There is no Gravity Without First Assuming Gravity to Prove it, Which is Circular Nonsense
Gravity: The Theory That Has Never Been Proven
Exposition on Gravity by Ross Thatcher and Myself
There is no Gravity Without First Assuming Gravity to Prove it, Which is Circular Nonsense
Putting it ironically and rather paradoxically, there is no Gravity without Gravity. In other words, Gravity is first put forth as an assumed variable to explain physical behavior, and secondarily prove its existence by virtue of the first assumption and its underlying assertion that Gravity is the only interpretation and explanation of what is observed. Its circular conundrum.
To illustrate, without pressure, every molecule seeks to expand into the void. In a glass of water, every molecule seeks to fill every available space of the glass, but stops at its own surface because it’s under pressure. If you put this same glass into a vacuum chamber and extracted all the air, creating zero pressure, the water instantly begins to boil and return to its gaseous nature, or state of existence. It can only remain liquid water because there’s pressure. We cannot assume any fluctuations are attributed to Gravity because the vacuum chamber is still in the exact same “Gravity” as before. Let’s say you held a ball-bearing on the roof of the chamber with a strong magnet, and after the water had all boiled and the gas was sucked out by the force of a vacuum pump, if you remove the magnet, the ball-bearing simply drops, thereby demonstrating that there is no change in Gravity, only pressure.
The Nature of My Argument:
The argument I have laid out is a classic form of skepticism toward the concept of Gravity: that it is introduced as an unexplained primitive, then used to explain the very phenomena that were used to motivate it, creating a closed loop. The vacuum-chamber illustration is meant to drive the point home by separating and isolating pressure effects as an independent variable from whatever is left when pressure is removed.
What the Vacuum Experiment Actually Shows:
· Liquid water remains liquid at room temperature only because the external pressure keeps its vapor pressure from driving a phase change. Remove that pressure and the water boils; that is ordinary thermodynamics (Clausius–Clapeyron relation), not a gravitational phenomenon.
· The ball-bearing still falls once the magnet is removed. That observation is independent of the air that was pumped out. The chamber, the bearing, and the floor are still in the same non-gravitational field that existed before the vacuum was created. Pressure and Gravity are orthogonal quantities, completely independent, separate, or unrelated; changing one does not change the other, and so vacuum pressure tests simply do not demonstrate any gravitationally caused downward vector unless one artificially superimposes such a force onto the experiment via experimental bias.
So the experiment cleanly demonstrates that the tendency of the bearing to accelerate toward the Earth is not an atmospheric-pressure effect. It also highlights that any assumed residual gravitational acceleration is merely an assumption.
The Residual Philosophical Point:
It is true that Gravity ultimately labels a regularity we have not reduced to something more primitive. In that limited sense, every fundamental interaction is “assumed.” The difference between a useful fundamental assumption and a circular one is the density of independent constraints and the existence of surplus predictive power. Gravity does not satisfy those criteria at a level frequently seen in other concepts in physics, such as density, pressure, and thermodynamics.
The water-and-bearing demonstration usefully reminds us that pressure is a real and measurable variable, while Gravity remains a hypothetical and unproven force. It does not show that the residual acceleration is an empty postulate. The residual acceleration in the demonstration can be clearly correlated with pressure and vacuum states. We cannot assume any fluctuations are attributed to Gravity because the vacuum chamber is still in the exact same “Gravity” as before.
Therefore, we can clearly see that imaginary Gravity is powerless to act against a force of any vacuum, even where Gravity is supposed to be strongest. Liquid water is immune to imaginary Gravity and will react violently towards any outward drop in pressure, regardless of temperature. Hence, Gravity must be a myth. It’s powerless against tiny molecules where it’s allegedly strongest, yet magically strongest against them where it’s weakest.
Unless this assumed Gravity has already accumulated mass, it can’t exist. Yet, it can’t exist, until it’s accumulated mass. It is all a paradoxical and nonsensical, self-recursive feedback loop of illogical illusion.
In other words, in this gravitational model, Gravity is literally conferred to mass by virtue of its presence, while mass is literally imbued with gravitational attraction by virtue of its specific Gravity. As I have mentioned, it is a classic dog-chasing-its-tail, chicken-or-the-egg, self-recursive feedback loop of nonsensical paradox. In this model, there is no way to isolate nor determine which comes first, mass, or gravitational attraction. Together, they are not mutually exclusive variables, meaning that they are two events that happen simultaneously, and by extension, independently, with neither dependent upon the other, which completely contradicts Newton’s gravitational model, and therefore, nullifies both as mutually derivative events, thereby resulting in logical absurdities.
The Myth of Gravity and Newton’s Fictional Downward Force Vector in Terms of Gravity Versus Weightlessness: Newton’s Gravitational Model Refutes Itself
Often Heliocentrists confuse weightlessness with Gravity. They sometimes say, with respect to objects in orbit, “They are in free fall, and therefore Gravity is cancelled.”, which illustrates their lack of understanding of Newtonian Mechanics, for the concept of Gravity does not get cancelled in this model.
Heliocentrists are conflating two different situations:
1. Gravity, which is a derivation of acceleration, spherical symmetry, and static mass.
2. Weightlessness, which is a derivation of hypothetical acceleration, directional vectors, and falling mass.
According to The Heliocentric Model, there is a shared gravitational property to all matter, which accounts for what we call “the gravitational force”. Gravity is thought to be the result of an invisible, unconfirmed, theoretical particle known as The Quantum Graviton. When we consider the homogeneous summation of these collective molecular vectors, resulting in the spherical symmetry of Earth, all the horizontal components cancel out, resulting in an amalgamated downward force towards the center of The Earth. This is the erroneous model that we have been presented with by modern science.
In this erroneous model, the overall Spherical Symmetry of The Earth is an assumption that Heliocentrists operate beneath in order to derive various mathematical models concerning the way in which upward, and side to side gravitational vectors cancel out in a spherical model, resulting in the downward force called gravitational acceleration.
Flat Earthers Don’t Understand Gravity?:
In other words, in this gravitational model, Gravity is literally conferred to mass by virtue of its presence, while mass is literally imbued with gravitational attraction by virtue of its specific Gravity. It’s a classic dog-chasing-its-tail, chicken-or-the-egg, self-recursive feedback loop of nonsensical paradox. In this model, there is no way to isolate nor determine which comes first, mass, or gravitational attraction. Together, they are not mutually exclusive variables, meaning that they are two events that happen simultaneously, and by extension, independently, with neither dependent upon the other, which completely contradicts Newton’s gravitational model, and therefore, nullifies both as mutually derivative events, thereby resulting in logical absurdities.
Quantum Gravity and the Quantum Graviton
In order to escape the logical absurdities inherent within the “mass needs Gravity to exists/Gravity needs mass to exist” contingency paradox, Scientism Priests invented the idea of the Quantum Graviton in the hopes of imbuing within matter some modicum of gravitational attraction, independent of the independent of mass.
Since this idea of the Quantum Graviton does not mathematically correlate with the Cartesian world of Newtonian Gravitational Mechanics, with its necessity of mass-to-mass equivalence, they were forces to define their new gravitational explanation as an invisible, unquantifiable, unverifiable, non-material property, intrinsic to only an unseen quantum level. In this way, they could simply attribute gravitational properties to matter, independent of the size of the mass involved, which is how they were able to abandon Newton’s physical world of observable bodies and events.
In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity, an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitational interaction. There is no complete quantum field theory of gravitons due to an outstanding mathematical problem with renormalization in general relativity. In string theory, believed by some to be a consistent theory of quantum gravity, the graviton is a massless state of a fundamental string.
In theories of Quantum Gravity, the Graviton is supposed to be a hypothetical quantum of gravity, which is an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitational interaction between events. There is no complete quantum field theory of Gravitons due to an outstanding mathematical problem with renormalization in General Relativity. In string theory, believed by some to be a consistent Theory of Quantum Gravity, the Graviton is a massless state of a fundamental string.
The three other known forces of nature are mediated by elementary particles: electromagnetism by the photon, the strong interaction by gluons, and the weak interaction by the W and Z bosons. All three of these forces appear to be accurately described by the Standard Model of particle physics.
In the classical limit, a successful theory of Gravitons would reduce to General Relativity, which itself reduces to Newton’s Law of Gravitation in the weak-field limit, thereby demonstrating a kind of succession of gravitational models that Scientism Priests are forever trying to reconcile, but fail to do so. Ultimately, everything these Scientism Priests postulate is filled with so much conjecture, assumption, hypothesis, paradox, contradiction, and mathematical sleight -of-hand as to be intolerably obsolescent and sufficiently impractical for the task of predicting physical behaviors or explaining real events.
Lastly, even if the Graviton did exist, it would be expected to be massless because the gravitational force that they are attributing it to has a very long range, and appears to propagate at the speed of light. And so, in their insanely paradoxical model, a massless quantum entity is said to confer gravitational effects to mass, such that mass can arise as an epiphenomenal effect of gravitational attraction.
Got that?
Yeah, neither do they.
Meanwhile, Back in Newton’s Observable World
The acceleration of a falling object on Earth is 9.8 m/s/s. This value, known as “the acceleration of Gravity”, is the same for all falling objects regardless of how long they have been falling, or whether they were initially dropped from rest or thrown up into the air. Nevertheless, this variable, 9.8 m/s/s, does not literally or actually describe gravitational acceleration, but rather, it merely describes the rate at which objects fall. Extrapolating that this descriptive variable is connected to Gravity is the signature of those intoxicated with The Copernican Principle, and it is not anchored in empirical observation nor the scientific method.
Subsequently, although Newton’s mathematical descriptions do apply to falling bodies because the math “works”, this does not imply that the causal force behind Newton’s mathematics is necessarily Gravity. In other words, Newton’s math is descriptive, but not necessarily epistemologically antecedent to any directional causal vectors.
In fact, more empirically speaking, objects fall or rise due to the relationship, ratio, and dynamism between:
1. Object Density
2. The Index of Buoyancy of an Object
3. Dielectric Forces
4. Electrostatic Attraction
5. Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Magnetism
6. Electromagnetic Forces
7. Aerodynamic Resistance
8. Thermodynamic Exchange
9. The Result of an Object in a Particular Atmospheric Medium
10. The “Aetheric Wind” ( Luminiferous Aether)
At no point is Gravity necessary, advantageous, causal, or mechanically derivable in order to calculate and describe physical bodies in motion. Newton’s math describes physical behavior, not causal forces. All of Newton’s Laws of Motion, including the math behind them, work perfectly fine without complicating matters with the idea of a fictional force pulling objects towards the center of the Earth.
And so, Heliocentrists are confused concerning what Gravity is supposed to be versus what weightlessness is, which is a classic Heliocentric blunder.
My advice to Heliocentrists is to be a little less arrogant until they actually understand what they are talking about, and have a better grasp on physics, and in particular, vector, mass, and acceleration equations.
The Myth of Gravity available at Lulu Publishing:
Please tale me more.