We have done many experiments within a vacuum which shows a falling of any object at 9.81m/s(2)

Once again, the problem is not if they fall it’s why they fall

gravity is cool

You cannot prove why

Only assume it’s mass attracts mass

Or wtv

Hmmmmm

oxygen is fake

You cannot explain why it falls either

Density of the medium is what causes things to rise or fall

why is that?

Because I don’t know

Try using the scientific method

Citizen Z, please go through your scientific method on density causing things to fall and not up

@Citizen Z join to talk

Its right there

Can you show me the scientific method proving gravity causes things to fall ir rise?

why would a denser object then air fall down towards the earth and not up

I can indeed

@Monticks density of the medium

Plz explain your method to prove gravity

@Citizen Z can u join vc?

Easy

So your question is how can I disprove gravity?

Or Coriolis effect?

Go on what is your question.

Is it a very long question...?

Fun fact, God doesn't actually exist!

How crazy and wacky is that?

@Boften_jkl go to another channel

1) Natural : Objects denser then atmospheric air has been clearly visible to fall. Whilst object less dense then the medium it is in rises. Mass cannot move without a force applied to it.
2) Hypothesis : The medium in which an object is in must be in affect by forces caused by the surrounding medium, as mass cannot move without a force applied to it which is a natural process.
3) Experiment : Place an object within a medium less dense then the object,. Record speed and impacts. Place the object in a medium more dense then the object. Record speed and impacts. Place the object in a vacuum and record speed and impact. Repeat tests with other objects with different densities.
4) Prediction : An object with more density then the surrounding medium will fall down and vise versa. In a vacuum the objects will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s(2).
5) Conclusion : Once the object is in a vacuum, the object will fall down. Therefore a force is being applied downwards. This acceleration is 9.81m/s(2). However, when an object is in a medium more dense then itself, the object rises. This implies a force is being applied up. This force is labelled Buoyancy. It must be able to overcome this clearly visible force of 9.81m/s(2). This implies what we have clearly seen, objects rise when the buoyant force overcomes this 9.81m/s(2) which is caused by the weight of the object (which is mass multiplied by this acceleration) being pushed back by the medium at a force greater then the 9.81m/s(2). This implies that a 9.81m/s(2) must exsist. We call this constant force. Gravity

Well i just showed density of the medium is the direct cause for things to rise or faill

What is your question though

Because your experimentation involves unnecessary variables

Such as comparison to air

Are you just saying that everything that is not on the ground accelerates downwards 9.8 or everything else about gravity

What is your question

Yes i am!!

That is how F=ma works

that is how your weight is figured out

The earth is just so great in mass that it pushes back with a force so great that there is no noticeable affects

Heh

because "every force has an equal and opposite reactions"

What is the question

@hgb Do you know what the Coriolis effect is

Yes

Now can you explain how it works on a flat earth

@Monticks a fallacy

There is no coriolis

but

there is

it can be witnessed

Its a clear VISIBLE natural of this

natural evidence*

donut

Go on

?

Fast moving objects such as planes are influenced by the coriolis effect with the winds being heavily deteremined by it

What is the effect

What do we see

In planes that could not occur on a flat earth

okay thanks for proving the globe earth as it does infact occur for planes

how a moving object seems to veer toward the right in the Northern hemisphere and left in the Southern hemisphere

You can see it through hurricanes

Can you not have a rotating plane

> Well i just showed density of the medium is the direct cause for things to rise or faill
@Citizen Z You did not show that at all. You instead showed that objects fall at a constant 9.8m/s(2) when there is no medium. Why does that constant exist?

By a plane I mean a disc

Why do ALL objects fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8m/s(2) when unaffected by air resistance

Lest you confuse it with an aeroplane.

Gravity can easily happen on a flat earth???

How?

How not

Thats not for me to explain. Burden of proof

explain how gravity can occur on a flat earth?

How would a forces that attracts mass RADIALLY work on a flat earth

Well, gravity occurs on everything, so it occurs on the flat earth also. It acts UNIFORMLY downwards

No it doesnt

But it does.

it acts uniformly towards the centre of the mass

Not in the slightest mate

Yes

Which happens to create a sphere around this centre point

Imagine standing on an infinite plane. Where would gravity be acting on.

Towards the centre

Lol

Imagine an infinite plane

I am

Well where is it's centre?

∞/2

Lmao

But no.

Gravity would act downwards on such a plane

just not true

it would collapse onto that single point

Because every local position has the same mass on the plane

yes but tell me

You have the same mass to your left and right

where would its centre of mass be

It wouldn't matter in this case.

Break it down into a load of squares

it it the exact point

Imagine Minecraft, gravity would act downwards in that case.

Because a sufficiently far object exerts no force on you.

And you have the same mass uniformly radially around you and under you.

The problem with that is there is a centre of gravity somewhere

There's no problem with that at all.

An infinite plane with uniform mass does not exist

There is

Hehe

It doesn't need to be infinite

Just large enough

It does because then a centre of the object can be found

which is its centre of mass

And force would be uniformly downward.

which is where force would be applied from radially

making it crumple in on itslef

g = GM/r2 correct?

Well no.

Because it has uniform gravitational forces at all places expect its boundaries.

Except.

Unlike the earth

In a round sense

as the mass of such size would create such an immense gravity that it collapses in on itself

Which would have more gravitation at different parts in it.

@Monticks ha but no. Again, the radius makes it not matter.

No. You cant wrap your head around the idea that gravity comes from the centre of mass

which is the object is unifrom

It's like saying: gravity exists therefore the universe must collapse.

so your saying , g = GM , then

it is the centre of the object

boy xD

It would be insignificant at large distances

So it would be uniform

The centre is still the centre

Perform an experiment. Have a large plane perpendicular to the earth, place an object near it, see where the gravitational force acts on that object.

You're saying it would be towards the centre of the plane.

I'm saying it would be horizontal

Because centre of mass doesn't account for shape of the object

So it's a crude approximation.

There is an experiement you can do to test the centre of mass. You hold a ruler over the edge of the table and find the exact point where it doesnt topple over. Now repeat this on top of the previous ruler over and over again until you have a ruler of the edge of the desk

each time you have found the centre of mass

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

I'm not trying to find where the center of mass is

now suggesting that the ruler is uniform of density then why doesnt the gravity topple the rulers?

Okay okay okay

If I have a very long ruler

I put an object next to it

Do you think the object will be attracted to the ruler or its centre

Aka.

-----------------------------------------
0

First of all. The centre of mass definitely is affected by shape just look at the toys that use this effect as a gimmick

Well duh

The centre

But I'm saying

like ive been saying

You don't use centre of mass to calculate gravity when your object is not a point mass.

Which is obvious

what do you mean?

You can only use centre of mass to estimate gravity when the object is like a point mass

> Perform an experiment. Have a large plane perpendicular to the earth, place an object near it, see where the gravitational force acts on that object.
@hgb Is this plane got more mass then the earth. If so the earth will be attracted to the plane. Also this plane woult crumple in on its centre of mass to create a sphere

Near the dead centre of the earth, the prediction of the centre of mass gravity would be very very very large, in reality, it's close to zero.

Ok you're still not getting my point.

The centre of gravity isnt used to calculate the centre of mass ever. It shows where gravity will be in effect

Lmao

Okay.

You're at 5 meters away from centre of the earth

ok

How much gravity force would there be on you

Would it be larger than or smaller than g

larger

following inverse gravitational square law

That's what the centre of mass method predicts, right?

no?

i just told you

But in reality, if you're there, obviously, your gravity would be less than g

the inverse gravitational law

thats not true

Okay.

Think about it.

You're at the centre of the earth. Inverse square law predicts near infinite force there, correct?

no

Well say 0.0000001 m away from centre of earth

ok

You would have a humongously large force

But

You have equal mass in any direction from you.

See what I mean?

The centre of mass model is good if, well, we consider masses to be point masses.

But not so otherwise.

Because if I cut the earth into two, and stand in the middle, then they would exert equal and opposite force on me

Because they have centres of masses in at different locations

Which contradicts the prediction made by considering solely the centre of the earth

They would now be two different objects. their gravity would be reliant on the mass of each half. It would not be equal as each half of the earth is not equal

Which is I would have a massive force on me, and the immediate moment I cross the centre, that massive force inverts in direction.

Yea

Do you genuinely believe this

That in the dead centre of the earth, I have infinite force

so for a split second you would feel the force decrease to 0 as you have an opposite and equal force applying pushing you into an equilibrium

no

because

Yes,

But

that implies an infinite mass

On the two sides

which is doesnt have

You have a duck load of force

Yea

not infinte

or close

Why is the centre of the earth not a singularity then xD

If it has so much force

because it doesnt have infinite mass

Well no

why cant you get your head around this

But the distance is tiny

the distance will increase

but

only to the extent of gravity

the centre of gravity is only where the gravity is in effect

Okay.

I will now present to you a Wikipedia page.

And

i want to correct myself

Is there not commands?

Gravity does decrease downwards

Or this

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/165526/if-the-gravity-at-the-center-of-the-earth-is-zero-why-are-heavy-elements-like-i

Okay

Very well

In this case, you see how I can have uniform gravitational force acting downwards?

Come on xD

I already disproved that Citizen and how you proved a constant of 9.81m/s(2) whilst not proving as to what causes this

Citizent are you trolling and mocking me

while you censor others for doing the same?

@Monticks I think you are good at physics.

Your grasped an interesting concept very quickly.

9.81 is measured

Mass of the globular earth is predicted based on this measurement

@Citizen Z

In which case I can make an equally valid claim about the uniform planar earth

In terms of your plane. We know the centre of mass exists. The point where force is exerted from. This is the point where gravity acts from. The reason smaller objects can remain non-spherical is due to how weak this gravitational force (this is because empirically the mass of the object is on the macro scale, which is tiny). However as the mass increases so does the gravity. This will result in a greater and greater force being applied to the object. At the certain point that object will no longer be able to structurally support the force being applied to it. This results in it taking the shape of the force applied. Which is a globe.

;)

Let's switch sides, so that you understand my point of view.

Furthermore, a globe earth allows many other scientific discoveries to be true. You have a creative mind. You would be good at applying this to the scientific world in astrophysics. You can grab a sense of scale. The only thing letting you down is not being able to grasp the centre of mass

look chief is 00:20 here and im waking up early tmr

Okay ;_;

!mute @Monticks