There IS no gravity.

[JackRT]

That would be true if the only thing that had gravity is the globe-earth, but NASA and fellow scientists go by these laws when they built their computer simulation "space/universe":

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 the feather and the bowling ball has its own g-force too, so add that to the gravity of this globe, and the 8,000 times the mas/G-force of the bowling ball should have passed up the feather in the vacuum chamber.
But then that would be going by real science as you can see in that video, not the imaginary spacetime fabric that NASA scientists have created in a computer.
(please see video in previous post titled: "NASA Insight-Mars Landing")
I'm sure that the scientists would have caught that if they really did go into 'space', .. but because no one has, what they do in the computer works every time.
This is why 'every Space shuttle docking with the ISS is perfect, time after time, because that's how it was programmed in their simulation. So in truth, all them scientists and engineers sitting front of them screens at the Space control center are watching a computer simulation that can't go wrong. Unless it was programmed to go wrong so they could justify a few more billion dollars for another fake simulation-landing.

Here is what is even more amazing: I asked one of those NASA science question sights on the internet "if a 16,000 lb. elephant and a .0025gr feather would fall at the same rate in a vacuum like the bowling ball and feather did?"

They said "yes", that all mass, no matter the size would fall to earth at the same rate. (they went by what you said above)

So I sked: Going by the 4 rules/laws on gravity I took off science sites, that "if you put our moon, and an 8,000 times more massive moon at the same height within earths gravity, next to each other in space above the earth, and let them go, .. then they too should fall to earth at the same rate, correct?"

… no answer yet. ??

Do you, or any other Globe-earth believer in NASA-space have an answer for me?

Thank you ahead of time.

You are proposing a three body problem without giving all the pertinent parameters. How are the three objects oriented with respect to each other? What are their relative distances and velocities? It is a complex problem but it can be solved with computer assistance.

 

[Arius]

There is no gravity.
The earth sucks.

Love you @ItIsFinished! that's funny.

But you know what? We Creationists were debating space suits, and when Globe-earthers had no answer to some of our questions as to why the Astronauts space suits didn't quickly expand upon entering the perfect vacuum of space on their space walk, .. you know, like it should:

we were told that "outer-space doesn't suck. That space is not like the vacuum we create in a vacuum chamber", .. lol.

 

[JackRT]

Love you @ItIsFinished! that's funny.

But you know what? We Creationists were debating space suits, and when Globe-earthers had no answer to some of our questions as to why the Astronauts space suits didn't quickly expand upon entering the perfect vacuum of space on their space walk, .. you know, like it should:

we were told that "outer-space doesn't suck. That space is not like the vacuum we create in a vacuum chamber", .. lol.

You point out a major problem in space suit design. It needs to be rigid enough to prevent uncontrolled expansion. Actually tire manufacturers solved that problem many decades ago. They also have to provide enough flexibility that motion and a certain amount of dexterity is also possible. That too has been solved. Rather than mocking NASA why don't you request a visit to one of their labs where such problems are addressed daily?

 

[Arius]

You are proposing a three body problem without giving all the pertinent parameters. How are the three objects oriented with respect to each other? What are their relative distances and velocities? It is a complex problem but it can be solved with computer assistance.

There is no problem, especially a complex one where you would need a computer, or even a simple calculator, .. which is what every Globe-earther, especially NASA scientists want to create to disregard the question. Or to derail it to some Einstein. It's simple:

No orbiting
No gravitational waves, or quantum fluctuations
No black holes nearby,
No wind
No air
Just the earth and simply two objects hanging above it; one object the size of our moon at the Karman line, and the other 8,000 times more massive, .. next to it like the feather and the bowling ball, .. then drop them, .. or release them and let earths gravity do the rest!?

 

[Arius]

You point out a major problem in space suit design. It needs to be rigid enough to prevent uncontrolled expansion. Actually tire manufacturers solved that problem many decades ago. They also have to provide enough flexibility that motion and a certain amount of dexterity is also possible. That too has been solved. Rather than mocking NASA why don't you request a visit to one of their labs where such problems are addressed daily?

I've seen enough videos of space suits and space walks, and getting in the space suits to know they're not made like Michelin tires.

I have also machined parts for satellites, and I'm sure NASA could show me some of them too, .. only, gosh-darn it, I won't qualify to go into space to actually see one out there, but NASA is more than happy to oblige us with pictures and CGI-videos of how they fly through space.
I believe they build rockets too, but they too cut off the cameras after turning and dropping into the ocean.

It's also obvious why NASA claims why they can't go to the moon anymore, .. because our general public telescopes are getting better and better, heck, even the cameras can zoom in on the moon, which is the last thing NASA want's, to claim to land on a celestial object that's right above our heads. So they moved the goal post to a dot, a star we can't zoom in on because it's small and beyond the dome.
Better safe than sorry.

And how am I mocking NASA? I am simply pointing out what's obvious to millions of people, and now this cocky Brian Cox/NASA experiment which just proven without a doubt that gravity does not exist reveals who is, and has been mocking the entire non-German human race. Not me, not F.E'rs, but NASA and all their so-called private companies like the mocker Space-X. Now if that's not mocking us all, especially with that last CGI-car-in-space-stunt, then I don't know what is? I mean that CGI-cartoon couldn't of cost more than $49.95 and 20 minutes for a Gamer-programmer to make.

I, nor any FE is getting paid to tell the truth, but NASA has been robbing us trillions of dollars for telling lies over the past 60 years.

Maybe it's the Lord saying: "OK, I have seen enough robbery, bloodshed, exterminations, it's time to reveal the hidden secrets, all the lies against Me, my son Jesus, and My Creation"!?

 

[JackRT]

There is no problem, especially a complex one where you would need a computer, or even a simple calculator, .. which is what every Globe-earther, especially NASA scientists want to create to disregard the question. Or to derail it to some Einstein. It's simple:

No orbiting
No gravitational waves, or quantum fluctuations
No black holes nearby,
No wind
No air
Just the earth and simply two objects hanging above it; one object the size of our moon at the Karman line, and the other 8,000 times more massive, .. next to it like the feather and the bowling ball, .. then drop them, .. or release them and let earths gravity do the rest!?

OK, given the parameters you propose the problem is simple --- the three objects will fall towards each other until they meet at their common centre of gravity.

 

[Arius]

OK, given the parameters you propose the problem is simple --- the three objects will fall towards each other until they meet at their common centre of gravity.

At what speeds?
Besides, that's not how the Brian Cox/NASA bowling ball/feather experiment shown, the bowling ball did not pull the feather towards itself before they hit the floor.

OK, how about this? Let's drop the two moons individually, and time them. Any object dropped to earth is known to fall at the rate of 9.807 m/s^2

a) if the moon and the globe-earth were stationary in a vacuum at a distance of 60 miles from earth, would the moon 'gravitate' towards earth at 9.807 m/s^2?

b)Now let's drop the 8,000 times more massive moon, .. would that gravitate towards the earth at the same rate as the regular moon, .. at 9.807 m/s^2?

* Note
The claim is that the moon has it's own gravity, or "pulling G-force" of 1.62 m/s^2. The more massive globe has 9.807 m/s^2
a moon 8,000 times more massive would have a g-force of 12,960 m/s^2

But according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, including any and all scientists out there that believe in a globe earth, .. these two objects should fall towards earth at the same rate, .. just like a 16,000 lb. elephant and a feather in a vacuum.
The Elephant and The Feather - Free Fall

Before you give me this rhetorical answer from the physicsclassroom.com or other diversionary explanations on gravity like:

physicsclassroom.com - But if the elephant weighs more and experiences a greater downwards pull of gravity compared to the feather, why then does it hit the ground at the same time as the feather?

Great question!! To answer this question, we must recall Newton's second law - the law of acceleration. Newton's second law states that the acceleration of an object is directly related to the net force and inversely related to its mass. When figuring the acceleration of object, there are two factors to consider - force and mass. Applied to the elephant-feather scenario, we can say that the elephant experiences a much greater force (which tends to produce large accelerations. Yet, the mass of an object resists acceleration. Thus, the greater mass of the elephant (which tends to produce small accelerations) offsets the influence of the greater force. It is the force/mass ratio which determines the acceleration. Even though a baby elephant may experience 100 000 times the force of a feather, it has 100 000 times the mass. The force/mass ratio is the same for each.

The greater mass of the elephant requires the greater force just to maintain the same acceleration as the feather.

A simple rule to bear in mind is that all objects (regardless of their mass) experience the same acceleration when in a state of free fall. When the only force is gravity, the acceleration is the same value for all objects. On Earth, this acceleration value is 9.8 m/s/s. This is such an important value in physics that it is given a special name - the acceleration of gravity - and a special symbol - g

.. just please don't, and here is why?
Yes, .. the "special symbol "g". Because using the algebraic "g", has the same value. g+g=g and all mass is said to have gravity LOL In other words, g=gravity. So adding simply the algebraic "g" of both planets gives you "g".

I can't believe that for 500 years, no mathematician, scientist, cosmologist, Jesuit-Christian, NASA engineer, CERN Quantum Physicist has ever noticed that the g-force present in the objects themselves are ignored!? That, .. if gravity existed there are two forces at play here, one is the object dropped, and the other is the earth.
You add these together and get different forces creating different speeds with each different mass object. The excuses (as in the above example) is pitiful. Like above: "When figuring the acceleration of object, there are two factors to consider - force and mass", .. this takes the student's mind off the two different g-forces supposed to be if they had gravity, so they eliminate the actual numbers, and round it all off as "g".

Thank you, and may God bless us all with wisdom that comes from above, not this "earthly wisdom".

 

[JackRT]

At what speeds?
Besides, that's not how the Brian Cox/NASA bowling ball/feather experiment shown, the bowling ball did not pull the feather towards itself before they hit the floor.

OK, how about this? Let's drop the two moons individually, and time them. Any object dropped to earth is known to fall at the rate of 9.807 m/s^2

a) if the moon and the globe-earth were stationary in a vacuum at a distance of 60 miles from earth, would the moon 'gravitate' towards earth at 9.807 m/s^2?

b)Now let's drop the 8,000 times more massive moon, .. would that gravitate towards the earth at the same rate as the regular moon, .. at 9.807 m/s^2?

* Note
The claim is that the moon has it's own gravity, or "pulling G-force" of 1.62 m/s^2. The more massive globe has 9.807 m/s^2
a moon 8,000 times more massive would have a g-force of 12,960 m/s^2

But according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, including any and all scientists out there that believe in a globe earth, .. these two objects should fall towards earth at the same rate, .. just like a 16,000 lb. elephant and a feather in a vacuum.
The Elephant and The Feather - Free Fall

Before you give me this rhetorical answer from the physicsclassroom.com or other diversionary explanations on gravity like:



.. just please don't, and here is why?
Yes, .. the "special symbol "g". Because using the algebraic "g", has the same value. g+g=g and all mass is said to have gravity LOL In other words, g=gravity. So adding simply the algebraic "g" of both planets gives you "g".

I can't believe that for 500 years, no mathematician, scientist, cosmologist, Jesuit-Christian, NASA engineer, CERN Quantum Physicist has ever noticed that the g-force present in the objects themselves are ignored!? That, .. if gravity existed there are two forces at play here, one is the object dropped, and the other is the earth.
You add these together and get different forces creating different speeds with each different mass object. The excuses (as in the above example) is pitiful. Like above: "When figuring the acceleration of object, there are two factors to consider - force and mass", .. this takes the student's mind off the two different g-forces supposed to be if they had gravity, so they eliminate the actual numbers, and round it all off as "g".

Thank you, and may God bless us all with wisdom that comes from above, not this "earthly wisdom".

Consider two masses, one being twice the mass of the other --- let us use M and 2M. I fully agree that if the force on the first mass is X, then the force on the other mass is double or 2X. Using Newton's 2nd law of motion F=ma or a =F/m then:
--- for the first mass
a = X/M
--- for the second mass
a = 2X/2M = X/M
Exactly the same!

And BTW with two objects, like the earth and the moon, the force of gravity acts equally on both but in opposite directions (Newton's 3rd law of motion) so acceleration of the moon towards the earth will be considerably more than 9.8 m/s/s because of its considerably smaller mass. The two would meet at their mutual centre of gravity.

 

[Arius]

Consider two masses, one being twice the mass of the other --- let us use M and 2M. I fully agree that if the force on the first mass is X, then the force on the other mass is double or 2X. Using Newton's 2nd law of motion F=ma or a =F/m then:
--- for the first mass
a = X/M
--- for the second mass
a = 2X/2M = X/M
Exactly the same!

And BTW with two objects, like the earth and the moon, the force of gravity acts equally on both but in opposite directions (Newton's 3rd law of motion) so acceleration of the moon towards the earth will be considerably more than 9.8 m/s/s because of its considerably smaller mass. The two would meet at their mutual centre of gravity.

What????
So the 8,000 times more massive moon would descent towards earth slower than our moon because it's harder for the earths imaginary gravity to pull on it?
You make absolutely no sense, but that's typical for any Globe-supporter. Because if you loose gravity, then there goes your spinning, orbiting, wobbling globe along with the entire BB-universe.

Look up all the imaginary planets in your so called solar system, and see how the gravity of each is determined by "things" falling on each of them. The bigger the planet, the faster the fall.
Yes, "faster".
On the moon, you drop something and it supposedly will fall to the ground at the rate of 1.62 m/s^2
if you drop something on earth, it will fall at the rate of 9.807 m/s^2
on your imaginary planet Jupiter, things they say will fall at the rate of 24.79 m/s^2

Now here is a difficult question for the worlds top scientists and engeneers that work for NASA;
What if you were to drop an object on the earth that's 8,000 times more massive than the moon?

According to the NASA/Brian Cox experiment, it too should fall at 9.807 m/s^2 because the earths gravity would have to pull 8,000 times harder (or whatever other quantum string-theory effects they come up with .. lol) on the bigger moon. Completely ignoring the rules NASA goes by when charging us billions and trillions of dollars exploring space and imaginary planets using the following rules of 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.

which means that this 8,000 times the mass of our moon object would drop towards the earth like a bullet^2. But they will deny it even has it's own g-force.

so all mass, no matter what size will fall "Exactly the same", right?

--- for the first mass
a = X/M
--- for the second mass
a = 2X/2M = X/M

Exactly the same!

​

.. even Newton would turn in his grave if he heard this. Now Einstein, he would laugh, just as he did when he invented the E=MC^2 completely senseless and useless formula, which was proved to be true with only a few billion dollars by a ground antenna called LIGO (pronounced; Lie-go) when it caught a blip (or was it a "chirp"?) of gravitational waves millions of light years away.

I mean my God, how can people, especially Bible Believing people stand by and let these robbers rob us of not only our billions and trillions, but our intellect? This is what they teach not only to our grade school children, but our kids will graduate College with this senseless garbage.
Did everyone actually believe what they taught us in school that we are dumb evolving animals of the ape family? Because I sincerely wonder if you keep being taught from your childhood and up that you are an animal, our intellect eventually drops to that level??

What's even more berating is that the apes have already evolved to ape, but man isn't even ape yet, .. supposedly we're still evolving, .. lol. Hopefully in a few billion Carl Sagan years, we'll be apes!?

 

[Rick Otto]

You point out a major problem in space suit design. It needs to be rigid enough to prevent uncontrolled expansion. Actually tire manufacturers solved that problem many decades ago. They also have to provide enough flexibility that motion and a certain amount of dexterity is also possible. That too has been solved. Rather than mocking NASA why don't you request a visit to one of their labs where such problems are addressed daily?

Show me the video of the suit being put in a vaccuum chamber, then you can give a sermon on mockery.
Otherwise you're expecting me to take your word for it.

 

[Rick Otto]

Consider two masses, one being twice the mass of the other --- let us use M and 2M. I fully agree that if the force on the first mass is X, then the force on the other mass is double or 2X. Using Newton's 2nd law of motion F=ma or a =F/m then:
--- for the first mass
a = X/M
--- for the second mass
a = 2X/2M = X/M
Exactly the same!

And BTW with two objects, like the earth and the moon, the force of gravity acts equally on both but in opposite directions (Newton's 3rd law of motion) so acceleration of the moon towards the earth will be considerably more than 9.8 m/s/s because of its considerably smaller mass. The two would meet at their mutual centre of gravity.

Your math is excellent but your physics is atrocious.

(Einstein said that to Lemaitre, the big bang guy.)

 

[JackRT]

Your math is excellent but your physics is atrocious.

(Einstein said that to Lemaitre, the big bang guy.)

Well, I only have an MSc in Physics and being retired maybe I am getting sloppy.

 

[Arius]

Well, I only have an MSc in Physics and being retired maybe I am getting sloppy.

So having an MSc in Particle and nuclear physics does that mean you agree that the bowling ball, which had the 8,000 times the G-force of the feather should have fallen faster in that NASA experiment, or not?

 

[JackRT]

So having an MSc in Particle and nuclear physics does that mean you agree that the bowling ball, which had the 8,000 times the G-force of the feather should have fallen faster in that NASA experiment, or not?

No I do not agree and I have already given my reasons.

 

[Arius]

No I do not agree and I have already given my reasons.

You mean this?

JackRT said: Consider two masses, one being twice the mass of the other --- let us use M and 2M. I fully agree that if the force on the first mass is X, then the force on the other mass is double or 2X. Using Newton's 2nd law of motion F=ma or a =F/m then:
--- for the first mass
a = X/M
--- for the second mass
a = 2X/2M = X/M
Exactly the same!


Again you are ignoring the mass/g-force of the object being dropped, even though you admitted it in your previous post

And BTW with two objects, like the earth and the moon, the force of gravity acts equally on both but in opposite directions (Newton's 3rd law of motion) so acceleration of the moon towards the earth will be considerably more than 9.8 m/s/s because of its considerably smaller mass. The two would meet at their mutual centre of gravity.

So let me ask you; if you drop Mercury which according to its mass/g-force is 3.711 m/s^2 .. on Jupiter which has a g-force of 24.79 m/s^2, it would fall, or in your case "meet" at what speed?

10.44 m/s²
Saturn
24.79 m/s²
Jupiter
3.711 m/s²
Mars
3.7 m/s²
Mercury
8.87 m/s²
Venus · Uranus
9.807 m/s²
Earth
11.15 m/s²
Neptune

I figure 28.501 m/s^2

Yet NASA claims that if you were to drop a 16,000 lb. elephant and a feather, or no matter what mass the object was, which includes the moon; "they would all fall at the same 9.8 m/s^2."

But of course you can't agree with that because then you'd have to agree that the 10 lb. bowling ball, especially the 16,000 lb. elephant would have to have traveled faster then the feather in that Brian Cox/NASA Vacuum chamber experiment.

Thus gravity is proven to be a lie. Or like what @patrick jane posted that a FE'r suggested; that things are actually being "pushed" down!?

According to the Bible, things "fall", .. like Jesus seen Satan falling from Heaven. The rest of the so called planet-gods falling rates are all based on made up mathematics compared to the made up mass/weigh falling rate of earth's.

And if you wish to go by "meet", then the earth actually moves up to the 16,000 lb. elephant a teeny-tiny bit too. Which means that every feather, every bird and especially airplanes like the Antonov An-225 weighing in at 640 tons are actually pulling the earth a tiny bit out of it's orbit.

I mean come on, .. can I get a Christian "Amen" for this from someone?

 

[Radagast]

It's a theory, like evolution.

Gravity is a fact. It can be measured using a torsion balance.

 

[Radagast]

Yet NASA claims that if you were to drop a 16,000 lb. elephant and a feather, or no matter what mass the object was, which includes the moon; "they would all fall at the same 9.8 m/s^2."

This is a figure for the Earth, where the mass being dropped is microscopic compared to the Earth, so that the gravitational effect on the Earth can be safely neglected.

So having an MSc in Particle and nuclear physics does that mean you agree that the bowling ball, which had the 8,000 times the G-force of the feather should have fallen faster in that NASA experiment, or not?

No, you've gotten the physics wildly wrong there. If m is the mass of a dropped object, M is the mass of the Earth, G is the gravitational constant, and r is the radius of the Earth, then for an object dropped close to the surface,

F = ma = GmM/r^2

So that (cancelling the m's), the acceleration a = GM/r^2 = 9.8.

 

[Arius]

Gravity is a fact. It can be measured using a torsion balance.

That looks simple enough to do in our basement, .. what are those, .. atoms?

OR, .. do like physicists, and science physics-professors have been doing; dropping balls out of the College's 3rd story window, and clock the rate of fall of the object, and say the rate of fall is "gravity". And then turn around and say "Only science hating Flattards would say; 'things simply fall to earth'"

I agree with @Rick Otto ; "gravity is a theory, like evolution." And if I may add; "gravitational waves detected by LieGo a few million light years away!" that too sound like a fantastic theory.

 

[Radagast]

That looks simple enough to do in our basement, .. what are those, .. atoms?

No, balls of two different sizes. Read the link.

OR, .. do like physicists, and science physics-professors have been doing; dropping balls out of the College's 3rd story window

That's not how gravity is studied.

and clock the rate of fall of the object, and say the rate of fall is "gravity"

Nobody says that.

 

[Skreeper]

That looks simple enough to do in our basement, .. what are those, .. atoms?

OR, .. do like physicists, and science physics-professors have been doing; dropping balls out of the College's 3rd story window, and clock the rate of fall of the object, and say the rate of fall is "gravity". And then turn around and say "Only science hating Flattards would say; 'things simply fall to earth'"

I agree with @Rick Otto ; "gravity is a theory, like evolution." And if I may add; "gravitational waves detected by LieGo a few million light years away!" that too sound like a fantastic theory.

Please do us all a favor and read this:

Newton's Law of Gravity | MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials

It's a free physics lecture from MIT. Please feel free to check out the other free lectures on related topics as well.

If you still do not understand gravity after reading this you probably should actually go to your nearest university and attend a beginners lecture on physics/gravity.