0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Now tell me. What experiment have you done to prove attraction. If youre not gonna read the link, then how do you know what conditions the experiment was done under. Surely the room or walls or anything heavier local to the experiment would've influenced the movement. if other experiment were used at the top of mountains or something along those lines, there will always be differences. Unless the earth was at equal atmospheric pressures on every inch of the earth, its acceptable this wouldn't prove attraction.
I would be interested to know what objects, that are visible around us, today rely on the fact that we are being pulled towards the ground. []
I would be interested to know what objects, that are visible around us, today rely on the fact that we are being pulled towards the ground. []And not only that but how would these things still function if we were not being pulled to the ground.... [:I]Some possible examples for consideration: cars, shoes, hydroelectric dams, rain, rockets, golf and even the Moon.
How do you know everything is being pulled down.You know that trick when you spin a wheel fast enough,you can tell which way its turning.surely if all things attracted,especially LEAD,then the universe and solar system would just stick to itself and it would just be one lump of ###
I would add a third reason why everything doesn't collapse together:3) Orbiting in a gravitational field does not dissipate energy. So even objects which are close enough to attract each other strongly, like the Sun and the Earth, the Earth and the Moon, or the Sun and the galactic black hole, they do not collapse into one another. As they get a little bit closer, they speed up; they then move further away and slow down again - this produces an elliptical orbit which is stable for astronomical periods of time.(There is a small amount of gravitational radiation which does affect closely-orbiting neutron stars; this can be ignored for objects the size of the Solar System.)
either the motion of water being swished and something being dragged in the path replacing it.that would be displacement like smoking out a moving car window and a car drives past and sucks that away
who knows.
Until we can simulate conditions of space and mimic all that we believe,then its still a theory isn't it?
Until we can simulate conditions of space and mimic all that we believe,then its still a theory isn't it?if gravity was indeed proved-it wouldn't be a theory still after 4 billion years.
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis'). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.
simply-what evidence do we have.anal I know,but ive seen many things since theorizing this that is defeating this theory.dont forget that science theorises a lot about things about space.there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY.This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?
Quote from: gazza711 on 23/05/2015 19:25:31simply-what evidence do we have.anal I know,but ive seen many things since theorizing this that is defeating this theory.dont forget that science theorises a lot about things about space.there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY.This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?Let me ask you something without having to reread this entire thread all over again. Have you figured out that there's an enormous amount of observational data and experiments which confirm the theory of gravity? If the theory of gravity, based on the force between two point objects having a force of F = GMm/r2 was wrong then we'd never have been able to send all those probes that we've sent out into the solar system and get to where we expected them to go. And that required an extreme amount of precision. In fact the discovery of Neptune was a sensational confirmation of Newton's theory of gravity. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_NeptuneFor more evidence see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
Hi.What proof can you show me that objects attract on earth.
Cavendish experiment only helped newtons theory..
-Neptune discovery based on Stonehenge ..
neptune had been discovered before ..
theories are predictions.
einstein improved the theory but didn't change.
theres a million disproven theories.
the fact that things fall do not mean they are being pulled unless you can see the force(like magnetic flux)
Quote from: gazza711Hi.What proof can you show me that objects attract on earth.The Cavendish experiment of course. That is precisely the experiment that directly tests that relationship. But there's no reason to assume, in fact its irrational to think otherwise, that gravity doesn't work on Earth given that it does work for planetsQuote from: gazza711Cavendish experiment only helped newtons theory..So what? That's what you're talking about. I.e. Newton's theory is that F = GMm/r2 and that's what the Cavendish experiment directly tests. This has been explained to you many times. I suggest that you cease trying to claim that it's wrong and start trying to understand why it's right. You've been given direct experimental observations and all you do is claim that they aren't such. That's quite illogical. Quote from: gazza711-Neptune discovery based on Stonehenge ..What??? "based on Stonehenge"? You've got to be kidding me! It's the relation F = GMm/r2 that was used to find Neptune.Quote from: gazza711neptune had been discovered before ..That is absolutely wrong. Please check your facts before posting misinformation like this.Quote from: gazza711theories are predictions.Wrong. You should learn what theories are before you try to claim what they are.Quote from: gazza711einstein improved the theory but didn't change.Wrong yet again.Quote from: gazza711theres a million disproven theories.No evidence to support such claims. Probably because you don't appear to understand what a theory is. You appear to be confusing it with an hypothesis.Quote from: gazza711the fact that things fall do not mean they are being pulled unless you can see the force(like magnetic flux)Wrong again.