The Instigator
Stonehe4rt
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
peace_out_man
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gravity Does Not Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,321 times Debate No: 86939
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (73)
Votes (3)

 

Stonehe4rt

Pro

Okay, I will be putting forth that Gravity does not exist. Pro will have to offer proof of Gravity and examples, While I will offer proof of gravity not being the reason things stay down and examples.

First Rounds will just be confirmation of our stances like I have done so.

Second Round is where we will offer our Debate with our evidence.

Third Round we will refute and attempt to debunk the other.

Fourth Round will be Extra Evidence, can just be thoughts, logic, questions ect.

Fifth will be conclusions where we try to answer the final questions and give our final line.

I wish my opponent their best and good luck! :)
peace_out_man

Con

This is a pretty nice debate, I have pondered for hours on whether gravity exists and have come to one conclusion that there is undeniably does.

I agree to the debate layout and I hope your argument will really change my mind.

If there isn't anything else, let's get this debate going.
Debate Round No. 1
Stonehe4rt

Pro

I purpose to you, something most forget about: Buoyancy. This is the true factor why things fall and rise.

Firstly Buoyancy is not limited to water, there is a such thing as Air Buoyancy. Such as helium rising above our normal air. Air layers, from densest to sparsest. The denser the lower. This is also the reason why when we jump we fall. We sink in air. This is also the reason Helium rises against the so called gravity. In fact its why so many gases we see everyday rise. With normal Gravity we would expect it to affect everything. This is required for the theory of Gravity. This is the reason why everything on Earth stays on Earth or so we are told.

What is Weight? It is known as the pull gravity has on a object. Well if gravity effects everything then why does it effect some things more than others? These are definite problems with gravity as well as the fact everything has gravity. If this was the case then why does everything not have a slight pull towards one another? If I drop a pencil right below my table should it not be effected ever so slightly by the gravity of the table and hence forth fall slower than it would away from the table? Buoyancy solves this problem. You see the fall of an object is not determined by something like gravity but instead how dense it is. This is why everything has a set weight, we have set densities. The only time this is changed is through state change. Which weight is also changed. of course if you took all the atoms back together you would get the same weight hence no matter being lost. However just like wood floats on water, helium in a balloon floats above the air as far as it can go. Then it stops.

Gravity supposedly has the strength to keep the moon in orbit, keep the oceans from being pulled off by the pull of the moon but just little enough strength keep us on the ground without pulling us into the ground. But not enough to keep smoke from rising? This is all solved through Buoyancy. The Smoke rising due to being sparser than air, but we fall due to being denser than air. Isaac came up with gravity from an apple falling, however if a smoke had risen infront of him instead we would have a completely different theory. Or how about the fact that a Hammer falls faster than a leaf? In a void supposedly the would fall at the same rate but because of air friction this interferes or so we are told. However the truth is that the hammer is denser than the leaf and hence pushed down faster by the air as the air wants to take up the higher place. The same happens with the leaf but since the leaf is less dense it is pushed down slower.

In Space, there are still clusters of dust clouds that travel together but for some reason do not form into a ball like theorized for the Big Bang and how Planets formed. If that was the case then why is there any dust still floating about? Why are they not all big balls of rock? Why is the Asteroid Belt not pulling together into one big rock? Or atleast a big wall. In gravity everything pulls each other, and as it gets closer it pulls harder meaning it should be an exponential speed of the Asteriod Belt joining together. And with that its masses double, this would double its Gravitation force and affecting the whole solar system. Some may say this would take thousands of years, however Gravity is set at a current acceleration that never stops. It pulls us all the same speed when we jump supposedly. However at that rate the dust and rocks would pull together at extreme rates since when pulled by gravity without stop you will fall at around 150 miles (plus wind pressure so it would even be faster) an hour. Times that by 14 billion years (times of the universe), and you get that there should be no Asteroid Belt but instead another Giant Planet!!! The reason why the planets do not "fall" in space is due to the fact there is no buoyancy effect, just like on Earth when you put wood in water the buoyancy of Air pushing down and Water pushing up cancel out leaving zero buoyancy. The planets in space are at their true density layer, hence do not need to rise or fall. Now it would come to why is the Earth revolve around the Sun? This is where the ideas for Gravity and Buoyancy merge. The hypothetical reason why gravity increases with proximity is due to the idea of a particle called the graviton. The theory is that as two object move closer to each other the graviton density lowers hence the tow objects are pushed faster together. I say it is not a "graviton" that became less dense, but Space itself that became less dense! As the two objects got closer the "space" moved out from inbetween and around the two objects pushing them to fill the void. This increases exponentially as two objects get closer giving us the illusion of gravity. This is also why the Earth rotates around the Sun, because the distance between the two remains the same hence the pull remains the same, but the centrifugal force of the spin twist the Space causing the distance to increase while pulling at the same rate. Leading into a paradox of the Earth staying the same distance but revolving around. Same principle applies to the Moon and every other planet. This is why to this day we have not found any such graviton particle. A research group called CERN say they MIGHT have found something like a graviton however I do not believe they will find such a thing. As it would be illogical for a particle to somehow have the ability to pull everything in existence but instead it would be logical for everything in existence to have the power to move itself.

How come there is no small scale examples of Gravity? You cannot take anything on earth and show it has gravity. Why don't two extremely dense objects an inch apart pull each other till they were touching, the reason this does not happen is due to Air. The Air fills the density gap of the space resulting in the objects not being pushed together. If it was gravity then every rock that has been on Earth for the millions of years Earth has been around should be a perfect sphere. Wouldn't a rock be pulling the less massful object such as air around it? Every rock on earth should be pulling air to it. Yet air resist? You see Gravity does not have a single example on Earth. But Buoyancy can be tested every day and in every way without failure. You can even use it to find the true mass of an object because it somehow adds just the right pressure to cancel out the gravitational force. However it was never gravitational force pushing down, this is the reason buoyancy can exactly cancel the outside forces because it is the same force pushing against each other. The Air is pushing the wood down while the water is pushing the wood up, This cancels perfectly and the wood moves to its perfect density layer. If buoyancy was fighting against the gravity it too would be affected by the gravity. Since Buoyancy is the movement of denser objects downward and sparser objects upwards. It is the movement of layering. So if there was always a downward force the data would be obscured. Plus if there was gravity we should feel it every day. The closer I get to an object the more it should pull me and the more I should pull it! Gravity is known as the weakest force however we can only see possible examples at the largest scale stronger than any other force. But for some reason there is nothing one Earth that can show gravity as an example. The best we get is magnetism which we can test two objects pulling together or pushing. However not everything has magnetism so that is not an option.

Speaking of things not being an option. Due to the Scientific Method when something is found to go against a theory the theory must be discarded. However Gravity for some reason has not been discarded. Even though there is no evidence of Gravity on all Earth that Buoyancy cannot explain as well as the fact that some objects just dont seem to have any gravitational pull. Also until Buoyancy has been shown to have fault it will remain as truth, while Gravity is false.

Sources:
http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu...
By definition Buoyancy is the ability or tendency to float in water or air or some other fluid. Combine this with the fact dense objects go below less dense objects and everything fits. I am also expanding the idea of Buoyancy to also encompass the vacuum of Space. It may sound like a crazy idea however so would gravity when it first came out. The idea every object is bending space time (Again just another theory of gravity, honestly gravity has very little facts about it.) is crazy.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Buoyancy is proven everyday of every second. Smoke rises, Rain falls from the clouds when they densify, solids sink, ect... Buoyancy is fact, Gravity is theory (A flawed one.)
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://examples.yourdictionary.com... Everything on this site about gravity is better and more clearly explained by Buoyancy and Density.
http://idahoptv.org... Everything on this site is also better explained by Buoyancy and Density.
http://www.universetoday.com... Here everything can also be explained by yet again. Buoyancy and Density. They even say and I quote: "So, what is gravity and where does it come from? To be honest, we"re not entirely sure." This whole article was posted by the NASA AMBASSADOR So it is for sure credible information. However I can explain what has been so unsure for so long with Buoyancy and Density!

My info (disregarding the Wiki pedi, but what i got from there should be basic info, like what Buoyancy is and how it works from what we have studied.) is all from credible sources.

I turn the debate over to Con, and hope the best. Can you show me that the theory of Gravity is more probable than the fact of Buoyancy?
peace_out_man

Con

First, go into space, not orbit, above the atmosphere, spinning along with the earth to the earth so that if you were to drop something it would fall straight down. Now drop that apple and drop that smoke too, they all would fall, straight down, so yes, buoyancy does have a factor on how thing move on the surface of the earth, but it does not disprove gravity at all.

Second, dust clouds like the Oort cloud, don't turn into big balls of rock because many of the asteroids there are many, many miles apart. Apart from that, the beginning of our solar system began with huge clouds of rock forming into planets, the only thing that differs that from the asteroid belt is that the asteroid has reached a fairly calm state and if you were to look at the belt, you would see very little chaos, but only a lot of rocks moving at the same speed as one another. Also these rocks are a lot smaller than Pluto, which is smaller than the moon, which has a weak force already.

Third, I find it silly to argue about a complex physics subject with 2 people who don't know physics, but I'll keep going.

Fourth, how does earth have buoyancy in empty space? This empty space compression thing doesn't make sense, elaborate.

Fifth, there are small scale examples of gravity, it's called a black hole. these gucci black abysses infinitely dense, meaning black holes should break about everything, the fact that all the stars absorbed by the black hole are not sitting on top of the singularity poses a problem, although it still poses a problem with gravity, it still shows that buoyancy has nothing to do with it.

Sixth, Light, how could a particle without mass ever be attracte by psudo gravity? shouldn't it be travelling in a straight line forever? There is considerable proof that light does bend thanks to gravity.

Seventh, my pen and my hair do have an attraction towards each other, it's just so small it doesn't have a noticeable force, gravity isn't size related, it's weight related. If the sun was the weight of the earth... it would probably explode. But if it didn't, it would behave exactly as the earth does, and if my pen was the weight of the earth, it might turn into a black hole, but if it doesn't it will behave exactly the same. Completely different densities, exact same behavior.

Eighth, the reason air isn't falling up thanks to gravity is because gravity gets weak fast, really fast, so fast that the summed up gravity of the entire universe cannot affect th earth on a great scale.

Ninth, buoyancy is affected by gravity, it's just that the force pushing it up is greater than the force pushing it down, if buoyancy was uninhibited than water could balance on milk quite easily, they don't because their densities are so similar that the milk trying to push the water up is restrained by gravity, it will seperate, but it will take a lot longer than without gravity.

10th, like I said gravity is weight related, not size or density related, which is my my light lamp and my light door don't go flying towards eachother.

You're pretty convincing for someone spewing (most likely) lies, but learn some physics and I promise you won't be able to piece together such a system.

Go on, convince me, tell me how a massless, densityless object is attracted by something.
Debate Round No. 2
Stonehe4rt

Pro

That was good. Alright I shall now do my best to debunk what Pro has stated.

Firstly, In relation to light, it is incorrect to say it does not have mass. Now it is also wrong to say it does. Light under certain circumstances does appear to have an actual mass, like when put inside a box filled with mirrors. However when it is alone we have yet to find mass for it. There are many things to debate that Light does indeed have mass such as the formula E = mc^2 Energy equals mass times the speed of light to the power of two. So by saying this, and knowing Light has energy, Mass must be something above 0. Mathematically speaking. Of course this isn't the nail in the coffin to say Light does have mass. They call it relativistic mass. Or Nonzero mass.

Secondly, Buoyancy has to do with the density of things, not about how much of the object there is. Now Light may or may not have mass, but it does have energy density. Going by my Buoyancy theory, Light should bend and move according to the energy that it passes through. Which is exactly the case! This is how mirages work, Light bends and refracts due to the hot air being more dispersed while is bends even more so with cold air which is much more dense. By definition Refraction is the bending of light through different mediums of density. This is why in space Light still bends, not because of gravitational pulls!

Thirdly, This is where Optical Density comes in. Optical Density is what I understand as, how tight the atoms are together and how they can maintain and control the energy passing through them. Like in a solid the atoms are close together and are vibrating, Optical Density is how much room and ability do they have to vibrate. This can be tested with any object you so desire, just shine some light on the situation ;) This shows what is the true force of bending light.

Fourthly, Let us go directly into Space! The Optical Density of a vacuum is 1.000000. Yes it indeed has optical density. This is why Light can bend in an absolute vacuum such as space! We also know that frequencies and energy is present in the vacuum of Space, we use these frequencies to study the Big Bang and such. Where there is energy there will be energy density! This is how Buoyancy remains true even in Outer Space. The layering of densities.

Fifthly , To go further in depth with how Space moves and pushes objects. As we have seen Space the vacuum does indeed have a form of density. Combine this with the fact that Space is often theorized to be Physical. Hence the term Physical Space. Space is also theorized to be a key factor in the making of our dimension. So since Space does indeed have a density, it would be affected by the effects of buoyancy! So I shall describe what I have said in what I hope is more clear. When a object moves, whether in space or not, The object takes the position of the "Area" that was once there. That Area then is pushed around the object taking the previous position of the object. This is how things move and are affected by movement. This can be demonstrated with water. Move your hand while underwater and the water will go behind your hand taking the place your hand once was also creating a current, just like how we see the movement of things pulls others.

Sixth, You perfectly prove my point when you come to Black Holes. They are infinitely DENSE! As you said, it poses a problem with Gravity but you it actually does not pose a problem with Buoyancy! The Black Hole which is infinitely Dense automatically attempts to go below everything less dense that it. This two things, One the Black Hole forming into extreme density leaves the surrounding area extremely lacking in density, this causes all things less dense then the area to charge towards the black hole. The black hole is also extremely dense hence trying to go beneath everything sucked towards ti. This is where Gravity and Buoyancy agree, but buoyancy then explains why objects are sucked in and destroyed. You see since there is a Low Density on the outside of the Black Hole everything will go toward the Black Hole, but since the Black hole is much more Dense than the objects, It will attempt to go underneath them. Be crushed by the absolute Density and Absolute lack of density from both sides would destroy the objects. This is one way Buoyancy can explain the Black Hole phenomena that Gravity cannot. How do Black Holes form if not for Gravity. Well density is the answer. Just like a Primordial Black Hole which is the size of an atom but with the density of a Mountain. Buoyancy explains why this sucks everything in and destroys things. The Idea for Gravity is a mistaken form of Buoyancy, Gravity is an incomplete force, the Full version is Buoyancy. Every time it talks about something have more Gravity it talks about the density of the object, well the same logic applies to Buoyancy, however we can test Buoyancy and prove it everyday.

Seventh, Your pen and hair have an attraction that just isnt noticeable? However no matter how small the attraction is, we should be able to find a slight change in gravitational pull. Like when I drop my pencil a centimeter away from a wall. The Wall should pull the pencil ever so slightly, even if it isnt visible to the eye, however when tested, the pencil will fall the same way no matter where it is dropped.

Eighth, Some air does fall up. However if Gravity was the reason why air stayed on Earth, but it gets weak fast (your own words) and even weaker the farther you are then how come it effects Air in the atmosphere the same way it does down here? Should we not see a distinct difference in gravitational pull? Or how about when I jump, there should be an extremely small change in my weight and the pull that Earth has on me. But the way I see it, the farther things are the Earth seems to be pulling stronger? This would be inconsistent with Gravity, because of how hard the Earth pulls the Moon is so much stronger than the amount pulled on us. (Remember the Moon is 30 some Earth Diameters away! Earth is 4 times bigger than the Moon. So that is 120 moons away!) Going by this logic I should be able to efficiently pull something 120 sizes of me away with considerable force. As everything Math can scale down, If there was something 4 times bigger than me 120(Units of me) times far from me I should still be able to pull it. Because the Moon does the same and manages to pull our entire oceans!!! (70% of the Earth!) That is pulling more than itself! However with Buoyancy this is all solved! As the Moon comes closer the density of space lessens, this causes everything on Earth to edge towards the lesser dense area creating the bulge of the Earth and High Tides and Low Tides.

Ninth, Remember I am going under the assumption Gravity does not exist, hence I will show you ways Buoyancy works without Gravity. We all know that buoyancy would still exist without Gravity. However if Buoyancy was pushing up stronger than the push down of Gravity the data would still be obscured as the Buoyancy factor would be adding to the mass of the object, Just like Light in a box. However if there was no Gravity, and you had Buoyancy pushing down and Buoyancy pushing up, one would not be stronger than the other, leaving you with a perfect cancel out and giving us the true mass of an object. If Gravity did exist than we would have to find the mass of an object in water and then subtract the buoyancy affect. But that is not what we do. As for the Milk and Water, yes their buoyancy is greatly similar, but you have to add in the force of pouring the water into the glass, the water being pushed down due to being heavier than air. The water will also take some air with it, causing the glass of milk and water to be a glass of milk, water and air. The Air automatically rises to the top due to buoyancy, The water is pushed down by the air until the air rises out of the glass so the water can finally rise. Not because of any gravitational force. As you said Buoyancy would be stronger than Gravity (if it existed) then that is without a doubt proof that buoyancy would effect the true mass of objects by pushing upwards against it. In order to find the variable you must due the same to both sides. And by trying to find the x-intercept of this we would have to set it to equal zero. Example: Lets say the forces equal 5 for the sake of it. X + 5 = 5, We must find the true mass of X, it is being pushed on by forces that equal five. So we must subtract 5 from both sides, An equal amount of force must be taken from both sides. However if Gravity is weaker then Buoyancy then you would not get the objects true mass. You would have X + 5 = 4 which would mean X = -1. Doesnt work. This is why it requires the same force to push down as it does to push up. For balanced math.

10th, I already spoken of what Weight can really be in Buoyancy and not gravity. It is the force that is applied to an object based on its density to move into a new layer.

Also I dont think its silly to debate this, its fun! Plus I am not lying about my information. I may not have physics courses but I do have a mind that can research.

Sources:
http://www.universetoday.com...
http://www.district196.org...
http://www.physicsclassroom.com...
http://www.nasa.gov...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.desy.de...

4 of these I know are 100% known as credible, like NASA, Physicsclassroom, Universetoday is a journalist site, all credible. Of course the Wiki's could be iffy, sine they are indeed Wiki but I only used them for definitions.
peace_out_man

Con

peace_out_man forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Stonehe4rt

Pro

As my opponent has forfeited his refusals I will just continue with some extra knowledge and facts that cannot be explained through Gravity but are yet explained by what I have proposed.

Firstly: Explain how Gravity pulls things. Not what the constant of the gravitational force is, not the math that shows the bigger the object the more gravity it has, but explain why exactly Gravity pulls things.

Secondly, Gravity is not even a real force if you follow the General Relativity theory, this states that Gravity is the bending of spacetime around an object. So this would also mean the closer you get to an object the more time begins to bend, however even if space was to bend, this does not explain a constant pull. Again why is gravity always pulling?
Quote from UCSB Science: "Gravity is a force between two objects with mass. It pulls things together. You have mass, and the Earth has mass, so gravity tries to pull you and the Earth together. The gravitational force is much bigger for more massive objects. The Earth has a lot of mass, which is why it can hold you down. You can't feel the gravity attracting you to smaller objects, like your house or other people. That's because these things aren't anywhere near as massive as the entire Earth.
OK, so you know what gravity is. But how does it actually pull stuff together? Actually, scientists aren't sure. There is a theory that gravity is made up of little particles called gravitons, just like light is made up of little particles called photons. But we've never seen a graviton! So we're not actually sure they exist."
Blatantly there is no explanation. However what I have offered explains a How to why things go down or up. Following the Law of Conservation and Mass nothing can be destroyed nor created, hence when pushed it will have to go somewhere, that somewhere will be wherever there is enough room or less dense area because it has to fit somehow. This is why the least dense objects go above and the more dense objects go below. However Gravity as stated before has no explanation as to WHY it pulls us.
One person I have talked to tried to describe Gravity's pull by saying that the closer you get the steeper the space-time bends. However the flaw of this is that what would happen if you stayed still? If you didnt move closer to the steep, but just stayed still. There is no reason as to why Gravity would pull us. Hence by this logic anything that isnt getting closer to Earth would not be pulled. Like when we jump, we would be getting further from the bend of space time and this would actually make us appear farther from the Earth than we really were. But that is not what we see. Hence there is no reason to think Gravity exist if you can't explain why it pulls.

Thirdly, an Example of a contradiction in logic of believing in Gravity. I mean the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy was developed because no one could give an example or explanation of how to create or destroy an object that couldnt be explained by other means such state changes and objects becoming less dense or smaller, so why can we assume Gravity exist when you cannot give an accurate Example or Reason as to why it pulls? I have already explained how everything in the Solar System can work using what I have proposed, and given logical reason as to why it works, however there is no logical reason in believing that Gravity exist. So by the same logic that developed the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy we can assume that Gravity does not exist is also a law of physics.

Fourthly, Want me to explain General Relativity without Gravity? Time = Distance\Speed, Distance = Speed x Time. Speed = Distance\Time. A simple equation and fact anyone can test. This is why we see the past of stars, because the distance is so great and the speed light travels at, leaves us seeing a certain time of the Star from the past, nothing to do with Gravity. It is simple, set a destination, drive at a constant speed, and you can calculate the Time it will take. It has nothing to do with Gravity, if it did that would be apart of the equation.

Fifthly, Who am I to say that Gravity doesn't exist? I am just another person like you or Einstein. He was mostly self taught and his own theories were crazy as mine seem today, just as Copernicus sounded insane when hundreds of other popular scholars of his time disagreed and had the math for it, I also have the math but mine explains everything better. So yes, if you can except Copernicus and Einstein who questioned the famous and intelligent scientist of their day, then you can also believe in me.

Six, people may say Gravity pulls due to a "graviton" a particle never seen before and 100% theory. It is also described as a Non zero mass particle like Photon and thought to move at light speed. Think about that for a second. If Gravity can only effect things up to the point of Light Speed, then it should not be able to pull light. The force of light going one way and the pull of the graviton would cancel out and you should see light just floating there and not moving in any direction. In a sense you wouldnt see it because the light would never reach your eyes.

Seven, if you want to discredit my Energy Density theory, know that Gravition also depend on the energy density in vacuums. (Also apart of the theory of Gravitons is that they become less dense when two objects move closer and somehow pull more) This document has many things about Gravity and math, however I have shown why and how these can be explained otherwise.

Eight, Think about this for a second. It is a quote from PBS.Org: "So why hasn"t anyone found a graviton yet? The problem with searching for gravitons is that gravity is incredibly weak. For instance, the electromagnetic force between an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom is 1039 times larger than the gravitational force between the same two particles. Perhaps a more intuitive example is the behavior of a magnet and a paperclip. A magnet will hold a paperclip against the Earth"s gravity. Think about what that means. A little magnet, like the one that held your art to your parent"s refrigerator when you were a kid, pulls the paperclip upwards, while the gravity of an entire planet pulls downward, and the magnet wins" Look at the flaw in logic this statement reveals, On Earth where gravity should be soooooo much stronger than the pull it has on the Moon a single magnet can defy it. Meaning a single magnet has the strength to keep the moon in orbit? Or how about this fun fact, The Earth's gravity is 1\4 of its power once you reach 6,000 km. The moon is 384,400 KM from Earth. EARTH WOULD HAVE NEXT TO ZERO PULL ON THE MOON! So how does it stay in orbit if the current gravity on Earth is weaker than a common magnet? How does the Moon which is 4 times less the mass of Earth pulling the Earth's oceans from 384,400 km which not even the Earth has that kinda pull power. Yet they say it is Gravity pulling the moon all the time. The pull of a magnet is atleast 1039 times stronger than the Earth.... Yeah....

Ninth, You want to ask me how a magnet can defy the Buoyancy effect I have proposed? Simple, we all know that the denser the object the more magnetism required to pull it. It is a tug of war, can a magnet pull a metal cannon ball? No because the metal is so dense, however it can pull a paperclip because the metal is not dense. If it was up to gravity, Gravity would effect everything equally and the magnet should be able to pull Giant Metal structures because it is 1039 times stronger than the pull that is managing to keep the object down. A support for Gravity would be people saying that the metal is pulling the Earth too so that is why a magnet can't pull it, however that same pull should also pull towards the magnet meaning it would cancel out and you would just have gravity vs magnetism. Which Magnetism wins according to their own logic, they require gravity to be the weakest force. As you can see with my density proposal it all fits.

Tenth, I will also explain how Gravity the theory is a mistaken idea for fact. I have proposed to you all how Density and Buoyancy can fit in the world we live and explained how it would work. Gravity has no explanation for pull but when you search for information you find that they say Gravity and weight is increased by the amount of density, like Black Holes have the strongest pull because they are infinitely dense. However the density factor just adds more to my theory because I can explain why it being more dense effects other objects at it does, when Gravity cannot, it just states that dense things pull others.

Eleventh, I am kind of running low on things to think about as I have addressed every factor of gravity and shown how it can be proven otherwise. There are usually two different types of people who believe in Gravity. First Group thinks that Gravity goes on forever and affects everything, this is needed for the idea of gravity pulling the Moon or why it doesnt get easier to go through the atmosphere the higher you go, or the fact that air at the upper part of our atmosphere doesnt just zoom off of Earth. Second Group think that gravity is limited and only goes so far, this is needed to explain why in Space there is no gravitional pull towards Earth, or why the Asteroid Belt hasnt formed into a big massive ball as earlier discussed by Con. However these two needed ideas for Gravity are both contradictory in this Theory. However in my Buoyancy Theory and how Density affects what rises, falls, or moves side to side or diagonally, this all fits with Zero Contradictions.

Sources:
http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu...
http://www.pbs.org...
http://arxiv.org...
http://www.space.com...

That's all for now folks, Have a good one!
peace_out_man

Con

peace_out_man forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Stonehe4rt

Pro

Alrighty this will be my finale~

Let's go over what we know:

- Gravity is inconsistent at distances and strengths, and there is no explanation that solves this problem for gravity. Spacetime bending has been used to explain it, however the farther something is, the less the bend will have, but with our Earth not only would something like the Moon barely (if even) feel our spacetime bend, the Centrifugal force would overpower the gravity. Example: If you were standing with a rock tied to a rope, you picked up the end of the rope opposite of the rock and started spinning. Would the Rock have more energy and try to pull away more when it is close to you or far? The answer is Far. When an object is being spun, the farther it is the more energy it will obtain and pull away harder, this is centrifugal force. This is also why we dont go flying away because we are extremely close to the Earth meaning the centrifugal force is weaker. So why doesnt the moon (120 moon diameteres away) just go flying? There is no logical explanation given by Gravity.

- Gravity may be an abstract word, however when it comes down to it, Gravity does not have a real definition. Gravity should be how and why things fall, Correct? However the definition given is that objects pull other objects.... This is just a random statement that has no proof to do anything with supposed Gravity. In fact can anyone really answer what Gravity is? So far, no one has, henceforth a word without definition, Gravity is no more than gibberish.

- Gravity also has nothing to do with Spacetime bending. I will explain: As it is said, if you spin something with enough speed and depending on the distance and time between the spin then you can create your own "Gravity". That is NOT Gravity! I just showed you all the factors required for it. D = RT! Distance, Speed and Time is what causes Spacetime bending, not some imaginary force called Gravity that can't decide whether its an actual force or not.

- Gravity being compared to the Number 4 would be incorrect. Because 4 stands for something, it has a clear cut definition, process and meaning, it henceforth exist. Gravity does not have a proper definition, process or meaning. It is literally just gibberish used to explain what we dont know. Its like the Imaginary Number in Math. You say could say that its like saying that -3 + a negative number = 9. There is no negative number you could add to -3 to get a positive 9. -3 + -1 = -4 ect.... It will only get more negative. Hence they use a thing called Imaginary Number, which just throws all math logic out the window and say it works. Because that number represents something we dont know so it somehow achieves what we dont understand. People see something they cant truly explain, so they jump to "Gravity" like why an apple would fall from a tree. However I have already given better and more likely explanations to all of this, while Gravity has no explanation for it doesnt exist. A video I saw recently actually admitted this, and stated it was all spacetime bending. However spacetime bending has nothing to do with "Gravity". As by the crappy definition Gravity doesnt have anything to do with spacetime bends. However putting aside the crappy definition, we still can understand that spacetime bends on its own! "Gravity" is not a thing, in fact Gravity is better to be labeled a variable representing the equation: D = RT, because everything Gravity explains about Spacetime bends is already explained by that formula. One would ask what Mass and Weight has to do with the formula, but its all about conversions, The mass and weight and density, all point out the info for the formula. The distance between the atoms = Density, The Weight is the amount of force it is being pulled down = Rate. Mass is how many atoms it has, and really it just existing points out = Time. But even without the iffy Mass = Time, You can find the Time using the other two values of Distance and Rate. Bottom Line, Gravity does not exist, it is just a crappy explanation for phenomena we already have to explanation for.

- Gravity has one thing I didn't debunk yet. That is why do things "fall" towards the bend of Spacetime. As you can observe with light, or anything for that matter, Things become Less Dense when they Bend. Also this whole Spacetime bending is relying on Spacetime being something physical that can affect us physically, hence all the same logic should apply to it. And so my buoyancy idea of how things move due to density holds true.

- Gravity is false as we have seen. And a little cherry on top would be Con's own logic (Yes I know he has been forfeiting, but the argument he made I will make sure that every bit of it will be his lose.) He stated to me: "You're pretty convincing for someone spewing (most likely) lies, but learn some physics and I promise you won't be able to piece together such a system." I would like to turn this to him. If my Idea is wrong because that you think when I learn more physics that I won't be able to piece my idea together. Well how about all the people to this very day that studied Physics and CANNOT piece together Gravity correctly? Does that not mean by your own Logic that Gravity would be false? Also as the only person who used Sources, I do not find it logical to call me a liar, because I got my info from the very people trying to support Gravity, this just means that the info I got was not biased in my favor at all, but instead it was biased in the favor of Gravity existing. Yet as far as I know, I have debunked and offered an other solution for each thing Gravity was responsible for.

- Gravity. What is it? How does it work? Why does it pull? These are Gravity's "Greatest Mysteries". I hate to say it, but how can anyone accept this crap?! Everything about Gravity and what it is suppose to be is a mystery. Basically its a word we dont know what it means or does. AKA Gibberish. Shouldnt even be considered, Gravity does not Exist.

Sources:
-https://www.youtube.com...
-https://www.youtube.com...
Along with the other sources given from my other rounds.

As you can see, Gravity does NOT exist!
I have shown numerous amounts of proven facts of the simplest level that we all can test that can easily explain what Gravity cannot. My Ideas fixed every hole that I know of in the Theory of Gravity. Gravity has explained nothing. In fact it went against more laws logically speaking then it supported. Video's presented by someone who supports Gravity showed how Einsteins THEORY was more correct than Newtons LAW. Base line: Don't let anyone limit Science with "Laws" We are to question everything and learn everything, even when there seems to be no hope. However even Einsteins theory is incorrect, He states that Gravity is equal to the force of Acceleration. This contradicts that Gravity is the weakest force, which puts many more inconsistency in the theories of gravity. However what fixes his theory is that if both Acceleration and "Gravity" were actually the same force. Aka My Buoyancy theory, and Spacetime is a simple formula of D = RT.

Con has stated Gravity exist, however there is no proof to base this on. I have debunked every topic of Gravity I have heard from Con or others. Con forfeited after the Second Round and did not have anything to refute my information. I have used Sources and proven facts to prove that Gravity does not exist. At this point it seems crazy to believe in such a thing as "Gravity". Don't let others tell you what is fact and what isnt, if you can test it, and prove it then it is indeed true. Hence the Scientific Method.

Vote Pro!
peace_out_man

Con

peace_out_man forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
73 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 9 months ago
Stonehe4rt
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 9 months ago
Stonehe4rt
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 9 months ago
Jtp23
Lol nah
Posted by Stonehe4rt 9 months ago
Stonehe4rt
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 9 months ago
Jtp23
Not false, just not the whole big picture.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 9 months ago
Stonehe4rt
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 9 months ago
Jtp23
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 9 months ago
Stonehe4rt
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 9 months ago
Stonehe4rt
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 9 months ago
Stonehe4rt
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.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
Stonehe4rtpeace_out_manTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 9 months ago
fire_wings
Stonehe4rtpeace_out_manTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by JustAnotherFloridaGuy 9 months ago
JustAnotherFloridaGuy
Stonehe4rtpeace_out_manTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.