Kescarte, as others have said, how does it account for the orbits of other planets? It also implies that either gravity doesn't exist, and it's some other force affecting us and planets, or that the Earth has more mass than the Sun. Both are absurd.
Cat47 is right. I don't think that our current beliefs about what "other planets" are is very accurate. We think of them as spherical balls rotating around a larger ball (the sun). While I don't think this is an accurate model, I've yet to see a plausible alternative, as I don't know what the "other planets" actually are, if that makes sense.
@zookdook1: While I've yet to study the whole "Earth has larger mass than the sun" theory, I do currently hold to the idea that the theory of gravity is incorrect (i.E., gravity as we know it does not exist). And it is not actually as absurd an idea as it might first appear. The evidence against it chiefly comes from the fact that gravity on a sphere is more or less equal at any given point, but centrifugal force is uneven (there is more centrifugal force at the equator, and less as you get further away from the middle, towards the poles). But since gravity supposedly holds us on the globe by counteracting the centrifugal force, and it is even everywhere, then there would be a stronger gravitational pull in Canada, for example, then say Mexico. This would mean you would weigh more, etc. But no such difference exists. And that is the evidence against the theory of gravity.
Kesc, by "Earth has larger mass than the sun" I meant that, assuming gravity is correct, the Earth must be of larger mass than the Sun to be able to hold other planets in orbit around it. Since your point of view is that gravity as we know it is nonexistent, the argument becomes a moot point.
"The evidence against it chiefly comes from the fact that gravity on a sphere is more or less equal at any given point, but centrifugal force is uneven"
The Earth is not spherical; it's actually wider at the Equator by a few kilometers.
"there is more centrifugal force at the equator, and less as you get further away from the middle, towards the poles"
What do you mean by that?
"then there would be a stronger gravitational pull in Canada, for example, then say Mexico"
It's actually the opposite. Since there's more mass beneath you in Mexico, you weigh ever so slightly more there.
I find it quite funny that we're having this debate in the comments on a website solely for debating. Perhaps we should host a full-sized debate on this.
You're right, but that video assumes several things. 1. Gravity exists. 2. All planets are spherical. 3. Orbiting, and the "planets" as we know them, are an accurate model. If these are not accurate, then neither is the video
I mean that since the middle of the Earth is spinning faster than any point north or south of the middle, there is less centrifugal force at those points.
Even if the earth does "bulge" in the middle, and the extra gravity there counteracts the extra centrifugal force, where I live (South Tennessee) people weigh the same as they would in Canada, but Tennessee is much closer to the middle of the globe than Canada, and therefore spins faster, and has more centrifugal force. Unless there is some sort of "bulge" here in TN, then this appears to be evidence against gravity.
Kesc, according to NASA, "The effective acceleration of gravity at the poles is 980.665 cm/sec/sec while at the equator it is 3.39 cm/sec/sec less due to the centrifugal force", so you weigh 0.35% less at the Pole. Interesting that it doesn't mention the equatorial bulge, but whatever.
NASA appears to be mistaken. If there actually was a significant weight difference at the poles, you would weigh more not less. This is due to the fact that there is much less centrifugal force at the poles than the equator, or anywhere fairly close to the equator (Florida comes to mind).