Take a quarter, hold it in your hand in front of you. Let go. It falls at 9.8 m/s because of gravity. Something becomes a theory when it has been backed up by experimental evidence, it is not a conjecture or hypothesis. Theories are confirmed scientific fact. In non scientific terms, theory is used interchangeably with hypothesis, however in science speak it isnt.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's all assumption, objects, such as a quarter, fall because they are heavier than the air in which surrounds them, the same way as a helium balloon rises, it rises because it is lighter than the air in which surrounds it. Dropping and object has absolutely nothing to do with "gravity", it's buoyancy and density. Did you even watch the video? I covered this quite clearly.
I should also add that the theory of gravity by definition is a hypothesis, and a hypothesis cannot be a fact.. a hypothesis is a hypothesis, and a fact is a fact. And regardless of its so called definition, if you cannot provide a practical example and physically show gravity, then it is irrelevant, scientific claims must be observable, testable and repeatable every time. Otherwise, it is pseudo science.
Another thing that I will add to this is that "gravity" does not provide measurable curvature. Therefore it is also a fallacious argument.
I can't really understand what you are trying to say.
You said,
"Take a quarter, hold it in your hand in front of you. Let go. It falls at 9.8 m/s because of gravity."
And I am saying that that's an assumption.
The reason the quarter will fall is because it is more dense than the air that surrounds it. Gravity is irrelevant. What you have just described is buoyancy and density.
Dropping a coin does not prove that gravity exists. It only proves that the coin is heavier than the air around it.
Watch the video from 13.31 to 20.24.
If you create a vacuum, and drop some objects inside said vacuum all objects irrespective of their density will still fall at 9.8 m/s^2 due to the pull of gravity.
Dropping the coin does not inherently prove gravity exists, the constant rate by which the coin accelerates is the indirect illustration of gravitational pull.
The above video is an incorrect oversimplification (as is always the case with these sorts of videos and people who love attention). Density and buoyancy do explain why lighter gasses rise above heavier gasses. However, all of the gasses are pulled upon by gravity as well (they too are accelerating toward the planet like anything else, it is their densities which come into play and determine their relative positioning). Gravity is why they don't float away from the planet off into space and why we are able to have an atmosphere like we do, unlike say... the moon or mars which are less massive and as such have a weaker gravitational pull.
The concept of density and buoyancy of gasses is also why very light gasses (see helium) will go up to the very outermost part of the atmosphere, can be energetically excited further and actually break free of the pull of gravity, resulting in their loss forever.
I am still not understanding your point. It's just not correct. Cheers.
Vsauce actually does a fantastic job explaining all of this:
Irrelevant, the reason an object falls in a vacuum is because there is nothing in the vacuum. If you put a helium balloon in a vacuum it's not going to rise is it?.. the helium is obviously going to be heavier than nothing, therefor it will obviously fall.
And just like with the coin falling through the air, a coin will also fall through a vacuum. Not because of gravity, but because it is heavier than literally nothing. Everything falls in a vacuum.
So again this does not prove gravity, it only proves that objects fall when they are heavier than the medium they are in. Your claim is completely invalid, no one can provide a practical demonstration for gravity, it's a theory, not a fact.
You also conveniently left out the fact that you must have a solid separation in order to create a vacuum, or the vacuum can't exist, i.e. a vacuum chamber. Vacuums do not naturally occur. So that again is another science fact that conflicts with the globe model of the earth.
Maby when a scientist creates a vacuum chamber with no solid separation between the vacuum and another medium such as the air that surrounds us, then puts a little spinning ball inside it with water and an atmosphere sticking to it, then I'l believe it. But until then, I'm afraid I'l have to stick with my practical, observable, testable, repeatable, demonstrable scientific reality. Cheers.
And what do you mean flagging? I didn't flag your comment, I clicked on the thumb down button... that is it. And I thumbs downed your comment because you referred me to a video that was completely irrelevant. From what I've gathered so far you haven't even watched my video, you have just read the title, looked at the description and then commented on the video with standard textbook regurgitation.
If you had watched the video you would know what my take on "gravity" is and we wouldn't even be having this back and forth.