Disproof of Gravity, Scientifically.

Disproof of Gravity

By Aaron Guerami
aguerami@gmail.com  

http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com

The standard particle model has yet to find any evidence of Gravity. This is most concerning since gravity is used by most modern equations.

Great particle accelerators have hunted for any signs of gravity. None found!

There are several ways to disprove gravity.


1) Experimentally

One simple experiment shows there is no gravity.


The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this possible?

Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two masses raised to the second power.
F=GM1M2/r^2

With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but to be attracted to the Earth.

We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1. F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise.

What we see in the experiment that the helium is rising to meet its level of density.


2) Commutitive

The mathematics of gravity is a concept called Zero Point Mass. This is a mass without a volume.


This is not found in the universe.

The main problem here is the reduction of 3 dimensional  densities to 0 dimensional masses. Once a density is reduces to a mass, the mass cannot be returned to the original shape of the density. So we cannot cube a zero and get anything but another zero. This breaks the commutative properties of addition.

Let’s look at some of the equations and how gravity fails at a fundamental level. F=ma : Force equals mass times acceleration. We have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector and that does not equal a 3 dimensional field. So the main axiom of gravity fails the commutative test.

This alone should disprove gravity.


F = G(M1*M2)/r^2 : Force = The constant of Gravity * (The zero dimensional mass 1) * The zero dimensional mass 2) / The 3 dimensional length between them squared. So every object pulls
every other object. The dimensional problem occurs again.

A constant is what is used to fill in the gaps. When things do not work the way we want them to, we just add a constant to fix the problem. When the equation no longer works, we change the
constant’s value.

Physicists know about this problem. They created gravity waves and shell modeling to compensate for the dimensionless mass. But gravity is still dimensionless. The dimensionless mass cannot create a 3 dimensional shape.

We all know that gravity collapses under the scrutiny of the tiny. Quantum level objects do not show any signs of gravity. The particle accelerators prove this.

They have yet to find any force that works as gravity is described.


3) Gravity fails the multi-body test.

Gravity can only compute the force between 2 objects. Any equation that uses a sum of objects fails in this way.

First, the two objects force is computed then the third body is computed with the resultant of the first two bodies. Then that resultant is computed with the 4 body… That is how summation works. The problem is that the distance between object 1 and 2 is not evaluated in the next iteration.

4) Gravity and Complex Systems.

Let’s look at a hurricane that is traveling over the ocean. The spinning winds cause rotation in the ocean. The low pressure of the storm causes a bulge upward in the ocean. Heat and pressure
are two of the main variables in this system.

As the temp increases it decreases the pressure of the storm, causing an increase in intensity in the storm. The heated air is forced up the eye wall.

This is an example of temperature/pressure force on density. It is not possible for gravity to describe this system, with or without spheres.

5) Questions posed by others:

the rain fall because of gravity.

– the rain occurs because of water vapor cooling (temperature going closer to the dew point).

– the rain formation in itself is a very complex phenomena.

– the dynamics of rain formation depends on the presence of aerosols and fine particles.

– the dynamics of rain formation also depends on complex collision and coalescence phenomena.


– the ascending motion of air is driven by gravity on all parts of the atmosphere.

– this ascending motion is also affected by the Coriolis force.


– this motion is affected also by the drag of rain.


– this motion is also affected by the detailed geometry of the hurricane.

– the fluid dynamics itself exhibits an incredible complexity, like turbulence and instabilities.

– the term “T” in the Navier-Stokes equation above hides a lot of complexities that often still need to be understood.

– heat exchange plays an important role, yet it is not simpler than the fluid dynamics.

– the rain fall because of gravity

Q: So why does a wet tennis ball fling water outward when gravity, applying to all objects big and small, and is 233 times stronger than even the centrifugal force of an Earth spinning on axis at 1,000 mph?

  1. Rain falls because as cold water it is more dense or less buoyant then the surrounding air.

  2. The rain occurs because of water vapor cooling (temperature going closer to the dew point).

  3. Yes, that is one way of looking at density and Buoyancy.

  4. The rain formation in itself is a very complex phenomena.

  5. Yes- the dynamics of rain formation depends on the presence of aerosols and fine particles.

  6. Yes, the mixture of dirty water causes it to be a more dense mixture.

  7. The dynamics of rain formation also depends on complex collision and coalescence phenomena.

  8. Yes again, as the less dense gas collides with other gases, their temperature reduces and the gas becomes liquid. This process occurs until the liquid water is heavier than the force of the updraft.

  9. The ascending motion of air is driven by gravity on all parts of the atmosphere .

  10. No. The ascending motion of air is due to the changes in temperature. The air heats at the ground and rises. As it rises it cools and becomes liquid again. The liquid water is more dense then the surrounding air. this ascending motion is also affected by the Coriolis force .

  11. There are only 4 forces, Gluon – nuclear, W Boson – magnetism, Z Boson – electricity, and the Photon – heat. Those are the only forces that have been experimentally shown.- this motion is affected also by the drag of rain. Of course, As rain falls it drags against the updraft. This is the friction that removes the heat fromthe air. Heat radiates to cold.

  12. This motion is also affected by the detailed geometry of the hurricane. The motion is the geometry of the cyclone. Geometry is a snapshot in time of an object.

  13. The fluid dynamics itself exhibits an incredible complexity, like turbulence and instabilities The whole system is buoyancy. Buoyancy is only fluid dynamics. As a matter of opinion,everything is fluid dynamics.

  14.  The term “T” in the Navier-Stokes equation above hides a lot of complexities that often still need to be understoodLike G, they change T frequently. These changes of G try to mimic the evidence. Just change theconstant and you will get what you want to see.

  15. Heat exchange plays an important role, yet it is not simpler than the fluid dynamics. Heat exchange is intrinsic to fluid dynamics. You cannot remove heat from the fluid dynamics problem.

  16. Yet, suppress gravity and there are no hurricanes anymore. One cannot suppress gravity. Gravity is not real. It’s an old model of how objects move. Evidence has forced major changes in gravity. There is no supporting evidence of a graviton. It is like the

  17. Higg’s boson. Something that was built to try to explain interactions, but it does not.

6) Silly paradoxes created by gravity.
a. Black Holes are easily disproven by Crothers at sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com
b. Worm holes/Time travel
c. Parallel Universes
d. Relativity
e. Flat universe
f. Graviton decay
g. Higg’s Boson

Kepler’s 3 laws are more in line with how planets orbit the sun. This is because of the Sun’s motion around the galaxy.

This causes the elliptical shape of the orbit. Not gravity. Gravity cannot explain 3 body interactions. If the equation has a G in it then it is a Zero Point Mass system and that does not exist in the universe.

The rules of the universe are simple. An atoms position in a system is based upon its density in relation to the surrounding densities and the changes in magnetism, electricity and temperature.

Density is the most important function in determining the position of an object. Density is the vibration intensity within a volume in relation to the density of the surrounding medium.

Related:

Is Sir Isaac Newton’s “Law of Gravity” Just One Great Big 500 Yr. Old Lie?

How Did The Kings of Astronomy Get it So Wrong? Part I: Copernicus – Newton

How Did The Kings of Astronomy Get it So Wrong? Part II: Einstein and the Still Earth

22 thoughts on “Disproof of Gravity, Scientifically.

  1. Daring to look... December 21, 2015 at 9:41 pm Reply

    Reblogged this on We see as through a glass darkly.

    Like

  2. howardk9000 December 21, 2015 at 9:56 pm Reply

    So basically according to the first few paragraphs’ explanation of the equation involving gravity pull between two objects, helium balloons should not only fail to rise but could actually be stuck so firmly to the massive earth that they are distorted out of round?

    Like

    • jwlpeace December 22, 2015 at 2:41 am Reply

      Just like the biggest lakes are not said to be effected by Moon’s gravity, but oceans are, size only matters when it matters according to “Newtonian” Law. The only “proof” ever offered on gravitational pull is of Earth, the Sun and the Moon. Why do not a tennis ball and a bowling ball have attractions then? How can I wave my hands over my head, yet the might oceans are glued to a spinning globe, especially on its backside even more, yet water going under water pressure INCREASES. hmmmm.

      Like

    • JWS March 25, 2017 at 11:53 am Reply

      By the author’s line of reasoning, nobody should be able to lift anything.

      Like

  3. iheartiowa December 22, 2015 at 12:56 am Reply

    This is disinformation.

    A helium ballon rises because a contained space of helium is has less mass then the equivalent space of mixed air. If you put oil and water in a glass, the oil will rise to the top for the same reason – not because “gravity doesn’t exist.”

    The author incorrectly identifies “zero point mass” as a “mass without volume” when it is actually something like a photon, a particle without mass.

    “Quantum level objects do not show any signs of gravity.”

    Gravity is much weaker than the other three known forces (strong, weak, and electromagnetic) which operate across sub-atomic distances. So one would not expect to find gravity at the quantum level.

    “Gravity can only compute the force between 2 objects.”

    Gravity computes? Huh? A system becomes complex when there are three objects to be accounted for. That’s very different from “Gravity can only compute the force between two objects.” What does that even mean?

    I don’t get it. How do you get taken in by articles like this? Is this all it takes? Just a few scientific-sounding words and pronouncements “They have yet to find any force that works as gravity is described.” Uhm, gravity works as gravity is described.

    You should be embarrassed promoting this kind of stuff. I am completely open to the idea that there can be new ideas or that old ideas might be wrong, but just saying so with a lot of nonsense-speak doesn’t make it so.

    Like

    • jwlpeace December 22, 2015 at 2:39 am Reply

      Sir, How do you explain that the entymology of the word gravity is “weight”, yet Newtwons’ 3rd law does not even use the word weight when describing gravity? hmmm. please read the links at the end of the article for a more thorough debunking of Newtonian gravity THEORY, never proven.

      Like

      • iheartiowa December 22, 2015 at 5:54 am

        I explain it quite simply, sir, assuming you mean etymology.

        Weight is measured in units called newtons, and newtons are units of *force*, that is, the force exerted downward by gravity. The greater the mass, the greater the force down, so when gravity is relatively constant – as it is on Earth – there is a strong correlation between mass and weight.

        This is why, even though one’s mass does not change, one is said to be “weightless” in a rapidly declining elevator or in a plane that makes a certain kind of arc. There is a temporary inertia that lessens the force down of gravity, giving the feeling of less weight, even though mass is unchanged.

        Now that I have answered your question quite simply, sir, I must ask why on Earth you think what you just said is an actual argument. Do you believe that left-handed people are evil because the etymology of the word sinister is the latin sinister which means left or left-handed? Believing such a thing would be ridiculous, do you not agree?

        No sir, I am not going to click the links on an article that says something like “gravity can only compute the force the force between 2 objects.” Again I ask, gravity computes? What is that supposed to mean? Why would I listen to someone who talks about “a mass without a volume” when there is no such thing in the science this person s trying to debunk – he is simply making it up.

        Yes indeed,all of science is a theory. But just making things up isn’t actually challenging the theory. If we go to an Italian restaurant and I order a penne arrabiata, would you tell me I was ordering a plate of angry penises because that’s the etymology of penne arrabiata? The idea that it’s a plate of pasta covered in spicy tomato sauce may be a theory, but your counter-theory, based on etymology, is clearly wrong.

        There’s nothing wrong with questioning even the most deeply held of beliefs. But just making stuff up and then indignantly flailing about with etymological arguments and insistence of the theoretically nature of science (which, again, has zero relevance to the argument) is, I’m sorry, just fucking stupid.

        There’s really no excuse for spreading obvious disinformation, sir.

        Like

  4. howardk9000 December 22, 2015 at 9:32 am Reply

    IheartIowa seems to say much but some of it is beyond me (or alot of it is)… Can this be put in terms that we ‘lay-people’ can comprehend? Maybe Mr. IheartIowa could more simply explain or refute the OP’s use of these formulas in the following argument which is what OP seemed to lead off with?:
    “Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two masses raised to the second power.
    F=GM1M2/r^2

    With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but to be attracted to the Earth.
    We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1. F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise.”

    Like

    • iheartiowa December 31, 2015 at 11:37 pm Reply

      Apologies for the late reply, Mr. K9000… I don’t peruse this site regularly… though sometimes it is hard not to slow down and look at a trainwreck.

      I have noticed that the flat earth liars have an issue with the atmosphere. Sometimes they acknowledge that there is one (e.g. with their nonsensical line of why-doesnt-everything-fly-off-a-spinning-earth ‘reasoning’) but other times they seem to forget that it is there (e.g. conveniently forgetting that air refracts light).

      If you put oil and water into a glass, the oil will rise to the top and the water will sink to the bottom. Does this disprove gravity because the oil rises? Actually it’s 100% consistent with gravity, because while gravity is pulling both the oil and the water in a downward direction, it pulls the more dense water down below the less dense oil. Water has a density of 1gram per cubic centimeter, while oil has a density of about 0.9grams per cubic centimeter. So the heavier liquid is pulled beneath the lighter liquid – by gravity.

      It’s the same with the helium balloon. Helium gas is less dense than the atmosphere, so gravity pulls the atmosphere down relative to the lighter helium.

      As I explained in my earlier comment, the article in this blog post is pure nonsense, as are most of the articles here. Most of it is simply made up. I can only assume that there are a lot of unemployed people sitting around doing drugs and making this stuff up just to see if people are stupid enough to fall for it. I wish you good luck in separating fact from fiction.

      Like

  5. howardk9000 December 22, 2015 at 9:37 am Reply

    Also JWL does mention that only the earth’s oceans( and not lakes) are affected by the moon-induced (or should I say induced by moons gravity?)

    This is no small thing and if true, this is certainly worthy of head-on rebuttal, wouldn’t you agree, Mr IheartIowa?

    Liked by 1 person

    • iheartiowa December 31, 2015 at 11:44 pm Reply

      It is again quite simple, Mr, K9000.

      Lakes *do* experience tides. It’s simply that lakes are much smaller than oceans and therefore have smaller tides.

      For example, the Great Lakes have tides of 1 to 4 centimeters, and that is not enough to distinguish a tide from other factors like wind or rise due to meltoff.

      If you find yourself believing anything Mr. JWL is pushing here, I suggest adding several grains of salt.

      Like

  6. howardk9000 December 22, 2015 at 9:46 am Reply

    I meant: “Mr, Miss, Mrs or Ms” Iheartiowa…. 🙂 My compliments to your debating talent tho’… 🙂 Looking forward to what clarity you can bring on this.

    Like

  7. dgaubatz313 December 23, 2015 at 2:46 am Reply

    I appreciate your work. Flat Earth is the second biggest conspiracy to me the first being; who the hell are we, where do we come from, why can’t we remember, what is our true history including the history we had millions of years ago spiritually if we really are eternal, spiritual beings? Do you agree?

    Like

  8. howardk9000 January 6, 2016 at 7:03 am Reply

    Tides being related to moon movement make no sense to me…. perhaps m/m Iheartiowa can explain why they do or do not correlate using tide tables and comparing with moonrise / moonset tables… should be and easy, obvious comparison since both are a matter of record…

    Thank you. 🙂

    Like

    • iheartiowa January 6, 2016 at 10:10 pm Reply

      I explained tides in my comment above. What about my explanation did you not understand or believe to be untrue?

      “…since both are a matter of record…”

      indeed they are. why do you not look them up? are you afraid of evidence that does not support your position?

      Like

  9. howardk9000 January 6, 2016 at 7:13 am Reply

    Calling these folks liars does not help your case… and how on earth does a complete vacuum NOT instantly dissipate an un-contained atmosphere? Is there some comprehensible math that will explain how ‘tug’ of Earths gravity overcomes the idea of our atmosphere wanting to expand/ diffuse/ flee into space? Powerful stuff this mystical ‘gravity’

    No salt needed here that I can see…

    Like

    • iheartiowa January 6, 2016 at 10:24 pm Reply

      Are you not calling people who think the Earth is globe-like liars as well? Both cannot be true, so one side is lying – it has nothing to do with “making a case.” The host of this blog says often “it’s all lies!” Does that diminish his case?

      Regarding the atmosphere, it is very simple. The Earth has a mass of approximately 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms. The mass of a single molecule of N2 – the most abundant gas in the atmosphere at 78% – is 0.000000000000000000000000000465 kilograms. The larger a mass is, the more gravity it exerts, and I am sure you can see that the Earth is enormously massive compared to a nitrogen molecule – do you not?

      Gravity is hardly mystical. Please do tell me what you think causes a rock to fall to the ground if it is thrown off a cliff – without being mystical of course.

      Like

    • Tom March 25, 2017 at 5:52 pm Reply

      hk9000,

      Speaking of the atmosphere (air) and the vacuum of space: what would enable that vacuum to exert any influence on air so it would dissipate as you mention?

      If air “movement” is to happen, why and what is the underlying cause?

      Like

  10. Ethernaut January 15, 2016 at 5:41 pm Reply

    As summarized by others gravity cannot be proven by experiment. Larger mass objects do not attract smaller mass objects. Here is my hypothesis. Earth and the other planets exist where they are in the solar system because of centripetal force as they orbit around the sun. This might explain why the rocky planets are in closer orbits than the gas planets. As is proven in a centrifuge, less dense elements move further away from the center of rotation than the heavier elements. So the orbits of the planets are shells around the sun that are positioned in distance because of their relative densities. If the sun didn’t rotate, then the solar system would not exist . The sun would be a homogenous flattened blob of elements. In similar fashion, the earth and other planets are centrifuges with their elements layered from the center by density from heavier to lighter with distance from the center. The apparent centrifugal force balances the centripetal force which is separating the densities of elements and causes the planets to be spherical in shape. Without rotation, the earth would be a pizza shaped blob of homogenous elements.

    Like

    • Tom March 25, 2017 at 6:05 pm Reply

      Ethernaut,

      Here is an experiment you might try to gather evidence related to gravity. Extend your arm in any direction so that it is roughly parallel to the ground and unsupported in any way. Hold that position.

      Eventually, when you can no longer maintain the extended, parallel arm position, and you lower your arm; consider this. What just happened? What does this experiment show?

      Like

  11. Michael Lynn February 20, 2016 at 12:57 pm Reply

    I believe the “gravitational force” is the atmospheric pressure above our heads at about 14psi. compressing all matter down by it’s mass, whatsoever is thinner than atmosphere, while what is thinner than the atmosphere is forced by the greater mass (the atmosphere) to rise. Just like a body of water is thicker than air, any air inside the water will go upwards till it meets it’s equality, while the water is still being forced downwards by atmospheric pressure above.

    Like

    • SG Today August 13, 2016 at 8:22 pm Reply

      ML,

      If what you say is true, then objects in a vacuum chamber, separated from air pressure, wouldn’t fall due to the lack of any force due to air. Did I misunderstand your thinking?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: