Gravity – Do You Really Know What It Is?

Many people laugh at Flat Earthers saying they don’t believe in Science. Almost without fail, the first example they’ll use is “Gravity”. So while a Flat Earth believer is talking they might pick up an object, look them in the eye and then drop it. As if the Flat Earther is going to slap himself in the head and say “Oooo of course that’s what I’ve been missing all this time.”

The reality is that …

Gravity is NOT the downward force of all objects traveling at a rate of 32 Ft./Sec.^2. No-No-No Gravity may be an explanation of why objects fall to the earth but it is NOT the actually motion itself.

If you really want to picture Gravity it would look like this …

The true picture of Gravity

What this is saying is that ANY two object are attracted to each other at a force that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. So if two masses get to close to each other they get sucked into each other. Good motivation for social distancing, Huh?!

By this “simple” equation the mass of all the “planets” (or wandering stars) are calculated according to their proposed speed and distance relative to the Sun (not the earth).

So you may ask how was this proven? Well that, to me, is what people really should be laughing at. Here’s how …

This is a much truer picture of Gravity. It’s an inconsistent, unreliable experiment by a charlatan to measure the mass of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and Starts.

The trouble with his apparatus is that it didn’t work. Notice that the article tells you that G was not “derived” until after his death. The experiment was not easily observable or repeatable. If you ask an experimental physicist to show you the proof of gravity you will not be shown the Cavendish Experiment. Instead he/she will probably pick up an object and drop it to the grown and say “there you are, there’s your proof of Gravity.”

Folks, that’s neither Gravity, or Science, that’s Circular Reasoning.

The fact is that there IS NO REPEATABLE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE THEORY OF GRAVITY. The number G they use was derived according to the proposed mass of the earth to make the model work with what we observe. But it does not prove the model.

Just thought you might what to know all that.

Thank you for reading my post