The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Nature can't pull

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 290 times Debate No: 81518
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I propose that nature can't pull. That the concept of pulling is a horse and buggy era concept of a horse pulling a buggy. It is assumed that gravity pulls us down and that the Earth pulls the Moon. These must be false concepts because they are illogical. I propose that the aether pushes us down onto the surface of the Earth.


For this argument I shall take the position against your statement. Now to save confusion I assume your concept is about the atmosphere pushing down on the object or being so that they stay on the large body or planet. Okay, based on that concept, In my opinion its totally nonsense to believe that is the sole reason of an object to stay on a planet is due the atmosphere or as you call it aether pushing down on it, respectively that is right to a point. Mercury, is the only planet in the solar system to not have an atmosphere yet its gravity is about the same as Mars or about a third of Earths of about 3.7m/p^2 so therefore, logically, the universal and more dominant reason an object is drawn to a large body or planet is due to gravity or more strictly speaking a body that's mass is large enough to draw other bodies towards it same vice versa. Not saying that the atmosphere doesn't push an object down which it does its effect isn't universal in all situations.
Debate Round No. 1


OK, so gravity is pulling us down. That is what you call logic?

1. If that is the case, can you describe the mechanism by which this occurs?

2. Where are the gripping hooks located which hold down the sky, trees, rocks, animals and humans?

3. Where are the wires, ropes or chains which secure these hooks?

Note - If there is no mechanism to describe your theory, then, I am afraid your theory is incorrect because my theory has a mechanism. Good luck!


I must confess it is possible for neither of us to be correct for that gravity is an extremely mysterious concept even today scholars and renowned researchers cannot yet understand the true mechanism behind such a force, perhaps it isn't force? We cant truly know for sure yet. Now for atmosphere to push down on us what if you built an underground bunker and there is no atmosphere to push down on say for example yourself and the only known effect is gravity. The whole solar system is drawn together by the sun (not limited to) so the suns atmosphere cannot possibly reach beyond Pluto surely. But you have a valid argument, I agree but not the most logical one I must confess.
Debate Round No. 2


According to Nobel Prize winner Brian Schmidt dark energy pushes, it doesn't pull. That is why the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. When matter is created it displaces space which tries to push back. Its like pushing a marble into jelly.

This fits in with my theory - that aether particles are pushed together to create energy and matter at the same time. That's where the sun gets it energy from. The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle which has 3 states - left spin (negative), right spin (positive) and no spin (black-hole attractor).


Very interesting argument, but it has flaws you see, the universe as we know it completely balanced, equal, etc. Including; energy, atoms, mass and everything in between. You cannot create either of these fundamentals nor can you destroy it. For your theory of the universe is expanding I agree it is true, but eventually the velocity of the expansion will decay to the point of gravity will cause everything to start imploding which the effect of gravity is ever-constant and universal no matter how far the universe has expanded. The universe will eventually undergo another big bang as we know it, and repeat the process.

Now back to your original statement which is gravity doesn't pull is not the real argument, the byproduct of mass and its effect on spacetime is that a vacuum like effect it has between bodies of mass. Nature or the universe or whatever term you may like to use likes to be balanced so for mass which in the perspective of spacetime is unnatural, so when it occurs that a mass appears on an area of spacetime the body of mass distorts it and the effect is relative to its mass proportionally. Spacetime therefore, likes to return to its original state kind of like a rubber band.

The mechanism you seek is actually regarded to be a theory no matter how it's perceived its laws and effects are yet to be truly examined by humans. But to my understanding gravity or aether to me works more favorable as a fluid, an analogy would be say: imagine a surface of water (spacetime/aether) and on the surface are buoyant objects (we are imagining this on a 2d plane since its too complex and unnecessary to imagine on more planes) now if we were to drop a object of any mass into this water then all the buoyant objects would get drawn/carried (whether its getting pulled or pushed cannot be explained) towards the centre of which the object had been dropped since the surface has been distorted. Now imagine this but in real situations it is almost inconceivable but we must make the most of what we can understand, all in all its a matter of which mechanism seems more logical and which follows the known laws our predecessors have set before us. I agree on some of your points but the mechanism I believe in is gravity and the aether acts as a wave and is ever-present coexisting with spacetime.

Taylor (1876)
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
>Reported vote: themightyindividual// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 2 points to Con (Conduct, S&G). Reasons for voting decision: While I do agree with Con that gravity is the force that keeps the planets in line, Pro made the best possible argument against facts. That is something that only the best lawyers in the world can do.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter isn't clear on what decided the outcome of the debate. If Pro disproved the idea that gravity keeps the planets in line, then the voter must state what arguments were persuasive in disproving that. (2) The voter doesn't explain conduct or S&G allocations.
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
99.999 percent of thoughts are second hand pass-me-downs, so its nothing to be ashamed of.
Posted by tempah 1 year ago
Difficult to define a winner no matter whos debating on this subject, it seems that we are both short of actual material evidence, since neither can produce evidence it seems the result is in the hands of researchers in the field, where they receive the real credit.
No votes have been placed for this debate.