (UA).  UA is based on the fact there is force that is accelerating earth "upward"

Where did you go, boo?

I would like to continue our discussion of gravity. I am interested in what you can contribute to our understanding of it. We can proceed wherever you like, your choice: general relativity, quantum mechanics, do please pick where you most feel comfortable.

I am excited to make progress based on your contributions. And feel humbled to be the benefactor of such wisdom from the FES. 

[juner]

Where did you go, boo?

I would like to continue our discussion of gravity. I am interested in what you can contribute to our understanding of it. We can proceed wherever you like, your choice: general relativity, quantum mechanics, do please pick where you most feel comfortable.

I am excited to make progress based on your contributions. And feel humbled to be the benefactor of such wisdom from the FES.

Heyo. Have a week off to maybe review the rules. Next one is a month, no more warnings. Take care, friend!

[MCToon]

The video above is showing the Cavendish experiment.  You are correct, J-Man, air currents and other factors can affect the experiment so care must be taken to eliminate these types of variables when using the experiment to gather precise information.  The video is simply a demonstration so doesn't use the rigor needed for an acceptable experiment.  These have been done, including the original one done by Cavendish himself.  Read up on his method, very interesting.  He build a shed around the apparatus to reduce interference.

You can obtain a better apparatus for measuring gravitational attraction.  Harvard has a write up on one they have:
https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/cavendish-experiment


The Cavendish experiment is an excellent demonstration of how very real gravity is.

Gravity modifies space-time so we can measure differences in clock rate in slightly varying gravity.  The article here talks about using a very precise clock to measure gravity:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/gravity-atomic-clock-measurement-portable-first-time-national-physical-laboratory-a8206871.html

I am not a FE supporter, but if I were, I would not go with Universal Acceleration, there is too much solid science around gravity.  For example, gravity is lower as your elevation raises.  UA does not predict this behavior, UA predicts constant gravitational force regardless of altitude.  I would opt for an infinite plane as this can be consistent with gravity.

[AATW]

I just looked at the UA page on the Wiki and found this:

The Davis model, suggested by John Davis, states that gravity does indeed exist. In this model, the Earth is an infinite disk with finite gravity.

I'm interested by the phrase "infinite disc". What does that mean? If it's infinite then where is the edge? You can have an infinite plane but you can't have an infinite any other shape.

I've posted the video of the Cavendish experiment a few times on here and never had a sensible response. Gravity isn't something one can choose to believe in or not, the force of it can be measured in a repeatable experiment. I did have a look to see if I could find any FE response and I found this:



Admittedly the first one I found but all he's done is taken a video of someone explaining the experiment and then used a mixture of argument from incredulity and straw manning.

He says the experiment has never been replicated which is demonstrably untrue.

He says it's the only experiment which you can do to measure G which I imagine is not true and even if it is it's irrelevant - or only relevant if the experiment is flawed somehow.

He dwells on the fact that "the technician sawed it apart" - "it" being some of the apparatus and he claims it's because the experiment doesn't work. Actually all that is said in the video is that it was sawed apart out of frustration because of how difficult it is to get the experiment right which, given what a weak force gravity is, makes sense.

There's a caption on the video which says they were "way ahead of us in the 18th century" - as in their experiments were far more sensitive then. Literally the next bit of audio you hear after that caption states that Cavendish's experiment measured G to an accuracy of 1% and "No-one improved on that for 100 years". So clearly subsequent experiments did improve on it.

In brief, I've yet to hear an actual rebuttal of the Cavendish experiment - and therefore gravity - which doesn't use straw manning or incredulity.