Time to expose the gravity scam. Consensus isn't science.

[MisterBeale]

The OP in one thread asserts climate change has to be real b/c the establishment and all the "experts," support said paradigm. . . .

Then in another thread, gives us examples of why this is erroneous reasoning.

Ends by telling us we should trust the "experts."

What am I missing?

Is it that schools no longer teach critical thinking?

 

[Anomalism]

gives us examples of why this is erroneous reasoning.

It's completely erroneous to have a faith based position on gravity. I'm still waiting for you to explain why gravity isn't a sham.

 

[Muhammed]

If gravity is real, why doesn't it work in space? Astronauts float.

No they don't. Astronauts in orbit are in freefall.

 

[ozro]

The Force of Gravity at Selected Localities in North Carolina:<br>NCGS Information Circular 18

www.nc-maps.com

A bit of information I was exposed to from my college days....

 

[Anomalism]

No they don't. Astronauts in orbit are in freefall.

So they’re falling… but not falling? I’m a little confused. If gravity is supposed to be constant everywhere, shouldn’t they actually fall instead of floating? How can they be in freefall and orbit at the same time without something bending or canceling gravity? I’m just asking questions here, trying to reconcile what we see with what we’re told.

 

[Anomalism]

The Force of Gravity at Selected Localities in North Carolina:<br>NCGS Information Circular 18

www.nc-maps.com

A bit of information I was exposed to from my college days....

That's about gravitational acceleration in North Carolina. Numbers alone don’t prove the cause of the effect they label ‘gravity.' My questions are still the same. How do they know those figures are really about a force and not just some artifact of measurement? And if gravity is supposedly uniform, why are they measuring local variations?

 

[Hafar1014]

Every physicist on Earth claims gravity exists. They all say the same thing. That's not science, that's groupthink. Consensus isn't evidence.

Who funds gravity research? Governments and universities. Who benefits? Physicists who build careers and get grants by "studying" gravity. Follow the money.

Have you ever actually SEEN gravity? No. You've seen things fall. That's correlation, not causation. Nobody has ever directly observed a gravitational force. These people operate on faith.
Use your eyes. Does spacetime LOOK curved to you?

Newton's laws were written over 300 years ago. Science has moved on since then. Why are we still trusting theories from the 1700s? Then Einstein comes along and completely changes the story. First gravity is a force, now it's "curved spacetime." Which is it? They can't even keep their models consistent.

And spacetime itself is just a mathematical construct. You can't bend math. That's not physics, that's metaphysics. They still can't fully reconcile gravity with quantum mechanics. Their own models are incomplete. But we're supposed to trust them completely?

If gravity is real, why doesn't it work in space? Astronauts float. Planets don't fall into the Sun. Seems selective. They say gravity is constant, but a feather and a bowling ball fall at different speeds. That's not even internally consistent.

Funny how gravity only exists when you're on Earth, but disappears when it's inconvenient.
There are physicists who question general relativity. You never hear about them. Why do you think that is? The establishment doesn't tolerate dissent.

They call it the "theory" of gravity. Theory. Not law. Not fact. By their own admission, it's not proven.
Galileo was persecuted for questioning the scientific consensus of his time. Now dissenters are being attacked for doing the same thing. Interesting.

The scientific establishment has been wrong before. Phlogiston. Luminiferous ether. Miasma theory. But sure, THIS time they've definitely got it right.

At what point do we admit this is just an unproven theory propped up by institutions and social pressure? I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I'm just asking questions. If the theory is solid, why are they so threatened by scrutiny?

Jump off a tall building then report your findings

We have established you dont understand what a correlation is. Its a factor resulting from a study. We apply a coefficient which means we square the number. Anything 35 or above is defined as significant. When we get above 80 thats as good a definition of cause as any research. Nothing is ever 100%
Traditional research is also all correlation but they use alpha values low medium and high

Key objective, experimental proofs of gravity include:

• The Cavendish Experiment (1797): Henry Cavendish famously used a torsion balance to measure the extremely weak gravitational attraction between large and small lead balls, proving that any two masses attract each other.
• Gravitational Waves (2015): The LIGO detectors directly measured gravitational waves produced by the collision of two black holes 1.3 billion light-years away, providing direct evidence of gravity as predicted by general relativity.
• Bending of Starlight (1919): Arthur Eddington observed that the apparent position of stars shifted during a solar eclipse, proving that gravity bends the path of light.
• Orbital Mechanics: The predictable, precise orbits of planets, moons, and artificial satellites consistently validate Newton’s law of universal gravitation and Einstein’s general relativity.
• Gravitational Lensing: Massive objects, such as galaxies, bend light from distant objects behind them, a phenomenon observed frequently in modern astronomy.

These proofs demonstrate that gravity is an objective, universal, and measurable phenomenon, consistent across different scales—from laboratory experiments on Earth to the motion of galaxies in space.
Glad you asked

 

[Anomalism]

Jump off a tall building then report your findings

We have established you dont understand what a correlation is. Its a factor resulting from a study. We apply a coefficient which means we square the number. Anything 35 or above is defined as significant. When we get above 80 thats as good a definition of cause as any research. Nothing is ever 100%
Traditional research is also all correlation but they use alpha values low medium and high

Key objective, experimental proofs of gravity include:

• The Cavendish Experiment (1797): Henry Cavendish famously used a torsion balance to measure the extremely weak gravitational attraction between large and small lead balls, proving that any two masses attract each other.
• Gravitational Waves (2015): The LIGO detectors directly measured gravitational waves produced by the collision of two black holes 1.3 billion light-years away, providing direct evidence of gravity as predicted by general relativity.
• Bending of Starlight (1919): Arthur Eddington observed that the apparent position of stars shifted during a solar eclipse, proving that gravity bends the path of light.
• Orbital Mechanics: The predictable, precise orbits of planets, moons, and artificial satellites consistently validate Newton’s law of universal gravitation and Einstein’s general relativity.
• Gravitational Lensing: Massive objects, such as galaxies, bend light from distant objects behind them, a phenomenon observed frequently in modern astronomy.

These proofs demonstrate that gravity is an objective, universal, and measurable phenomenon, consistent across different scales—from laboratory experiments on Earth to the motion of galaxies in space.
Glad you asked

All model-based interpretation.

If gravity is so obvious, why does every demonstration require indirect measurements and complex assumptions? We see objects fall, yes, but that’s correlation, not direct evidence of a force. Where’s the unambiguous, directly observable proof that gravity is a real, consistent force and not just a convenient explanation we’ve agreed to trust?

 

[Muhammed]

So they’re falling… but not falling? I’m a little confused. If gravity is supposed to be constant everywhere, shouldn’t they actually fall instead of floating? How can they be in freefall and orbit at the same time without something bending or canceling gravity? I’m just asking questions here, trying to reconcile what we see with what we’re told.

They mare not floating, they are falling.

THINK!

 

[Anomalism]

They mare not floating, they are falling.

THINK!

Okay, so they’re falling… but because they’re falling, they’re not falling? If falling is what gravity does, how can falling somehow cancel out gravity’s effect? Shouldn’t something that’s falling feel like falling everywhere, not just sometimes? This freefall stuff seems selective and a little too convenient.

 

[ozro]

That's about gravitational acceleration in North Carolina. Numbers alone don’t prove the cause of the effect they label ‘gravity.' My questions are still the same. How do they know those figures are really about a force and not just some artifact of measurement? And if gravity is supposedly uniform, why are they measuring local variations?

You are being purposely obtuse. Before, during and after my time at North Carolina Universities, student groups were sent to the locations listed to re-measure these observations. If the measurements had differed, gravity would have been disproven.
You can get over your cheapness and spring for the report, it's a measly three bucks. It details the report. It lists the observational evidence that concludes gravity exists.
Key term....Observational Evidence.
I have another theory, It's a big ass scam that you can't breathe under water! After all, water is approximately a third oxygen, while the air that we breath is a paltry 20-21%!
Scam!!!!!
I suggest an experiment that will disprove both 'theories'.
1)go to the nearest bridge in your area
2)go to the middle and step over the side
3) if you fall, well gravity exists but do not despair!
4) once you enter the water below, take a deep breath. If you don't drown you have proven you can breathe under water

Good luck my friend, bless your heart!

 

[Anomalism]

You are being purposely obtuse. Before, during and after my time at North Carolina Universities, student groups were sent to the locations listed to re-measure these observations. If the measurements had differed, gravity would have been disproven.
You can get over your cheapness and spring for the report, it's a measly three bucks. It details the report. It lists the observational evidence that concludes gravity exists.
Key term....Observational Evidence.
I have another theory, It's a big ass scam that you can't breathe under water! After all, water is approximately a third oxygen, while the air that we breath is a paltry 20-21%!
Scam!!!!!
I suggest an experiment that will disprove both 'theories'.
1)go to the nearest bridge in your area
2)go to the middle and step over the side
3) if you fall, well gravity exists but do not despair!
4) once you enter the water below, take a deep breath. If you don't drown you have proven you can breathe under water

Good luck my friend, bless your heart!

How do we know what they’re measuring is really a force and not some artifact of the instruments, local mass variations, or even human error? And if gravity is supposed to be uniform everywhere, why bother cataloging tiny local differences at all?

As for your bridge experiment… stepping off a bridge and hoping to interpret it as proof seems a bit extreme. Falling happens all the time, but that doesn’t explain why feathers and bowling balls fall differently under normal conditions, or why astronauts float in orbit.

 

[Muhammed]

Okay, so they’re falling… but because they’re falling, they’re not falling?

Think harder.

 

[ozro]

How do we know what they’re measuring is really a force and not some artifact of the instruments, local mass variations, or even human error? And if gravity is supposed to be uniform everywhere, why bother cataloging tiny local differences at all?

As for your bridge experiment… stepping off a bridge and hoping to interpret it as proof seems a bit extreme. Falling happens all the time, but that doesn’t explain why feathers and bowling balls fall differently under normal conditions, or why astronauts float in orbit.

You are just a big chicken. Bawk bawk bawk!
You know, if you really had conviction in the belief that gravity is a scam, you would be floating off into space right now, not posting on a message board. It's because you don't believe! You are holding back!
Bawk bawk bawk! Chicken!

 

[Anomalism]

You are just a big chicken. Bawk bawk bawk!
You know, if you really had conviction in the belief that gravity is a scam, you would be floating off into space right now, not posting on a message board. It's because you don't believe! You are holding back!
Bawk bawk bawk! Chicken!

If freefall in space is really just ‘falling,’ how come astronauts don’t plummet straight into the Earth? I’’d like to understand how a universal force can act so selectively and inconsistently.

 

[Hafar1014]

All model-based interpretation.

If gravity is so obvious, why does every demonstration require indirect measurements and complex assumptions? We see objects fall, yes, but that’s correlation, not direct evidence of a force. Where’s the unambiguous, directly observable proof that gravity is a real, consistent force and not just a convenient explanation we’ve agreed to trust?

Quit while youre behind

 

[Anomalism]

Quit while youre behind

Out of arguments? That's because gravity is a sham. A myth. Just a bunch of model based nonsense.

 

[Hafar1014]

Out of arguments? That's because gravity is a sham. A myth. Just a bunch of model based nonsense.

You just described yourself the master of sophistry and nothing else

 

[ozro]

If freefall in space is really just ‘falling,’ how come astronauts don’t plummet straight into the Earth? I’’d like to understand how a universal force can act so selectively and inconsistently.

Ya cheapskate!
Spend the three bucks , read the report, and at least your questions will be answered.

 

[Anomalism]

You just described yourself

I'm making arguments; you're not.