# Disprove Gravity

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### cloud_9

Registered Member
Right then scientists, the following was nicely compiled by Aaron Guerami to disprove gravity. His points are made clear below. Now do you agree with them or can you disprove his disprovals?!

Let's have a show of hands and vote. Who believes in this theory, who doesn't? Comment below. Go!

"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 a temperature/pressure force on density. It is not possible for gravity to describe this system, with or without spheres."

I know, man. Like, ice, y'know? How does it stay on top of the water? Shouldn't it, like, sink to the bottom? Ice, man, it's totally anti-gravity too! Whoa.

Just, ice.

"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?

Helium balloons rise because they are subject to a buoyant force from the air as well as the downward force of gravity.

They rise for the same reason that a beach ball floats on the surface of water rather than sinking to the bottom.

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.

I have studied physics and I have never heard of "zero point mass".

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.
Problems with this:
1. There are no zero dimensional masses.
2. Density is mass divided by volume. A mass in zero volume would have infinite density.

This breaks the commutative properties of addition.
The commutative property says a + b = b + a. The following explanation doesn't seem to have anything to do with that.

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.

Why is the mass zero dimensional? F=ma applies to things like balls and cars, which have finite volume.

Also, acceleration is a 3 dimensional vector. Multiply it by a scalar mass and you get another 3 dimensional vector, namely force.

So the main axiom of gravity fails the commutative test.
Er... no.

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.
The constant G gives the relative strength of the gravitational force, in appropriate units. Its value is universal. It never changes. It can be determined by experiment.

Physicists know about this problem. They created gravity waves and shell modeling to compensate for the dimensionless mass.
Is it the concept of a so-called "point mass" that you're worried about? Do you realise that this is an idealisation in the theory? Real, finite, masses can be conceptualised as been built up from infinitesimal point masses.

The test for whether the point mass model is any good or not is experiment. And literally millions of experiments have confirmed that it works pretty well.

But gravity is still dimensionless. The dimensionless mass cannot create a 3 dimensional shape.
You're right. Real objects are made of fundamental particles, not imaginary dimensionless point masses. But, for many purposes, it's just fine to treat the real particles theoretically like point masses. Worse than that, for many purposes it's just fine to treat huge objects like tennis balls and even the entire Earth as point masses. The physics allows us to predict how a ball will fall, or how the Earth will attract objects, just fine.

We all know that gravity collapses under the scrutiny of the tiny. Quantum level objects do not show any signs of gravity.
Depends what you mean by a "quantum level object". And they all certainly show signs of having mass.

The particle accelerators prove this. They have yet to find any force that works as gravity is described.
They aren't designed to do that.

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.

If you want the force on object 4, you just separately calculate the forces on object 4 due to objects 1, 2 and 3, then add them up as vectors. There's no problem with that. It works just fine.

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 a temperature/pressure force on density. It is not possible for gravity to describe this system, with or without spheres."
Obviously it is not possible for gravity alone to describe a hurricane, because a hurricane involves all those other things you mentioned - heat, air pressure, winds, etc. None of those things are gravitational effects (although air pressure obviously varies with height due to gravity).

I don't see the problem.

Right then scientists, the following was nicely compiled by Aaron Guerami to disprove gravity.
James has dealt with the amusing "objections" you list in your post. It's quite a laugh, isn't it?

But tell me, how does Aaron Guerami account for objects on the Earth falling? Or for how planets maintain their orbits?

But tell me, how does Aaron Guerami account for objects on the Earth falling? Or for how planets maintain their orbits?
I went to the Aaron Guerami site and was sure it was just a joke site, but now I am not so sure. His site states that there is no gravity, the earth is flat and Antarctica does not really exist.
Well alrighty then, that is just peachy...

I went to the Aaron Guerami site and was sure it was just a joke site, but now I am not so sure. His site states that there is no gravity, the earth is flat and Antarctica does not really exist.
Well alrighty then, that is just peachy...
So he has to be a conspiracy theorist, I presume, seeing as lots of people have actually visited Antarctica - even on cruises as holidaymakers. How funny.

Here's what seems to be Aaron Guerami's blog. It has links to a bunch of his ideas, things he likes and to some of his 'published' papers (from a non-peer-reviewed 'journal' popular with alternative theorists).

http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com/

I think that the whole thing seems exceedingly crankish. But I'd hope that this thread won't go all ad-hominem and will address the scientific plausibility of Guerami's speculations.

Thanks to JamesR for trying to do that.

The thread probably does belong in 'alternative theories' though.

Here's what seems to be Aaron Guerami's blog. It has links to a bunch of his ideas, things he likes and to some of his 'published' papers (from a non-peer-reviewed 'journal' popular with alternative theorists).

http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com/

I think that the whole thing seems exceedingly crankish. But I'd hope that this thread won't go all ad-hominem and will address the scientific plausibility of Guerami's speculations.

Thanks to JamesR for trying to do that.

The thread probably does belong in 'alternative theories' though.
I'd agree, if cloud9 can establish some bona fides. But this is so preposterous it looks a lot like a wind-up, to get us all to waste our time arguing about absurdities.

So he has to be a conspiracy theorist, I presume, seeing as lots of people have actually visited Antarctica - even on cruises as holidaymakers.
They say they have visited Antarctica. It's shady government brainwashing, probably. Or they've been paid off. After all, what are the changes of another whole continent existing? The Earth's obviously not big enough for that.

They say they have visited Antarctica. It's shady government brainwashing, probably. Or they've been paid off. After all, what are the changes of another whole continent existing?

address the scientific plausibility of Guerami's speculations.
Don't run away after calling Aaron Guerami a crank here...
I think that the whole thing seems exceedingly crankish
What was that you said about ''ad-hominem ''?​

Follow your own advice Yazata and address... Don't run away after calling Aaron Guerami a crank here...
What was that you said about ''ad-hominem ''?​
Be fair, it's not ad-hom to call ideas crankish.

Only people. But in practice the distinction is very slight, since "crankish" is derived from "crank", which is a judgement about a person. For what it's worth, it is obvious that Aaron Guerami is a particularly mad crank. There, I've said it.

Anyway I'll say again what I've often had to explain to cranks before, on forums such as this: scientists are under no obligation to attend seriously to the ravings of every nutter on the street corner. If we did, nothing would get done. We are all entitled to filter out obvious nonsense.

Be fair, it's not ad-hom to call ideas crankish.

Only people. But in practice the distinction is very slight, since "crankish" is derived from "crank", which is a judgement about a person. For what it's worth, it is obvious that Aaron Guerami is a particularly mad crank. There, I've said it.
But, I don't see any kind of addressing of ''Guerami's speculations'' in Yazata's post?
For what it's worth, it is obvious that Aaron Guerami is a particularly mad crank. There, I've said it.
So, if someone turns out ''exceedingly crankish'' work, your not calling the author a crank?

Last edited:
But, I don't see any kind of addressing of ''Guerami's speculations'' in Yazata's post?
So, is someone turns out ''exceedingly crankish'' work, your not calling the author a crank?
I think forum etiquette generally is to criticise the ideas, even if in practice you do get jolly close to calling their proponent a f***ing imbecile, yes. But let's stop here. I don't want a paddoboy-style hijacking of this thread to take place.

But, I don't see any kind of addressing of ''Guerami's speculations'' in Yazata's post?

The content of my post was a link to Mr. Guerami's blog, which in turn has links to his 'published papers' that further explain his views. I think that's a significant contribution to the discussion of his ideas, since people can't discuss them if they don't know what they are and how he attempts to argue for them.

The content of my post was a link to Mr. Guerami's blog, which in turn has links to his 'published papers' that further explain his views. I think that's a significant contribution to the discussion of his ideas, since people can't discuss them if they don't know what they are and how he attempts to argue for them.

Sure. You go to it, then.

I'm out.

The content of my post was a link to Mr. Guerami's blog, which in turn has links to his 'published papers' that further explain his views. I think that's a significant contribution to the discussion of his ideas, since people can't discuss them if they don't know what they are and how he attempts to argue for them.
And you have read them all and came to the conclusion that they are ''exceedingly crankish'', But Aaron is not a crank?

Sure. You go to it, then.

I'm out.

I'm out too.

(I still think that JamesR should move this thread to alternative theories.)

Right then scientists

I'm not a scientist. Nor I would wager, are you or Mr. Guerami.

the following was nicely compiled by Aaron Guerami to disprove gravity. His points are made clear below. Now do you agree with them or can you disprove his disprovals?!

Let's have a show of hands and vote. Who believes in this theory, who doesn't?

I don't know what his alternative to gravity is. But I'm most definitely not convinced by the arguments you posted.

Comment below. Go!

"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?

Didn't Archimedes address that in ancient times? Air is a fluid. Helium is less dense than air. A balloon filled with helium weighs less than the volume of air the balloon displaces. So an upward force acts on the balloon. What is Mr. Guerami's argument against Archimedes?

We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1. F1 = F2. This is just wrong.

I don't think so.

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.

Why not? The balloon isn't floating in vacuum, it's immersed in a fluid (Earth's air).

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

Yes. So how does that contradict gravity? The balloon wouldn't rise "to meet its level of density" if it wasn't in the Earth's gravitational field. You would just have an area of lower density immersed in a gas cloud. Interstellar gas clouds approximate that.

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.

I think that physics often treats masses as if all the mass was located at a point (usually an extended object's center of mass). But that's just a calculating convenience, to make calculations simpler. Physics routinely simplifies its problems that way. It's fundamental to modeling.

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.

So a mathematical model that treats all the mass of a planet as if it was a point, won't be useful if we want to consider the planet's rotation, angular momentum or something like that. We would have to abandon that simplifying assumption.

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.

I take it that refers to the 3-body problem. While fascinating, I don't see it as contradicting the idea of gravitation. It's more about the possibility of modeling the dynamical behavior of three or more bodies with mutual attractive forces using differential equations. It may or may not be an illustration of that 'nonlinear dynamics' stuff. (Above my pay grade.)

I'm not ready yet to believe that gravity has been discredited. I'm still damnably a believer in gravitation and in gravitational force. (And no, I don't jump off cliffs.)

Last edited:
Aaron Guerami forgot to mention that the Earth is an approximately flat circular disc with Europe in the middle & there is a comic imperative that objects denser than air must fall down to the earth.

BTW: west Africa hangs over the edge of the disc at right angles to the disc. Object fall toward west Africa in a direction perpendicular to the paths of object falling to other parts of the Earth.

You must be careful to avoid falling off the edge of the flat Earth disc. Nobody has ever returned from such a fall to tell about where you fall to.

Status
Not open for further replies.