Gravity versus buoyancy/density

[reverendALC]

@Seiya you have said a lot, but at the same time not said much at all.

If the answer is two layers, is not true.

The atmosphere is divided in two big categories

lol.

Everything has a how and a why. Tonya Harding executed an attack against Nancy Kerrigan. Why? Because she wanted to win her Olympic skating event. How? Her ex-husband hired somebody to bust her leg with a pipe.

More relevantly, let’s discuss fire. Fire is hot and can warm a pot of water. Why? Because it releases thermal energy during a chemical reaction called combustion, where fuel combines with oxygen. This process breaks and forms chemical bonds, releasing more energy than is needed to start the reaction, resulting in heat (and light). How? The thermal energy created by the fire can be transferred via conduction, convection, and/or radiation:

Everything has an inextricably linked how and why. Even you and I: how we discuss this is via this forum. Why we discuss this is because we desire to develop the truth by exchanging ideas with our peers.

Gravity, for all of its faults, at least makes an attempt to answer both how and why. I do not cheerlead for gravity as a theory, but I must admit it’s a fully fleshed (albeit erroneous) explanation.

I’m hoping that you can, both succinctly and concisely, explain to me why objects with greater density go downward. Without deriding my cognitive faculties, without a long winded and tangential explanation of other things… please offer me the “how”.

I think that’s a fair question worthy of a respectful answer.

 

[Seiya]

 

[reverendALC]

View attachment 34139

What a delightful quote!

However; I’m not a man with a conviction. I have repeatedly said that I do not support gravity as the how and why. I have expressed my interest in completing the gravity/density theory. Is my conviction that there must be an explanation?

You may disagree with me, but what precisely do you disagree with me on? I am not making claims, I am asking for clarification on your claims. Also, I have turned toward you time and time again asking for that clarification.

You have shown me no relevant facts or figures, nor have I questioned your sources.

Lastly, if I have failed to see your point, perhaps it’s because you haven’t clearly or logically made it.

 

[Tomkat]

What a delightful quote!

However; I’m not a man with a conviction. I have repeatedly said that I do not support gravity as the how and why. I have expressed my interest in completing the gravity/density theory. Is my conviction that there must be an explanation?

You may disagree with me, but what precisely do you disagree with me on? I am not making claims, I am asking for clarification on your claims. Also, I have turned toward you time and time again asking for that clarification.

You have shown me no relevant facts or figures, nor have I questioned your sources.

Lastly, if I have failed to see your point, perhaps it’s because you haven’t clearly or logically made it.

View attachment 34140
View attachment 34142

I know it's not my place and if my brain worked as good as yalls, I'd try to help a bit...but it doesn't so I won't, but I know you guys can work this out....and I am actually trying to learn sciency things from this so.......

 

[reverendALC]

I know it's not my place

Nah, it’s anybody/everybody’s place to opine.

 

[Tomkat]

Nah, it’s anybody/everybody’s place to opine.

View attachment 34143

I love that thanks rev

 

[reverendALC]

Welp. Maybe another day, somebody will be able to complete my understanding of the density theory

 

[Tomkat]

Welp. Maybe another day, somebody will be able to complete my understanding of the density theory

Hang in there rev, I'm working on it, 2 maybe 3 months....

 

[Seiya]

What a delightful quote!

However; I’m not a man with a conviction. I have repeatedly said that I do not support gravity as the how and why. I have expressed my interest in completing the gravity/density theory. Is my conviction that there must be an explanation?

You may disagree with me, but what precisely do you disagree with me on? I am not making claims, I am asking for clarification on your claims. Also, I have turned toward you time and time again asking for that clarification.

You have shown me no relevant facts or figures, nor have I questioned your sources.

Lastly, if I have failed to see your point, perhaps it’s because you haven’t clearly or logically made it.

View attachment 34140
View attachment 34142

Don't worry, one day you will be able to understand.

I have zero interest in pleasing or playing the role of educator here. Please save all talmud tactics. It doesn't work on me.

You need sources for basic Science and Physics? And The same time say: "I did't show you relevant facts or figures."

Why is it always so difficult to keep the conversation going?
If what I said is wrong you have the option to ignore it or you refute it and justify it with what you think is right. Is it that complicated?

I don't post for approval or likes. I just want to give my opinion on the subject that interests me, don't help you but maybe it will help someone in some way some day, or not that is fine too. The most important thing is to never let ourselves be silenced, information must always be available. Thanks to thousands of individuals who shared their knowledge I gained mine.

If you want to say something, say what is wrong and why it is wrong.

I came across this article and I think is relevant


The “just asking questions” crowd cloaks themselves in the language of skepticism and critical thinking. They position themselves as brave truth-seekers, daring to challenge the status quo. They’ll quote Carl Sagan or Richard Feynman about the importance of questioning everything.

What they conveniently ignore is that true skepticism isn’t endlessly asking bullshit masturbatory questions on social media — it’s following the evidence where it leads. Real critical thinkers don’t just raise doubts; they actively seek answers. They change their minds when presented with compelling evidence. The “just asking questions” brigade, on the other hand, tends to be remarkably resistant to any answers that don’t align with their preconceived notions.

This is because their questions aren’t meant to illuminate — they’re meant to obscure.

Nobody Who Says They’re “Just Asking Questions” Actually Wants an Answer

 

[reverendALC]

lol! Tell me you don’t have an answer without telling me you don’t have an answer.

It’s ok to not have an/the answer. I am missing answers all of the time. What’s not ok is resorting to derision and name calling. Why do you need to put me down? I haven’t put you down.

If you would like to continue, perhaps send me a PM, so we can return this thread to subject discussion.

 

[Seiya]

lol! Tell me you don’t have an answer without telling me you don’t have an answer.

It’s ok to not have an/the answer. I am missing answers all of the time. What’s not ok is resorting to derision and name calling. Why do you need to put me down? I haven’t put you down.

If you would like to continue, perhaps send me a PM, so we can return this thread to subject discussion.

Sir, isn't the article really a perfect fit?
Here you are again contributing nothing. Not even a single paragraph. Unbelievable

"It’s a rhetorical legerdemain, a way to introduce controversial or even outright false ideas while maintaining plausible deniability. "

"They pepper their statements with phrases like “do your own research” and “think for yourself,” while ironically discouraging actual independent thought. They create an illusion of debate where none actually exists, muddying the waters around settled issues."

We need to get comfortable with the idea that not all views deserve equal consideration. Some questions have been asked and answered. Some debates have been settled. Continuing to entertain long-debunked ideas in the name of “just asking questions” isn’t open-mindedness — it’s a waste of time and mental energy.

 

[AntiSoof]

Feel free to merge this with the older messier thread, but I wanted to shine a new light on this without derailing the FE threads.

Many of us, on many different threads have debated gravity, but often tangentially and fleetingly. The way i see it, gravity is two things:

A law- a force that acts upon us and our world. It’s measurable and reproducible/predictable.

A theory- Beyond the measurable/reproducible “law”, there is an explanation of gravity: the how/why component.

Now call it what you will, I think we can all agree that there IS a force acting. Whether it’s pulling down or pushing down (my vote is pulling because as I rest my legs on my desk currently, I only feel pressure where my legs contact the desk; no discernible downward pressure), I don’t think that in the history of the world, a man has ever dropped a stone and not watched it hit the ground. This force is proven and reproducible by each and every one of us.

Yes, there are scenarios such as “outer space” or centrifugal (anti) gravity, but those require departure from our realm (if you believe in that) or physical/mechanical intervention and exist beyond the scope of this conversation.

The theory of gravity as we all know, relies upon the supposition that mass attracts mass. Conveniently, this cannot be proven because we have only one accessible and vast piece of mass. It can easily be said that smaller objects have arbitrarily small (immeasurable) gravity. Not provable, not disprovable, but accepted at face value (as most things are) it corroborates the theory of gravity. I cannot dispute the law of gravity as a definition of the force that acts upon the world, but the theory of gravity is a guess, a guess which I personally do not classify as educated.

Density and buoyancy are very elegant in this regard. Both can be observed, reproduced, and predicted, even more so than the downward force acting upon us.

However, it appears to me that there’s a gaping hole in the density/buoyancy argument: what causes denser objects to sink and less dense objects to rise? Why don’t the densest of objects rise upward? Or off to the east, or whatever? This argument feels inextricably linked to gravity, despite being paraded as a replacement for gravity.

There still needs to be a fundamental downward force, and both gravity and buoyancy are tied to mass. At the same time, the theory of gravity provides a (baseless?) reasoning for that downward force, but the theory of density/buoyancy does not.

I’m looking for a viable alternative to “mass attracts mass because science”.

Maybe the earth (and all of the matter about it) is a living organism and it wants its matter back.

Maybe it’s all magnetism of sorts.

Maybe this is a simulation and that’s just a rule that was arbitrarily created to lend directionality to our 3D construct.

'The theory of gravity, as we know it, is based on the assumption that mass attracts mass.'.
Is that so? Isn't it true that since Einstein it has been assumed that time/space around the earth gradually thickens, get therefore condensed, which changes time and space and increases the pressure of time/space towards the earth?

[ Perhaps the aether exists and that causes the increased pressure (time/space)? The earth could be imagined as a sphere that is in a jelly. The jelly is very firm and cannot be easily pushed away. That is how time/space could be imagined.

(So this is not my theory, but what I thought I understood.)

What I could also see is that the sun rotates and drags the earth along in its ether flow, as it were. Think of whirlpools. In this way, all celestial bodies are surrounded by a thicker layer of ether that makes each other rotate like wheels. That is why the earth rotates the other way around with respect to the sun. In this way one can also observe which celestial body takes the other in its stream. In this view, eather could perhaps be another word for time/space. But I understand that this is perhaps all too theoretical. Although it could be an idea of gravity? ]

(Yes, I did read 'Yes, there are scenarios such as “outer space” or centrifugal (anti) gravity, but those require departure from our realm (if you believe in that) or physical/mechanical intervention and exist beyond the scope of this conversation,', but maybe its helping?)

 

[Tomkat]

lol! Tell me you don’t have an answer without telling me you don’t have an answer.

It’s ok to not have an/the answer. I am missing answers all of the time. What’s not ok is resorting to derision and name calling. Why do you need to put me down? I haven’t put you down.

If you would like to continue, perhaps send me a PM, so we can return this thread to subject discussion.

I thought this would definitely not help here so.....
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/articl...-gravity-evidence-of-a-computational-universe

 

[reverendALC]

Indeed, I could suppose any number of theories about what causes matter to be drawn downward. I don’t hate static electricity or magnetism, and I’m open to more lofty and (a)ethereal suppositions.

Hell, our world could be made of and full of greedy nanobots who want all matter for themselves and try to return it to the earth. All matter could be a physical manifestation of its hyper dimensional counterpart, tethered by an invisible and elastic umbilical cord to their home in the center of the earth.

Those are, intentionally whimsical suppositions which I give no credence to. I do love discussion though.

@AntiSoof that’s very interesting, and if I was more inclined to believe in outer space (as it’s presented to us) then I could certainly see “celestial drag” being mechanically feasible, whether explanatory or not.

However, being constrained to this earth… I would like to think that the answers we seek are discoverable and demonstrable within our realm.

As far as density and buoyancy are concerned, I do believe they’re discoverable and demonstrable as laws like gravity. Both could be explained by mass attracts mass, and maybe that’s right… but I hear time and time again that gravity (the theory) is made-up bologna. I’m inclined to hear that argument because there’s are LOT of made-up bologna being served.

If the downward force isn’t mass-attracts-mass though, it has to be something. If gravity is made up bologna, what’s the real deal?

 

[Tomkat]

No, I do not agree with any imaginary force.

There is no force pulling downwards in the same way that there is no force pulling upwards or to the sides.

Let's start at the beginning. You forgot what this world has the most of and takes up everywhere but thank goodness your body didn't forget. Your body knows very well that you are immersed in something called air. If there wasn't air fulfil the whole world, you wouldn't be alive.

Well, that's the beginning of the conversation. From here we move on to how everything in this world behaves. 'It's simple because the truth is simple.

As we are immersed in air, what is denser than air fall to the bottom and what is less dense rises to where limited (end) air.

And that's it. Nothing more or nothing less. There are no "buts", there are no exceptions.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5HEDqzWQXE


If I enter the Mediterranean Sea and don't move a muscle in my body, I'll sink to the bottom. Because even though a large part of my body is water, I am denser than water.

If I enter the Dead Sea and don't move a muscle in my body, I will be always on the surface, even if I move, I remain on the surface. The water in the Dead Sea is super saturated, it has more density than my body. Nothing magical happened, not with me or with the 6 million or more that enjoy the Dead Sea.


View: https://youtube.com/shorts/gMAzbBVLrZk?si=_vPk9WKxzr3-y_v0


Things are not pulled to the ground. The normal behaviour of almost everything is to fall downwards (almost everything is more dense then air) when there is no surface hold.

I like this Seiya. Maybe because I've never really had an educated scientific mind? I mean, I passed all my classes but I didn't pay attention.
I have a thought. I think the whole official narrative of 'space' makes me think of it like a big giant ocean really. And, for me, I think that is what makes the theory of gravity seem not right.
So, long story short, do you think if we had an infinite plane model, which would imply I think the existence of high and low top and bottom etc, that everything suddenly makes sense? As opposed to space ocean model...(technical right?)

 

[Frostychud]

In my thinking about gravity I came to the preliminary conclusion that gravity is the original buyoyancy.

In the case of usual buyoyancy, a surface, for instance a water surface, undergoes the pressure of gravity. This outside pressure is transmitted in the water as an inside presssure in all directions. When in the water a free object is met with a lesser density than the water, like a piece of wood, the gravity undergone by the wood is lesser than the surrounding pressure, and the piece of wood is pushed in upward direction, to the surface.

Now for the moment I see it this way that an astronomical body has a cavity in its center. This cavity has a twodimensional boundary functioning as a surface. The cavity belongs to hyperspace, the space outside the universe, which is energy space. This energy acts like a pressure on the surface, which is spreading as a pressure in all directions through the space structure surrounding the astronomical body. When this pressure meets a free object that has lesser density than the surrounding space structure (and that is every object), it is pushed towards the "surface" in the centre of the astronomical body, and that is what we call gravity.

The thought experiment assumes that every body (be it you or me, or the earth) is surrounded by a soul space which has a clear boundary in terms of space structure, and which defines the object.

The thought experiment also assumes that space structure has larger density than usual matter (something that is not accepted by standard physics) and that material bodies are emptier than the surrounding (that material bodies are quasi empty, is generally accepted by standard physics).

Take it for what it's worth.

I feel like I almost understand this, but not quite. You mention the wood underwater being subjected to gravity, but I thought in your example the water intercepted gravity and transformed it into a pressure in all directions.

If you're up to explaining this idea a little more, I'd be very interested to read it.

 

[AntiSoof]

Another thing I sometimes think about is that there might be zero gravity in the middle of the earth. Perhaps electricity flows from space to that center where this electricity is converted into heat (or matter?). We know that there is 100 volts per meter, I think, so at a height of 100 meters there are 10,000 volts. We know that this current flows to the earth. Some also call it life energy (the snake in the spinal column). We could test this theory by hanging two heavy balls on a very long, extremely thin line. If there is no attraction between those two masses, then this points to an external force, outside the mass, namely perhaps that electricity. So gravity could be an electromagnetic phenomenon. This can also be seen because if we strongly charge thin aluminum foil with electrons, this foil seems to float. Or think of a superconductor. That might have to behave differently in terms of weight, so gravity. There are also those who believe that this force is the Highest Self that permeates everything and maintains the universe.

 

[reverendALC]

So gravity could be an electromagnetic phenomenon

This is where my head is at. I really do not buy the whole mass attracts mass argument. It’s 100% unprovable without another unfashionably large mass to experiment with. Something we can ALL experiment with.

We can all rub a balloon on our shirts and watch stuff stick to it. We can all experiment with magnets. We can all observe that “heavier” things go downward with greater force… I don’t like the “why” part though. We can do better, but the sad part is that we don’t have to. I have been mocked and ridiculed in earnest conversation over simply asking questions: people love their status quo dearly.

 

[papaganda]

This is where my head is at. I really do not buy the whole mass attracts mass argument. It’s 100% unprovable without another unfashionably large mass to experiment with. Something we can ALL experiment with.

We can all rub a balloon on our shirts and watch stuff stick to it. We can all experiment with magnets. We can all observe that “heavier” things go downward with greater force… I don’t like the “why” part though. We can do better, but the sad part is that we don’t have to. I have been mocked and ridiculed in earnest conversation over simply asking questions: people love their status quo dearly.

Yah and magnetism and electricity move concurrently in opposite directions

Fatal, if true, for flat earthers: I recently heard of the horseshoe orbit earth-resistant asteroids
Which bounce off the earths EM field and change direction 180, rather than being sucked into earth’s atmosphere, since they are dense enough to have their own EM fields
That’s why the balloon and the aluminum foil are important counter examples, the refrigerator magnet as well
Proves the limits of the gravity complex
‘Discovered’ in 2010, that asteroid

People are scared of anything besides the status quo, I think most people hate the status quo but are scared of the unknown/being alone/unsupported intellectually even more

That’s why perhaps the most fulfilling life experiences are reserved for those who would risk it all just to find something more?
it’s always been this way I reckon

Gravity/magnetism is to density as electricity/charge is to velocity, and nothing is ever truly ‘inert’, no gas exists in a vacuum
Vacuum of space is a total lie it’s opposite I figure
constant electrical/literal bombardment
space and the ocean are probably quite similar

 

[AntiSoof]

I looked up some more information about the ether, and the more I learn about it, the more I think gravity arises from the etheric field. I'll try to write down what I think.

The sentences are tricky, and so are the words; they are ideas, and I don't pretend to provide established facts.

So there would be a field, called ether, that permeates everything, perhaps even (probably) atoms and electrons, and that field could possibly be the source of all energy, thus also matter in the universe.

When that energy -which I essentially see as movement- is directed in a certain way, we call that gravity. The etheric waves are oriented in a certain way by matter, resulting in a movement of the matter toward each other. Just as waves in the sea can cause something to wash ashore, the ether causes matter to "wash ashore"; mass "attracts" each other. I think masses are pushed by the ether. (But mass is also ether, thus it moves itself.)

Or that's how light is transported. Light, viewed from this perspective, may not exist in itself, but is the result of ether movement. Just as sound doesn't exist but is the result of air movement, so electricity will also not exist in itself but be a movement, the result of ether. The same applies to magnetism and light. So ether must be so small in structure, so fast (faster than 'light'?) that all natural phenomena are a consequence of it. The field, ether, is what we observe, at least the result of the movements within that field. And we call these observations matter, light, magnetism, and so on.

One could even argue that nothing exists, but that everything is an illusion of our senses, and that's why we can't (or don't) understand certain aspects, because then science might merge into spirituality. And that step is impossible for many. Because we are the thing, the instrument that research and examines the thing.