The Instigator
Mulan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
fire_wings
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Gravity doesnt 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 6 votes the winner is...
fire_wings
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 689 times Debate No: 86361
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

Mulan

Pro

its not proven and the bible doesnt mention it
fire_wings

Con

I accept. My arguments will be in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Mulan

Pro

if gravity was created by 1600 by isaac then its false because god create world in year 0
fire_wings

Con

I do not thank my opponent for his argument. I will rebut his argument, and state mine.

Framework

I do not really need arguments or anything in this debate because it is a truth debate, and I have to win the debate because gravity does exist.

Definitions


Gravity: "Gravity is an always-attractive force that acts between particles of matter."

Rebuttal 1 for the arugment: "It is not proven and the bible doesn't mention it"

The Bible, is a religious text, for followers of Jesus, and believers in Christianity.
I believe that the Bible may or may not contain factual evidence. For example, Jesus died, and came back to life. It is true in Christianity, but not in nature. Also think about it. The Bible says that the world was created in 6 days. Was it? I don't think so.

Rebuttal 2: "If gravity was created by 1600 by isaac then its false because god create world in year 0"


This argument is wrong for many reasons.

First of all, gravity was not created by issac. It was discovered by Newton. Also he says it is false because god create world in year 0. This is false also because there was something called BC.


Argument 1: Newton says gravity exists


"Supposedly, the above question occured to Newton when he saw an apple falling from a tree. John Conduitt, Newton's assistant at the royal mint and husband of Newton's niece, had this to say about the event when he wrote about Newton's life:


      In the year 1666 he retired again from Cambridge ... to his mother in Lincolnshire & while he was musing in a garden it came into his thought that the power of gravity (which brought an apple from a tree to the ground) was not limited to a certain distance from earth, but that this power must extend much further than was usually thought. Why not as high as the Moon thought he to himself & that if so, that must influence her motion & perhaps retain her in her orbit, whereupon he fell a-calculating what would be the effect of that superposition...
If it was the same force, then a connection would exist between the way objects fell and the motion of the Moon around Earth, that is, its distance and orbital period. The orbital period we know--it is the lunar month, corrected for the motion of the Earth around the Sun, which also affects the length of time between one "new moon" and the next. The distance was first estimated in ancient Greece--see hereand here.

To calculate the force of gravity on the Moon, one must also know how much weaker it was at the Moon's distance. Newton showed that if gravity at a distance R was proportional to 1/R2 (varied like the "inverse square of the distance"), then indeed the acceleration g measured at the Earth's surface would correctly predict the orbital period T of the Moon.

Newton went further and proposed that gravity was a "universal" force, and that the Sun's gravity was what held planets in their orbits. He was then able to show that Kepler's laws were a natural consequence of the "inverse squares law" and today all calculations of the orbits of planets and satellites follow in his footsteps.

Nowadays students who derive Kepler's laws from the "inverse-square law" use differential calculus, a mathematical tool in whose creation Newton had a large share. Interestingly, however, the proof which Newton published did not use calculus, but relied on intricate properties of ellipses and other conic sections. Richard Feynman, Nobel-prize winning maverick physicist, rederived such a proof (as have some distinguished predecessors); see reference at the end of the section.

Here we will retrace the calculation, which linked the gravity observed on Earth with the Moon's motion across the sky, two seemingly unrelated observations. If you want to check the calculation, a hand-held calculator is helpful."

So, Gravity Exists.


Calculating the Moon's motion.

We assume that the Moon's orbit is a circle, and that the Earth's pull is always directed toward's the Earth's center. Let RE be the average radius of the Earth (first estimated by Erathosthenes)

RE= 6 371 km

The distance R to the Moon is then about 60 RE. If a mass m on Earth is pulled by a force mg, and if Newton's "inverse square law" holds, then the pull on the same mass at the Moon's distance would be 602 = 3600 times weaker and would equal

mg/3600

If m is the mass of the Moon, that is the force which keeps the Moon in its orbit. If the Moon's orbit is a circle, since R = 60 RE its length is

2 π R = 120 π RE

Suppose the time required for one orbit is T seconds. The velocity v of the motion is then

v = distance/time = 120 π RE/T

(Please note: gravity is not what gives the Moon its velocity. Whatever velocity the Moon has was probably acquired when it was created. But gravity prevents the Moon from running away, and confines it to some orbit.)

The centripetal force holding the Moon in its orbit must therefore equal

mv2/R = mv2/(60 RE)

and if the Earth's gravity provides that force, then

mg/3600 = mv2/(60 RE)

dividing both sides by m and then multiplying by 60 simplifies things to

g/60 = v2/RE = (120 π RE)2/(T2 RE)

Canceling one factor of RE , multiplying both sides by 60 T2 and dividing them by g leaves

T2 = (864 000 π2 RE)/g = 864 000 RE2/g)

Providentially, in the units we use g ~ 9.81 is very close to π2 ~ 9.87, so that the term in parentheses is close to 1 and may be dropped. That leaves (the two parentheses are multiplied)

T2 = (864 000) (6 371 000)

With a hand held calculator, it is easy to find the square roots of the two terms. We get (to 4-figure accuracy)

864 000 = (929.5)2 6 371 000 = (2524)2

Then

T ≅ (929.5) (2524) = 2 346 058 seconds

To get T in days we divide by 86400, the number of seconds in a day, to get

T = 27.153 days

pretty close to the accepted value

T = 27.3217 days"

Conclusion

I have proven scientfic evidence that gravity does exit. Vote for Con.

Debate Round No. 2
fire_wings

Con

My opponent says that I am wrong. He does not tell me how and why I am wrong when he has the burden of proof. He does not even rebut my arguments. I showed scientfic evidence. Vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: JOHNCENA1738// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro is a troll, instant win for fire_wings

[*Reason for non-removal*] Troll debates are not moderated.
************************************************************************
Posted by Linkstart 9 months ago
Linkstart
Con of course
Posted by JOHNCENA1738 9 months ago
JOHNCENA1738
The lack of knowledge from pro, rubs me the wrong way.
Posted by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
It's unclear who has the burden in this debate- at first glance, it seems like it's Pro's burden because the res is an affirmative fact claim. But it's usage of "does not" suggests a different burden, since Pro's argument says it isn't proven. Regardless, Pro -- as the instigator -- has an obligation to draft proper resolutions. On that basis, I hold that Pro has the burden which they didn't fulfill outside of asserting a lack of evidence. Con didn't have much of an argument either -- all their cards merely talk about gravity without actually affirming it's existence. If the BoP were shared, the debate would be tied. But Pro has insufficient arguments to prove the res as true, since all Pro argues is that there's no evidence for gravity and the Bible doesn't mention it. The former is something I could weigh, but that seems like defense because Pro doesn't substantiate their shifting of the burden. The latter is just nonsense due to lack of justification/further expansion to the point.

Vote Con
Posted by Mafuba 9 months ago
Mafuba
Pro is trolling. Con wins
Posted by fire_wings 10 months ago
fire_wings
oops it is issac. I thought he said picasso.
Posted by fire_wings 10 months ago
fire_wings
@Reformist, you are so correct.
Posted by vi_spex 10 months ago
vi_spex
gravity=up+down
Posted by willchallis 10 months ago
willchallis
The Bible does not mention gravity as the force of gravity was discovered by Isaac Newton in the late 1600s. The collection of verses and stories in the Bible date back thousands of years ago, and were not written by God. There is no correlation between the discovery of gravity and the Bible.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
Mulanfire_wingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never used any punctuation, didn't capitalize, spelled "You are" it, so s and g to Con.
Vote Placed by Bob13 9 months ago
Bob13
Mulanfire_wingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con easily disproved Pro's arguments by saying that the Bible does not have to mention something for it to be true and gravity was discovered, not created, by Newton. Con quotes Newton's proof of gravity, but Pro only responds with "ur wrong", a statement that is not only has incorrect spelling and grammar but also is an insufficient rebuttal. The winner couldn't be more obvious.
Vote Placed by CapAhab 9 months ago
CapAhab
Mulanfire_wingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better argument and shows that gravity exists.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 9 months ago
kkjnay
Mulanfire_wingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gives a wonkish, but sufficient argument. Burden of proof is on Pro, so Con wins.
Vote Placed by JOHNCENA1738 9 months ago
JOHNCENA1738
Mulanfire_wingsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is a troll, instant win for fire_wings
Vote Placed by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
Mulanfire_wingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments