# What exactly is gravity?

#### Einstein

##### Temporal Engineer
If an object gets closer to the Earth, it gains weight. There is no "weight" outside a gravitational field.
Accelerating the object doesn't increase the weight. It just makes the weight gain happen sooner.
Inertial force is fictitious. There's actually no such thing.
View attachment 9279

Harte
I like your sarcasm! Of course I had considered that you were giving me more support in debunking General Relativity. Since inertial weight is considered to be real in Einstein's Principle of Equivalence. Never did Einstein refer to mass in his writings.

And the fact that you resorted to a Wiki article. The article is a complete work of fiction. And I know you know that.

#### Inferno

##### Junior Member
Mass is not weight according to the way I was taught in school. I was given a set of equalities: Weight=Force=Mass x Acceleration. But I was never presented with proof that those equalities exist. Just accept it. I was taught that mass is a quantity of matter and its value is considered constant throughout the universe.

Then we come into the real world and things aren't quite adding up. For instance one kilogram is considered to be equivalent to 2.2 pounds. Of course that can't be true. Unless we all were lied to. According to my math 2.2 pounds is equivalent to 9.8 Newtons. But if you go to a balance scale you can prove that 2.2 pounds does indeed balance out equivalent to one kilogram. So what gives? I'll side with the actual observation. What it boils down to is Weight equals Mass. And the measurement is done using the force of gravity. Basically gravitational weight cannot be separated out into mass and acceleration. Since I already demonstrated that an object under gravitational acceleration is weightless. Acceleration and weight are two different things. An object on the surface of the earth is not accelerating. Yet it has weight. Now I did come across an idea stating that space is accelerating downward through objects thus creating an acceleration field. If that could be proven then time machines would be real and also space drives. Prove it first. I'm not a fan of "Assume it to be true".

Inertial force requires the presence of an opposing acceleration vector. Gravitational force does not. This is the primary observable fact that makes Inertial force and Gravitational force different from each other.
Thanks for clearing up the confusion on inertial and gravitational forces. Your calculations on weight equaling mass are very simple and I'm surprised to one else has done them. Mass may not be as important as people think. I'm also not a fan of assuming things to be true. Too many people do, and its limiting the flow of ideas.

#### walt willis

##### Senior Member
Don't believe anything you think you know about gravity. It's all theoretical fiction. You can gather your own facts about gravity through direct observation. Direct observations do suggest our concept of mass doesn't apply to gravity.

All objects with gravitational weight have their weight vectors pointing toward the center of the earth. If you'll notice there is no acceleration vector due to the fact that gravitational weight does not rely on motion to create the gravitational weight. So Newtons law F=MA doesn't work with gravity. So inertial weight and gravitational weight rely on totally different conditions for their creation. These facts quickly debunk Einstein's theory of general relativity. The Equivalence Principle is not valid.

Then we have objects in gravitational free-fall. In a vacuum these objects accelerate toward the center of the earth in a weightless state. Again Newtons laws of motion do not apply. So gravitational weight and acceleration vectors do occur, but never at the same time. Both vectors point in the same direction but are temporally out of phase with each other. The time vectors for each would be described as 180 degrees out of phase between gravitational weight and gravitational acceleration.

If you'll notice, no concept of mass was needed to describe the way gravity works. Just observable facts.
Sounds about right, also there may be two parts to that force. What if gravity has a second component such as a push/pull effect? The weak void of space may also be a force? If we could rip a hole in the fabric of that weak force we may be able to overcome the pulling force known as we call gravity? Just a SWAG?

#### HikuTechy

##### Junior Member
I like your sarcasm! Of course I had considered that you were giving me more support in debunking General Relativity. Since inertial weight is considered to be real in Einstein's Principle of Equivalence. Never did Einstein refer to mass in his writings.

And the fact that you resorted to a Wiki article. The article is a complete work of fiction. And I know you know that.
Then what of the famous formula e = mc^2 ? (I'm not sure if this is sarcasm)

This formula basically means energy is mass. Energy is potential to do work.
What this means is that its much like charge in a capacitor, or power in a battery.

The statement that falling objects cannot be measured for weight is accurate because all objects in the gravity's pull fall at the same rate (Galileo Galilei falling bodies experiment).

What this means is that gravity is not a result of masses, but an effect which affects masses and masses are affected in different ways depending on their status, like if they are at rest or falling or spinning (see rifling). Masses can also affect gravity.

I will do my best to explain my knowledge of gravity, to make better sense of the phenomenon.

Geometry of the gravitational field = mass density affected

Spacetime is a mathematical extrapolation of a higher dimension. In the higher dimensional perspective, a lot of things which seem nonsensical to us make perfect sense. This is pretty well described in Carl Sagan's video about the dimensions, which helps explain it in laymans terms;
youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

To the best of my knowledge these higher dimensions are fractal and so can be rougly figured out using the 3rd dimension as a sort of a reference. The 4th, 5th and 6th are temporal, given what I've studied.

As for curvature, this is referring to higher dimensional geometry. It may be time variant, in motion and doing complicated things. The gravitational field may be described as an interplay of substance with higher dimensional elements.

The geometry is that of a higher dimensional vortex. To us it may look like a hole from any angle, but in a higher dimension this makes sense.

The interesting part is that since the geometry of the gravitational field can be affected by masses/energies, it can be distorted in such ways as to affect gravity.

Last edited:

#### TimeFlipper

##### Senior Member
Premium
Then what of the famous formula e = mc^2 ? (I'm not sure if this is sarcasm)

This formula basically means energy is mass. Energy is potential to do work.
What this means is that its much like charge in a capacitor, or power in a battery.

The statement that falling objects cannot be measured for weight is accurate because all objects in the gravity's pull fall at the same rate (Galileo Galilei falling bodies experiment).

What this means is that gravity is not a result of masses, but an effect which affects masses and masses are affected in different ways depending on their status, like if they are at rest or falling or spinning (see rifling). Masses can also affect gravity.

I will do my best to explain my knowledge of gravity, to make better sense of the phenomenon.

View attachment 9660
Geometry of the gravitational field = mass density affected

Spacetime is a mathematical extrapolation of a higher dimension. In the higher dimensional perspective, a lot of things which seem nonsensical to us make perfect sense. This is pretty well described in Carl Sagan's video about the dimensions, which helps explain it in laymans terms;
youtube.com/watch?v=rAAeLNAfSYc

To the best of my knowledge these higher dimensions are fractal and so can be rougly figured out using the 3rd dimension as a sort of a reference. The 4th, 5th and 6th are temporal, given what I've studied.

As for curvature, this is referring to higher dimensional geometry. It may be time variant, in motion and doing complicated things. The gravitational field may be described as an interplay of substance with higher dimensional elements.

The geometry is that of a higher dimensional vortex. To us it may look like a hole from any angle, but in a higher dimension this makes sense.

The interesting part is that since the geometry of the gravitational field can be affected by masses/energies, it can be distorted in such ways as to affect gravity.
You overlooked the speed of light in the equasion E=MC squared.., The C stands for the speed of light ..

#### HikuTechy

##### Junior Member
You overlooked the speed of light in the equasion E=MC squared.., The C stands for the speed of light ..
Thing is, the earth is moving around itself, it is moving around the sun and the sun/solar system may also be moving in the galaxy and the galaxy also may be moving so when you add all that movement it may well add up to light speed. Also consider the higher dimensions. It may also be that matter which is made up of charges, that the charges themselves are moving at light speeds within the matter. I admit it may also be inaccurate on my part in some way, but the experimentation in some way works out.

Last edited:

#### TimeFlipper

##### Senior Member
Premium
Thing is, the earth is moving around itself, it is moving around the sun and the sun/solar system may also be moving in the galaxy and the galaxy also may be moving so when you add all that movement it may well add up to light speed. Also consider the higher dimensions.
You are obviously welcome to your own opinion, but I disagree...Just because the Earth moves around the Sun, and adding that to the movement of the Solar system and Galaxy, they would never get anywhere close to the speed of light....And we were discussing the E=MC2 equasion, nothing at all about the movement of Earth, Sun, Solar System and the Galaxy..

#### Einstein

##### Temporal Engineer
Then what of the famous formula e = mc^2 ? (I'm not sure if this is sarcasm)

This formula basically means energy is mass. Energy is potential to do work.
What this means is that its much like charge in a capacitor, or power in a battery.

The statement that falling objects cannot be measured for weight is accurate because all objects in the gravity's pull fall at the same rate (Galileo Galilei falling bodies experiment).

What this means is that gravity is not a result of masses, but an effect which affects masses and masses are affected in different ways depending on their status, like if they are at rest or falling or spinning (see rifling). Masses can also affect gravity.

I will do my best to explain my knowledge of gravity, to make better sense of the phenomenon.

View attachment 9660
Geometry of the gravitational field = mass density affected

Spacetime is a mathematical extrapolation of a higher dimension. In the higher dimensional perspective, a lot of things which seem nonsensical to us make perfect sense. This is pretty well described in Carl Sagan's video about the dimensions, which helps explain it in laymans terms;
youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

To the best of my knowledge these higher dimensions are fractal and so can be rougly figured out using the 3rd dimension as a sort of a reference. The 4th, 5th and 6th are temporal, given what I've studied.

As for curvature, this is referring to higher dimensional geometry. It may be time variant, in motion and doing complicated things. The gravitational field may be described as an interplay of substance with higher dimensional elements.

The geometry is that of a higher dimensional vortex. To us it may look like a hole from any angle, but in a higher dimension this makes sense.

The interesting part is that since the geometry of the gravitational field can be affected by masses/energies, it can be distorted in such ways as to affect gravity.
I think I adequately expressed enough facts showing the mass hoax that is being perpetrated upon us. At least to those of us observant enough to realize they are being lied to.

So what makes you think Bullshit is anything more than just plain Bullshit? There is no way to prove mass exists. It is just pure Bullshit for the masses.

If you believe everything you are told, then obviously you haven't noticed yet that we live in a society run by liars. You can't build a time machine or a space drive based on lies. But can you build one based of facts?

#### HikuTechy

##### Junior Member
I think I adequately expressed enough facts showing the mass hoax that is being perpetrated upon us. At least to those of us observant enough to realize they are being lied to.

So what makes you think Bullshit is anything more than just plain Bullshit? There is no way to prove mass exists. It is just pure Bullshit for the masses.

If you believe everything you are told, then obviously you haven't noticed yet that we live in a society run by liars. You can't build a time machine or a space drive based on lies. But can you build one based of facts?
To me, mass simply means the density of matter. Another measuring method than weight was used in 2018. To me acceleration is just acceleration, regardless of the origin of it.
An objects mass determines what the weight is when an object is in a gravitational field.

#### NaturalPhilosopher

##### Senior Member
I think I adequately expressed enough facts showing the mass hoax that is being perpetrated upon us. At least to those of us observant enough to realize they are being lied to.

So what makes you think Bullshit is anything more than just plain Bullshit? There is no way to prove mass exists. It is just pure Bullshit for the masses.

If you believe everything you are told, then obviously you haven't noticed yet that we live in a society run by liars. You can't build a time machine or a space drive based on lies. But can you build one based of facts?
i proved mass exists