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

gravity=weight+force of gravity

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 718 times Debate No: 79420
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




difference in the "density" or weight of matter is the force of gravity

a little feather falls more slow then a bowling ball

because there is down there is up, becasue if there isnt down the thing dosnt fall

when the force of gravity applies to an object, up is the cause of Down, when the force of gravity dosnt apply, Down is the cause of down

wind flow goes out at the top of my window, and comes in at the bottom



If Weight = force (of gravity) and this = gravity (acceleration) multiplied by mass then gravity cannot possible equal the force of weight (which is what weight is) plus itself, at all times. At very rare occasions, by coincidence, the acceleration of gravity at the time could equal double the weight but this is only possible if the mass is less than 1kg.

I'm now going to explain how, using units, the equation at the top is totally and utterly impossible.

1) Gravity is an acceleration. This means it is m/s^2, alternatively written as ms^-2
2) Weight is a force which is measured in Newtons outside of USA and in Pounds of force in USA. Newtons/pounds(of force) are measured in kg*m*s^-2 and this means the kg is a multiplied factor which is a unit in that.

If the unit is kilograms for weight/force but is not a unit in acceleration (which is what gravity is) the resolution is physically impossible but mathematically could be possible if it were not for the fact that w=mg.

The physics is outright obvious as to why the resolution is false, mathematically the resolution is only true for a select few combinations of values where the mass is less than 1kg or the planet is a place where gravity is less than 2ms^-2
Debate Round No. 1


weight dosnt necessarily accelerate.. weight means gravity, a stone in my hand is not accelerating

i cant make heads and tails of anything you have said so far..

your equations are useless for anything beyond measureing weight by the scientific weight scale, which is false, like a speedometer

i am talking gravity as it exists... you are asserting things, demonstrate how i am wrong


Weight does not accelerate because weight is acceleration multiplied by mass. Acceleration doesn't accelerate but the object that has weight does accelerate.

Weight does not mean gravity. Gravity is actually not real and is an illusion, the only reality of it is as an acceleration (on earth of 9.81ms^-2) not as a force.

Perhaps you are confused when you say that the stone is your hand is not moving because this disproves nothing. It merely means that the strength of the force coming back up from your hand is equal and opposite to it.

Gravity doesn't even exist, this is a fundamental thing you don't understand. Gravity is like magnetism or God, it is something some people use to explain what is a gap in our current observation of the physical universe. One day maybe we will find out what pulls things to each other and does to proportional to mass but until then, it will remain as the mystical thing we call 'gravity'.
Debate Round No. 2


a rock in my hand has weight, the problem with your equation is that basically everything else then the object you are measuring isnt gravity.. so if i hold a stone in my hand, according to your equation, it has no weight, its not accelerating

an object only accelerates if its up, up is the cause of down when gravity applies, unlike in outer space

use examples of the real please i cant make any sense of what you present.. and i am not pro

weight means gravity, because an object dosnt go down if there is no down, so an object going down goes through up to go down kind of, and down means weight, an object that dosnt go down isnt effected by gravity which means it has no weight.

im saying the stone in my hand, dosnt accelerate when its still in my hand, yet it has weight

lets not bring god into it and illusions.. clearly reality is real

i have considered magnetism, but i am not metal, and i stay on the ground


A rock in your hand does indeed have weight and gravity cannot be measured because it doesn't exist and is an illusion but the acceleration due to the supposed thing called 'gravity' can be and is measured.

An object accelerates no matter what because there is no up in the universe. your hand is attached to your body and you are using your weight to use minimal upward acceleration (w=mg) so the massive mass(m) advantage you have over the rock means you easily can resist its weight because your m makes up for its g (the g is not gravity itself but acceleration due to it). So both are having equal force up and down.

Weight DOES NOT mean gravity. Weight can be measured and has units, gravity can't and is used to justify acceleration to the core of objects (such as Earth) that otherwise could not be explained.

Reality is not necessarily real because only things within reality are real and reality is not in itself.
Debate Round No. 3


weight is gravity.. an object dosnt fall if there is no gravity.. then its weightless


if you fly close to outer space, you might experience weightlessness no up and down, no application of force of gravity so you have no weight

yet there is no acceleration and the rock has weight in my hand.. and what is the difference between the stone being in my hand or on the ground.. dosnt accelerate

the movement of my arm is not gravity.. gravity applies to my arm because i have weight

show me an example of gravity, without weight, you cant, because the force of gravity dosnt apply to an object that has no weight

if you throw a stone into the air, the stone must reach a point of 0 gravity application for it to come back down

reality is reality.. not not reality


Weight is not gravity, weight can be measured and gravity cannot.

You say that without gravity, an object is weightless and this is because if there is no gravity, the acceleration due to gravity is 0 and thus mass*acceleration (due to gravity) will always equal 0.

There is no such thing as up or down in physics.

Gravity does not = up+down it in fact = nothing because it has no value or units whatsoever and is a mystical 'thing' or 'power' that drives the acceleration due to it.

There is absolutely no difference between the stone being on your hand or the ground in the physics sense. The stone is countered by an equal and opposite force (whether it be from your hand or the ground) and this resists its fall further in that direction (falling through the ground is rather hard to do unless you have teleportation or atom-splitting powers of some kind).

You say if you throw a stone in the air it must reach a state of 0 gravity. This is totally false, as long as it is on earth the acceleration due to gravity will always be 9.81 ms^-2 unless you are really high in the sky. What you are referring to is the balance of forces equally 0 since they all counter each other in any direction on any plane equally.

Please learn physics before making a debate such as this, it may help you win.
Debate Round No. 4


how do you know there is gravity?

a rock laying on the ground dosnt accelerate.. it cease to accelerate on impact or when reaching maximum speed

falling is down, how do you fall sideways without going down? thats just going sideways while not falling

falling is down, rising is up, rain dosnt fall up, it cant, if it were to go upwards, it would be rising

gravity is weight.. hmm weight attracts weight

ok, if i throw a stone into the air, and as it comes down it ceases to exist slowly, where is the application or demstration of gravity, at the point the stone ceases to exist mid air? now you need a new object to demonstrate it. destruction is impossible in reality btw

there is no up and down, in outer space, like if you fly close to outer space you experience no gravity application, no up and down, weightlessness. so, up and down means gravity, becase an object floating mid air, dosnt have weight, its not going down

acceleration is increase in speed, when its still.. not moving.. it dosnt increase in speed, therfore if i let go of a rock, it increases in speed and gets heavier and heavier as it falls the further it falls, but it still has weight on impact.. and when its still even thou its not accelerating


Pro has yet to remotely prove the resolutoin correct, all he has done is tried to prove my equation wrong.

All burden of proof was on pro, zero was on me and Pro didn't meet it.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
your words mean nothing, you have no arguments
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
he lose because he is not con, very simple
Posted by Tough 2 years ago
you are either the most motivated retard to ever grace this site or you are the most dedicated debate-based troll (as opposed to forums). Either way, I respect your work ethic but do not respect your intelligence and will no longer discuss this with you.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
how did Isaac newton know
Posted by Tough 2 years ago
Take it up with isaac newton, I didn't write it.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
your equation is wrong.. in many ways

it even says acceleration is impossible, because if a rock accelerates when its still, then it can not accelerate when i let it go, becasue that would not be acceleration
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
you have plenty of memory of gravity to figure out how it works

if a cup cake falls from a tree, how far is it, from down?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
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: As usual, Vi Spex talks nonsense, so all I can say is Pro failed to fulfill the BOP. He kept focusing on Con's case, and failed to support his own.