[gazza711 (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

"there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY"
The proof has been around for a long time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment

And, since many of the tests done on gravity are based on astronomy it's clear that the experiments do work in space.

[gazza711 (OP)]

ok.cavendish experiment is using an insulator(foam)which is isolated from the ground,steel and lead.now do this experiment with different materials.most probably a high static charge.very easy to diagnose that one.

other experiment involves a lead weight most probably,water beneath the mountains maybe causing a dowsing effect.this is still theorised and accepted but not proven.gave science indication.

both these experiments do not prove anything.i know its convincing.

need some more solid proof.no one has ever answered this question for me.the more I delve,the more im convinced its all waffle?

[Bored chemist]

"ok.cavendish experiment is using an insulator(foam)which is "
Exactly what sort of foam do you think Cavendish was using over two hundred years ago?

Also, over the sort of time scales involved in these experiments, static charges would leak away before they had any effect.
Why do you think otherwise?

"maybe causing a dowsing effect.this is still theorised and accepted but not proven.gave science indication."
Do you understand that dowsing has never been shown to be a real effect?

[Bored chemist]

Incidentally, there are other methods used for measuring it.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7506/full/nature13433.html
http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/sergio.ciliberto/Teaching/Cours_physique_experimentale/gravitation.pdf

[alancalverd]

This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?

What do you think keeps the moon orbiting the earth? Invisible string?

[evan_au]

now do this experiment with different materials

The Eötvös experiment was conducted to compare gravitational mass with inertial mass. By around 1885, gravity was found to be independent of the substance, to a very high precision.

[David Cooper]

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?

Why don't you do some work to test it and see if it works, then do the same with your own model and see if it can match it. It's easy enough to write little programs to simulate gravity - here are some of mine (all of them simply applying the inverse square law in order to apply a force in the direction of the sun which gets stronger as the object gets closer in): http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/inner-planets.html, http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/sun2saturn.html, http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/eliptical.html. You don't believe in gravity and want to achieve the same thing using air pressure instead, so write a little program to see if that works - given that the planets are going round in something very close to a total vacuum, you'll find that they'll just travel in straight lines and shoot off into deep space, aided just a tiny fraction by the solar wind which continually streams away from the sun.

In short, do the work and try to stop being a troll.

[gazza711 (OP)]

This experiment doesn't work in space either does it?

What do you think keeps the moon orbiting the earth? Invisible string?

Invisible string.your joking right.im joking.how about when you put salt in water,it makes it denser and we float with lungs full or not.Ok,now if the moons atmosphere is made from sodium,then the moon itself releases sodium maybe?so why does the moon attract water(salty water infact),where there are places on earth that show the tide actually moving through a river where there are no waves at all.hmmm.piece of string.there aren't tides in still water caused by the moon.lol

gav

[gazza711 (OP)]

"ok.cavendish experiment is using an insulator(foam)which is "
Exactly what sort of foam do you think Cavendish was using over two hundred years ago?

Also, over the sort of time scales involved in these experiments, static charges would leak away before they had any effect.
Why do you think otherwise?

"maybe causing a dowsing effect.this is still theorised and accepted but not proven.gave science indication."
Do you understand that dowsing has never been shown to be a real effect?

it has.people have been using it since before the Egyptians.how do you find water in the desert.proven!

Cavendish experiment I saw was on youtube.either way-heres some interesting reading.

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

might shed some light-

peace

gav

[Pecos_Bill]

  "We are bubbles of earth! Bubbles of earth! Bubbles of earth!"

-Flora Thompson, Lark Rise to Candleford

[Bored chemist]

Usually, you don't find water in the desert- that's the thing about them.[/size]You certainly do not find it by dowsing.Nobody has ever tested it properly and found it to work.I'm intrigues that you saw the Cavendish experiment on you tube.Recently, YouTube celebrated it's tenth anniversary.Cavendish did his experiments two hundred years earlier.Do you really think he had a video camera?So; answer the question.What foam did Cavendish use about 150 years before it was invented?Also, do you understand that, even if he had magically got some sent back in time, it's still not a good enough insulator to retain a static charge for the duration of the experiments he did?

[gazza711 (OP)]

Usually, you don't find water in the desert- that's the thing about them.[/size]You certainly do not find it by dowsing.Nobody has ever tested it properly and found it to work.I'm intrigues that you saw the Cavendish experiment on you tube.Recently, YouTube celebrated it's tenth anniversary.Cavendish did his experiments two hundred years earlier.Do you really think he had a video camera?So; answer the question.What foam did Cavendish use about 150 years before it was invented?Also, do you understand that, even if he had magically got some sent back in time, it's still not a good enough insulator to retain a static charge for the duration of the experiments he did?

you quote the quote. I meant the experiment was replicated recently, recorded on a device that's captures film, converted to mpeg and uploaded on youtube in the last ten years. forget what was on the youtube fullstop. I was mearly explaining what you could've seen. If you have read the link I left for you, this guy will explain why it is flawed. More importantly, nothing in that experiment proves there is a pulling down force. That link explains a lot of common sense without numbers and equations. If everything we don't understand is given a formula, its pointless

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.

Im not a scientist, But seen too many things in front of me that disprove attraction.

peace

gav

[gazza711 (OP)]

Usually, you don't find water in the desert- that's the thing about them.[/size]You certainly do not find it by dowsing.Nobody has ever tested it properly and found it to work.I'm intrigues that you saw the Cavendish experiment on you tube.Recently, YouTube celebrated it's tenth anniversary.Cavendish did his experiments two hundred years earlier.Do you really think he had a video camera?So; answer the question.What foam did Cavendish use about 150 years before it was invented?Also, do you understand that, even if he had magically got some sent back in time, it's still not a good enough insulator to retain a static charge for the duration of the experiments he did?

there is plenty of water in most deserts. you just have to dig deep enough. Ive seen it. Surely sand people back in the day didn't just decide to settle in these areas because of unknown reasons.

Im not stating facts or trying not to, Im mearly debating science that has been proven to be flawed many a time.

[PmbPhy]

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?

There's an enormous amount of experimental facts and observations which demonstrates the existence of gravity. Originally Newton first demonstrated its existence by being able describe the motion of the planets by postulating the existence of a gravitational force F = GMm/r² between any two objects whose distance between the bodies and the size of each body are such that each can be considered to be a particle. It also works for a point charge anywhere outside a spherically symmetric massive body. The Cavendish experiment demonstrated this was also true for objects of much smaller sizes. Every single experiment that has ever been done to verify Newton's law of gravitation has been proved correct within its domain of applicability and no experiment has ever been done to prove it's wrong within its domain of applicability.

Read about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation

You claim "there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY" which only demonstrates that you don't know a lot about gravitational experiments.

You claim that Im not a scientist, But seen too many things in front of me that disprove attraction. which doesn't really mean that it's disproved but that you don't understand it, that's all.

[gazza711 (OP)]

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?

There's an enormous amount of experimental facts and observations which demonstrates the existence of gravity. Originally Newton first demonstrated its existence by being able describe the motion of the planets by postulating the existence of a gravitational force F = GMm/r² between any two objects whose distance between the bodies and the size of each body are such that each can be considered to be a particle. It also works for a point charge anywhere outside a spherically symmetric massive body. The Cavendish experiment demonstrated this was also true for objects of much smaller sizes. Every single experiment that has ever been done to verify Newton's law of gravitation has been proved correct within its domain of applicability and no experiment has ever been done to prove it's wrong within its domain of applicability.

Read about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation

You claim "there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY" which only demonstrates that you don't know a lot about gravitational experiments.

You claim that Im not a scientist, But seen too many things in front of me that disprove attraction. which doesn't really mean that it's disproved but that you don't understand it, that's all.

first quote wasn't me, but I agree. wasn't there a greek astronomer which new what newton did beforehand.I feel newton just explained his findings. Before newton, many knew of the movements of the stars.The fact that they saw these events and recorded them, and then newton using historic evidence and an apple gave him the theory of which Einstein offered another explanation.If newton hadn't said what he did, would we be stuck with einsteins theory. you must remember that an illusionist can convince an audience because he understands the trick. This was 150 years ago. didn't even have cars. I would love to see a working example of the exact experiment,then I will shut my trap for a month.

gav

[Bored chemist]

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?

There's an enormous amount of experimental facts and observations which demonstrates the existence of gravity. Originally Newton first demonstrated its existence by being able describe the motion of the planets by postulating the existence of a gravitational force F = GMm/r² between any two objects whose distance between the bodies and the size of each body are such that each can be considered to be a particle. It also works for a point charge anywhere outside a spherically symmetric massive body. The Cavendish experiment demonstrated this was also true for objects of much smaller sizes. Every single experiment that has ever been done to verify Newton's law of gravitation has been proved correct within its domain of applicability and no experiment has ever been done to prove it's wrong within its domain of applicability.

Read about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation

You claim "there is no proof that I know of that shows 2 objects of different sizes attracting one another due to GRAVITY" which only demonstrates that you don't know a lot about gravitational experiments.

You claim that Im not a scientist, But seen too many things in front of me that disprove attraction. which doesn't really mean that it's disproved but that you don't understand it, that's all.

Usually, you don't find water in the desert- that's the thing about them.[/size]You certainly do not find it by dowsing.Nobody has ever tested it properly and found it to work.I'm intrigues that you saw the Cavendish experiment on you tube.Recently, YouTube celebrated it's tenth anniversary.Cavendish did his experiments two hundred years earlier.Do you really think he had a video camera?So; answer the question.What foam did Cavendish use about 150 years before it was invented?Also, do you understand that, even if he had magically got some sent back in time, it's still not a good enough insulator to retain a static charge for the duration of the experiments he did?

there is plenty of water in most deserts. you just have to dig deep enough. Ive seen it. Surely sand people back in the day didn't just decide to settle in these areas because of unknown reasons.

Im not stating facts or trying not to, Im mearly debating science that has been proven to be flawed many a time.

You are arguing against yourself.
If there's plenty of water and you just have to dig then you don't need dowsing do you? But, if someone waved some hazel twigs around first and said "this is the place"  then some people would be conned into thinking he was dowsing. As you say "You must remember that an illusionist can convince an audience because he understands the trick."

It's true that science gets things wrong, but the beauty of the system is that it corrects itself- that's why Newton was a step forward from Galileo and Einstein was a step further.

But the obvious reality is that gravity exists - we know this because we don't drift into space.
It's obvious that it works for things that are not on the Earth- that's why we have tides.
And so on.

Yet you say " But seen too many things in front of me that disprove attraction."
Well, name one.
And we will show you why it's not that it disproves attraction; it's just that you don't understand how things work.

[PmbPhy]

..wasn't there a greek astronomer which new what newton did beforehand.

No.

I feel newton just explained his findings.

Incorrect.

Before newton, many knew of the movements of the stars.

You're confusing the motion of the stars with the cause of that motion.

The fact that they saw these events and recorded them, and then newton using historic evidence and an apple gave him the theory of which Einstein offered another explanation.

And that explanation is that there is a gravitational force between any two bodies.

If newton hadn't said what he did, would we be stuck with einsteins theory.

Einstein's theory reduces to Newton's theory in the case of weak gravitational fields and slowly moving bodies and sources with low pressure and stress.

you must remember that an illusionist can convince an audience because he understands the trick.

Which is totally irrelevant to this subject and something that all physicists are acutely aware of.

This was 150 years ago. didn't even have cars.

What was 150 years ago?

I would love to see a working example of the exact experiment,then I will shut my trap for a month.

What experiment?

There are plenty of experiments in almost every aspect of physics and every law and prediction made in physics. You just have to look for them. Please don't expect us to do your work for you.

[evan_au]

wasn't there a greek astronomer which new what newton did beforehand.I feel newton just explained his findings.

The Greeks watched the skies carefully. Reconstructions of the Antikythera mechanism reproduce some of these motions with remarkable accuracy (probably for casting horoscopes). The Greeks had some great geometers, but they were not very much into calculations with data - their numbering system alone would discourage any but the most enthusiastic accountant.

Tycho Brahe was Danish, and produced measurements of the positions of the planets that were far more accurate than any previously recorded.

Johannes Kepler was German, and used Tycho's measurements to deduce that planets followed elliptical orbits.

Newton (and others at the time) showed that the only force that could produce this path is an inverse square law. Newton acknowledged his predecessors when he wrote in a letter that "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".

Kepler was not infallible - he thought that gravity was due to magnetic attraction between the Earth and other bodies in the Solar System. We now know that the Earth's magnetic field is not nearly strong enough to produce the effects of gravitational attraction over interplanetary distances.

the moons atmosphere is made from sodium...so why does the moon attract water(salty water infact)

And today, we know that the Van Der Waals forces between atoms in the atmosphere of Earth, the Sun (and especially the extremely good vacuum that passes as an atmosphere on the Moon) is too short-range and too weak to operate over planetary distances - in fact these forces are insignificant over a 1 mm distance.

[PmbPhy]

Tycho Brahe was Danish, and produced measurements of the positions of the planets that were far more accurate than any previously recorded.

Johannes Kepler was German, and used Tycho's measurements to deduce that planets followed elliptical orbits.

Newton (and others at the time) showed that the only force that could produce this path is an inverse square law. Newton acknowledged his predecessors when he wrote in a letter that "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".

My compliments my good man. I knew all of this of course as do all physicists. I was just too lazy to get into it since I'm certain he'll ignore it.