There IS no gravity.

[A_Thinker]

So, that's how I apply that verse. Not to gravity.

There are, at least, four basic forces which hold Creation together.

The Four Fundamental Forces of Nature

The Four Fundamental Forces of Nature - Clear IAS

The Four Fundamental Forces of Nature are Gravitational force, Weak Nuclear force, Electromagnetic force and Strong Nuclear force. The weak and strong forces are effective only over a very short range and dominate only at the level of subatomic particles. Gravity and Electromagnetic force have infinite range. Let’s see each of them in detail.

The Four Fundamental Forces and their strengths

1. Gravitational Force – Weakest force; but infinite range. (Not part of standard model)
2. Weak Nuclear Force – Next weakest; but short range.
3. Electromagnetic Force – Stronger, with infinite range.
4. Strong Nuclear Force – Strongest; but short range.

Gravitational Force
The gravitational force is weak, but very long ranged. Furthermore, it is always attractive. It acts between any two pieces of matter in the Universe since mass is its source.

Weak Nuclear Force
The weak force is responsible for radioactive decay and neutrino interactions. It has a very short range and. As its name indicates, it is very weak. The weak force causes Beta decay ie. the conversion of a neutron into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino.

Electromagnetic Force
The electromagnetic force causes electric and magnetic effects such as the repulsion between like electrical charges or the interaction of bar magnets. It is long-ranged, but much weaker than the strong force. It can be attractive or repulsive, and acts only between pieces of matter carrying electrical charge. Electricity, magnetism, and light are all produced by this force.

Strong Nuclear Force
The strong interaction is very strong, but very short-ranged. It is responsible for holding the nuclei of atoms together. It is basically attractive, but can be effectively repulsive in some circumstances. The strong force is ‘carried’ by particles called gluons; that is, when two particles interact through the strong force, they do so by exchanging gluons. Thus, the quarks inside of the protons and neutrons are bound together by the exchange of the strong nuclear force.

Note : While they are close together the quarks experience little force, but as they separate the force between them grows rapidly, pulling them back together. To separate two quarks completely would require far more energy than any possible particle accelerator could provide.

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm not sure what you mean, and it doesn't answer my question.

Why do objects change weight depending on their position on the planet?

Well, I always thought that you should weigh less on a spinning globe, at the equator as you were spinning faster than at the poles.

I also thought that we should be equal weight everywhere due to the earth being a ball and everyone would be relatively equal distance from the center of the earth.

Here is a website that tries to explain it..

Does Your Weight Vary In Different Cities In The World? » Science ABC

 

[A_Thinker]

An anvil falling or wanting to fall down, as it always does, does not prove a pulling force.

It, simply, is a pulling force.

You can feel it, yourself ...

 

[A_Thinker]

Like I have said before.. set two snooker balls on a polished stainless steel surface. Set them even 1/2 of a millimeter apart and they will stay that way. There is no attraction, no mysterious force that will pull them together..

You are not considering ALL of the forces at work here. Your conclusion is an intuited guess, at best.

Your example is quite vague, and it is obvious that you have not performed an accurate force analysis. There are other forces at play that inhibit the balls motion toward each other.

If you subtract these other forces to the greatest extent possible, you can demonstrate gravitational attraction between objects ...

 

[A_Thinker]

No.... density.. not mass.

Density is, simply, another characteristic of matter, and is related to mass ...

 

[lasthero]

Well, I always thought that you should weigh less on a spinning globe, at the equator as you were spinning faster than at the poles.

You do. Demonstrably so. The closer an object gets to the equator, the lighter it will become. Not much, mind you - no more than 1% - but with a sensitive enough scale you can note such a change. On a flat, unmoving earth, there's no reason that should consistently happen.

I also thought that we should be equal weight everywhere due to the earth being a ball and everyone would be relatively equal distance from the center of the earth.

'Relatively' being the key word, there. Again, just like above, you won't notice a big change in weight, but with sensitive equipment it can be detected. On a flat earth where things just magically want to go down, there's no reason an objects weight should change because of the height. With gravity, the reason is simple - the further you get from the source of the gravity, the weaker its pull is going to be on you, the lighter you become.

Here is a website that tries to explain it..

Does Your Weight Vary In Different Cities In The World? » Science ABC

Why are you linking me to a page which is filled with observations you ignore?

 

[JackRT]

Like I have said before.. set two snooker balls on a polished stainless steel surface. Set them even 1/2 of a millimeter apart and they will stay that way. There is no attraction, no mysterious force that will pull them together..

In the presence of the earths gravitational field the gravitational attraction between the two snooker balls is insufficient to overcome static friction even on a polished surface. What is needed is a torsion balance. I did the experiment myself over 50 years ago. It is so sensitive that we had to relocate the experiment to an abandoned farm house well away from any vibrations of heavy traffic.

 

[JackRT]

All compass needle point towards Mount Zion. It is a giant magnetic mountain located in the North. The compass needle is attracted to the mountain. It is the North Pole. Please watch this video I made about this subject:

The Mount Zion described in the Bible is NOT the one in modern day Jerusalem. The Bible describes something completely different. A gigantic holy mountain located in the North.

Psalm 48:1-2 describes a very tall Mount Zion located in the North. Revelation 14:1 says 144,000 people can fit on Mount Zion. If you look at pictures of Mount Zion in Jerusalem it is obvious that 144,000 people could not fit on that small hill.

God bless.

The Geographic (rotational) North Pole is located in the Arctic ocean, so if there is a mountain, it is entirely underwater. Just a few weeks ago I had a most interesting conversation with a man who was the executive officer aboard the CCGS (Canadian Coast Guard Ship) Louis St Laurent, an icebreaker, when it met a Russian icebreaker at the North Pole some 25 years ago. The North Magnetic Pole is not fixed but wanders gradually around in the Canadian Arctic and is presently located on Ellesmere Island.

 

[Radagast]

.

 

[Arius]

If down is just down, then objects should weigh the same regardless of where they are on the planet. This isn't the case. As you go higher, objects weigh less. As you go towards the equator, objects weigh less. These are simple observations that anyone with a sensitive enough scale can make.

We understand gravity well enough to know why this happens. What does the 'flat earth model' say?

If you claim objects weigh less as you go higher (Up), because of less gravity, then how do you explain this magical gravity holding the moon, which is claimed to be a giant chunk of rock supposedly broken off of this Globe weighing in at 7.35X10^22 lbs. at the distance of 238,900 miles away?

Seems like this gravity does the exact opposite in imaginary space than what NASA observe here on Flat Earth!?
They claim gravity get's weaker the farther away it is from the mass, yet in a an elliptic orbit of imaginary moons, at its furthest point, it is its strongest??
Tie a 20' rope around a bowling ball, and swing it around you. Now slowly release a few feet of the rope as you keep swinging it around you, and then pull it back in as it's still swinging and see how much more 'force' it takes to pull back those few feet!?
Where does gravity get this amazing force to be able to do this?
I mean not only would it take constant tremendous force to keep this supposedly humongous mass orbiting around your globe to keep it from crashing down, but where does gravity get all this energy to keep, and then pull this weight back from an elliptic orbit?


Where does NASA go to hire engineers working for them, .. to ITT Technical Institutes, or Yale's front lawn, and hire the Groundskeepers?

"But sir, I never graduated high school, and you want me to work as an engineer at NASA?"
NASA recruiter: "How long have you been coming to Yale?"
Groundskeeper: "25 years sir, why?"
NASA Recruiter: "25 years ay? We don't have anyone with them credentials, and this is why we are putting you in charge of the 'Human Colonization of Mars Project'. We'll start you off with a six figure salary because money at NASA is no object. In time, we'll train you to sit front of, and stare at computer monitors every time we shoot up a rocket, .. OK? All you'll have to do is listen for the signal. When you hear the signal, you jump up and cheer! You'll get a bonus for high-fiving your fellow engineers! Have you done any acting, because you get $10 grand more a year if you can act!"

Groundskeeper: "Naaw, I'll have to turn your job offer down, .. it sounds too boring. Besides, I'm a Flat Earther, .. but thanks anyways!"

 

[Radagast]

If you claim objects weigh less as you go higher (Up), because of less gravity, then how do you explain this magical gravity holding the moon, which is claimed to be a giant chunk of rock supposedly broken off of this Globe weighing in at 7.35X10^22 lbs. at the distance of 238,900 miles away?

Force = G x mass1 x mass2 / (distance between centres)^2

For the Moon, mass2 is large.

 

[Arius]

We experience the same "pulling force" when we try to hold an anvil above the ground for any length of time. That's the same force that pulls the oceans to the surface of the earth.

"Down being down" means nothing. You can't define an "effect" by itself ...

We don't define 'down' as an effect, we define "falling" as the effect.

This is how NASA defines gravity also, by: measuring the rate things 'falling down'. They call this falling: "gravity". As of yet, neither NASA, or ANY Cosmologist has proven that gravity is a force, .. not One. And that Brian Cox/NASA experiment proved that this force called gravity does not exist.

 

[JackRT]

The Moon or any satellite in an elliptical orbit illustrates an interplay between the force of gravity and the property of momentum. There is nothing mysterious about it --- start with Newton's laws of motion and gravity and the necessary mathematics --- it is called the "two body problem" --- depending on the initial conditions there are three possible outcomes: collision, a hyperbolic pass by (like a comet) or an elliptical orbit. This matches exactly what we see in nature. We may not know yet just why gravity works as it does but we most certainly know how it works.

 

[Radagast]

This is how NASA defines gravity also, by: measuring the rate things 'falling down'.

Not quite. They define it as an attractive force between masses.

As of yet, neither NASA, or ANY Cosmologist has proven that gravity is a force

False. It's a force that can be felt and measured, and which follows a simple mathematical law.

And that Brian Cox/NASA experiment proved that this force called gravity does not exist.

Nonsense!

 

[lasthero]

Force = G x mass1 x mass2 / (distance between centres)^2

For the Moon, mass2 is large.

Bingo.

Translation: The Moon is really big.

If you claim objects weigh less as you go higher (Up), because of less gravity

Also, I don't just claim, it's been shown. Objects weigh less as they go closer to the equator, too, and I even posted a video showing that in this very topic, I believe - it was ignored, of course. Just like the video Thinker posted in #424. As will every piece of evidence that definitely shows the world isn't flat and that gravity is an actual thing.

 

[Arius]

Force = G x mass1 x mass2 / (distance between centres)^2

For the Moon, mass2 is large.

Can you explain what "large" means in this case?

Now I have posted the following info on mass/gravity that I got off NASA- and affiliates science sights many, many times before, but maybe you never bothered to look, or are not allowed to consider the following instructions on gravity, .. I don't know? But can you show me where below is there a distinction made between "small mass" and "large"?

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass.
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

Thanks.

 

[Radagast]

Can you explain what "large" means in this case?

73476730900000000000 tonnes.

Now I have posted the following info on mass/gravity that I got off NASA- and affiliates science sights many, many times before, but maybe you never bothered to look, or are not allowed to consider the following instructions on gravity, .. I don't know? But can you show me where below is there a distinction made between "small mass" and "large"?

1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass.
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

Once again (making point #4 more precise):

Gravitational force = G x mass1 x mass2 / (distance between centres)^2

 

[Arius]

Not quite. They define it as an attractive force between masses.

Nonsense, look again: "It's Acceleration", they call it gravity, and we Believers call it rate of fall, you see it's right there in the graph on the right. It says; "Acceleration". Acceleration of what?
Of objects Falling to the ground on Flat Earth.

False. It's a force that can be felt and measured, and which follows a simple mathematical law.

If it was a "force", it could be measured in "any object of Any size with mass". And you've see it yourself as Big-Brother NASA failed to show this "force" in the different sized objects, .. one being 8,000 times greater mass than the other, yet there they were, feather and bowling ball falling at exactly the same rate.

Nonsense!

HOW is it nonsense, .. we've all seen the videos, we all seen the laws and rules behind the claimed gravity:
1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass.
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

So when are you Glober's going to accept the FACTS?

You guys keep avoiding these questions:
1. If you were to drop a rock (let's call it a meteor) the size of the moon on earth, 'what would the rate of acceleration be?'

2. If you were to drop a rock the size of globe-earth on Jupiter, .. what would the rate of acceleration be?

Please don't give me some mathematical calculations that neither you, nor NASA understands;


but give us the answer the same way NASA gives about the magical gravity on all their imaginary planets. They say: When you drop things on earth, they ALL fall at 9.807 m/s^2.
On the moon it's 1.62 m/s^2,
.. on Jupiter it's 24.79 m/s^2
.. like that.

 

[Radagast]

The Moon is really big.

The moon is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.

 

[JackRT]

Nonsense, look again: "It's Acceleration", they call it gravity, and we Believers call it rate of fall, you see it's right there in the graph on the right. It says; "Acceleration". Acceleration of what?
Of objects Falling to the ground on Flat Earth.




If it was a "force", it could be measured in "any object of Any size with mass". And you've see it yourself as Big-Brother NASA failed to show this "force" in the different sized objects, .. one being 8,000 times greater mass than the other, yet there they were, feather and bowling ball falling at exactly the same rate.



HOW is it nonsense, .. we've all seen the videos, we all seen the laws and rules behind the claimed gravity:
1. Gravity is the "force" that attracts a body to the center of the earth, or ANY other physical body having mass.
2. This means that anything with mass has a gravitational force.
3. Gravity pulls falling objects to the ground.
4. It applies to objects of all sizes, stating that the more mass an object had, the more it attracted other objects.

So when are you Glober's going to accept the FACTS?

You guys keep avoiding these questions:
1. If you were to drop a rock (let's call it a meteor) the size of the moon on earth, 'what would the rate of acceleration be?'

2. If you were to drop a rock the size of globe-earth on Jupiter, .. what would the rate of acceleration be?

Please don't give me some mathematical calculations that neither you, nor NASA understands;


but give us the answer the same way NASA gives about the magical gravity on all their imaginary planets. They say: When you drop things on earth, they ALL fall at 9.807 m/s^2.
On the moon it's 1.62 m/s^2,
.. on Jupiter it's 24.79 m/s^2
.. like that.

So now planets are imaginary? BTW the "g" in the fourth column of your table represents the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the planet and only at the surface of the planet.