Gravity == Everything's inertia?

File: 1486558192806.gif (3MB, 400x226px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x226px

>>8921274
no what the fuck?

>>8921274
That's why gravity would be less towards the centre of the planet, right? Less mass moving "outwards" with the expansion of the universe to feel the effects of inertia.

>>8921274
gravity is an unneccesary and unproven explanation anyway

File: 1478651362871.jpg (196KB, 543x601px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 543x601px

>>8921294
Dear lord, I hope this is bait. Regardless, could you elaborate?

>>8921307
I can teach you how to prove it in 5.6 seconds.
Just take a dive from a 100 story building and report back with results.

>>8921312
that just shows how things move due to their density

File: and here we go.jpg (33KB, 625x265px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 625x265px

>>8921307
>>8921327
>density

File: 1486346961140.jpg (119KB, 440x429px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 440x429px

>>8921327

>>8921274
Is this your own theory, or is this what you think General relativity describes?

>>8921274
What?
No.

The expansion is distinctly anti-gravitational, or at very least it ignores/trumps the attempted effects of gravity.

Gravity is a function of space-time being warped inwards by mass and things falling down that 4D warp-well.

I like the simplicity of how OPs theory sounds but I'm pretty sure it's completely wrong and it assumes absolute reference frames because if everything is expanding at the same rate the only way inertia would be felt is if your old frame was some absolute one compared to you're new one

>>8921434
>gravity

>>8921327
why do things with different density fall at the same speed then

>>8923036

Because their mass is insignificant compared to the earth.

>>8923042
That doesnt make any sense. You realize density is just a function of gravity right? Get the fuck out of here with your shit bait.

>>8923036
things with less density than air dont fall at all. Thing with different densities fall at different rates. Take a bottle filled with water and another one filled with air and drop them from your window. The water will the hit the ground a bit earlier.

>>8923073
you're trying to say mass without saying the word mass. I get it.

>>8923073
>The water will the hit the ground a bit earlier.
Only because of air resistance.

>people engaging trolls
>people replying to bait thread without saging
Fuck you /sci/

SAGE

>>8923092
>literally not being open to new ideas

Ummm, excuse me?

>>8923042
>Because their mass is insignificant compared to the earth.
Then explain why the Eötvös experiment (measuring changes in the rotation of a rod with two equal masses of different materials at the end) never found that.

>>8923075
nope

File: Curved_in_3D.jpg (537KB, 1032x992px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 1032x992px

Gravity is the distance between point A and point B getting distorted and becoming shorter and shorter. Because the distance between 2 points in space is shorter, matter takes less time to to go from A to B. The distortion is uneven, and is most distorted near the center of the Earth. So stuff moving in the direction towards the Earth will always appear to be moving faster and faster and faster (accelerating) as space gets more and more distorted. This can be seen or interpreted as gravity pulling you towards the planet.

>>8923374
But we don't accelerate when we're standing on the surface of the earth, only if we're falling towards it.

>>8923392
According to both Newton and Einstein if you let go of an object and it doesnt stay put where you left it you are in an accelerating frame of reference. Let go of something in mid air and see what happens.

>>8923075
He's trying to talk about buoyant force

Everything only falls at the same rate in a vacuum.

>>8923392
>we don't accelerate when we're standing on the surface of the earth
In a sense we are, it's our weight.

>>8923073
Why are more dense things attracted to the ground faster then? Bouyancy is all about having less weight than an equal volume of whatever you want to float in. Notice how weight(see gravitational attraction) is still what causes things to fall even if you claim its just their density. Read a fucking book.

>>8923836
>Why are more dense things attracted to the ground faster then?
because they are more dense

File: 1383600438728.gif (538KB, 240x176px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 240x176px

>>8923029
>>>>>>>>mass

>>8921274
I found your video, OP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruRrVWHcgws

>>8924911
Thats like saying larger objects are larger because the world has less volume that isnt them. You are taking an extra unnecessary step and what you are claiming to replace gravity with requires gravity to function.

>>8923836
>Why are more dense things attracted to the ground faster then?

They aren't you fucing retard

>>8925570
>You are taking an extra unnecessary step
no. It is about leaving out an extra unnecessary step: the unproven and useless attempt at explaining shit, that is gravity

>>8925579
Maybe consider at least reading wikipedia before posting.

>>8925602
>wikipedia
I knew you were a pleb

>>8925575
In any kind of atmosphere they are. Below a certain density they start floating up. All due to gravity.

>>8925579
No you are taking extra steps. By your logic, density is what makes things "sink" in the atmosphere. Why do those things sink? Density requires a weight difference per unit of volume, it's literally the definition of density.
>weight difference
Requires some force of attraction based upon the mass of the object. What shall we call this force of attraction that allows density to be observed?

File: really_makes_you_think.png (27KB, 527x409px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 527x409px

>>8925579
>gravity is unproven

>>8926034
there are many flaws, unexplained things and open questions about the nature of gravity. of course you can prove that things fall down, but thats not all that is to it

>>8926933
this
They even have to literally make up magic shit like "dark matter" to explain away its flaws