All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

# Gravity Does Not Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Stonehe4rt
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 2/19/2016 Category: Science Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 3,247 times Debate No: 86939
Debate Rounds (5)

73 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
Kinda related to the topic but not, I also realized when thinking about an Electron being in two places at once and how this would work without gravity also fits my idea. Ok so I use the basic foundation of math and facts to show how things can work, for an Electron to be at two places at once it's Speed must be infinite. Knowing that speed equals distance divided by time, we must know that Time would equal 0 at any distance. Simply put: R=D/0 whatever the distance is, the speed will equal infinity hence already being there. This is how teleportion would theoretically work, same for how space time bends without gravity. Just an thought I got.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
Nah? What do you mean by that xD. I believe that I am putting out some very valid information that needs to be considered. I mean when you come down to it, What is gravity? It's nothing... You could even say... It doesn't exist? ;)
Posted by Jtp23 2 years ago
Lol nah
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
The definition that you google: "The force that which attracts toward the center of the Earth of any body that has mass" this Gravity is false. Even the gravity of in depth that we discussed is iffy, as you said we don't have the full picture, however I believe it is safe to assume we both know that the commonly believed Gravity is false.
Posted by Jtp23 2 years ago
Not false, just not the whole big picture.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
I would just like to state that gravity has no real explanation even after all of this and hence forth it is most likely false whilst my ideas stand.
Posted by Jtp23 2 years ago
You leave yourself open to having density being questioned as something that doesn't exist. It just keeps going with this logic. We are humans and didn't evolve to intuitively understand these concepts but we have evolved to the point where we can describe it mathematically.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
I understand Gravity isnt really a force, however I am stating that the reason why things work the way they do should not be described as Gravity. It is better to explain how it really could work, without just saying it does. They explain the Spacetime as curved and the like, I understand that and I am not saying it is wrong (However I will go back to it and try to test it logically as I do with everything I hear.) But lets assume that is 100% the truth and not wrong at all. It still doesn't explain the WHY things would "fall" towards the bend of spacetime. Nothing in science "Just is" there is a method and equation for EVERYTHING. Gravity is a "just is" kind of explanation, however I am not content with that, and I am trying to find the real reason and source behind why things "fall".
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
This also explains why Einstein came to the conclusion Acceleration and "Gravity" must have the same force. With my idea I explain how both of these are caused by the same force. It also explains why Density is so important to all of the Spacetime equations and gravitational pull as well as how fast something accelerates. Just as I said, the Gravity that is the "weakest force" does not exist.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
OK firstly I will address the video, this all applies under the circumstance of an object having accelerated inertia, However when an object is not moving by the same logic it shouldnt be pulled. As he was saying we have a line, a big object bends the line, a smaller object goes on the line but this time doesnt have any energy pushing towards the bend, would it not just stay on the line where it bended and not pull any closer? This is the flaw in what they are saying. If not, then why would an object with no inertia movement towards the bend move? Would it not just stay in its place at spacetime? When it entered the bend, it did not techincally "move" but it distorted in spacetime, however this does not explain why it would continue to pull towards the bend. We are yet again left with the question why do things fall? Why do things "fall" towards the bend in space time? I would answer this, with something that of course does not really have much credit as I just thought of it, but going with the same idea that Space Time is physical when something bends it automatically becomes less dense. Again going with my theory, it still all fits and explains why these do this. Not because of something like a graviton and all the commonly believed "gravity"
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.