If an object were exempt from gravity but still affected other

>>8966197
It would have inertia, trajectory, mass, etc. If the object suddenly was not affected by gravity, it would start "flying" off the plant at an angle unless something was holding it down. The mass of the object and speed the Earth spins it off/moves away from it will determine how hard it impacts and effects any object in its path. It would still be moveable, just more easily so.

File: CavoriteSphereSPFX.jpg (110KB, 667x500px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 667x500px

>>8966197
But Cavorite does not work that way.

>>8966209
Why would it fly off the planet and not stay in the same objective position? Wouldn't it appear (to us) that it is moving around the Earth at the same speed as the Earth's rotation? But also it would move relative to the Earth's revolution.

>>8966337
Without gravity affecting it, it would continue moving in a straight line rather than following the curved path the Earth is following in its orbit, or following the even tighter curve objects on the surface of the Earth follow as the Earth spins on its axis. Ditto the curve the sun is following as the galaxy rotates.

Gravity moves everything in curves -- an object immune to gravity would move along in a straight line until it hit something.

>>8966209 assumes the object suddenly becomes immune while sitting on the Earth's surface. And of course, atmospheric friction would have some impact to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the shape and orientation of the object, and how much surface are it presented to the air...

>>8966197
Gravity doesn't exist.

Scientists will tell you gravity is both a weak force, and a emergent property of mass, both cannot be correct according to big bang physics.

helium ballons rise due to less density than surrounding air

Steel ships float for same reason

gravity holds the waters of the earth onto the surface yet butterflys and bee have no problem floating through it.

the weight of an object can be measured due to water displacement, gravities effect is not present

>inb4 adhominem
>inb4 terms of terision
>inb4 appeals to authority

>cavendish was wrong
>newton was wrong
>einstein was wrong

>>8967690
>Scientists will tell you gravity is both a weak force, and a emergent property of mass, both cannot be correct according to big bang physics.

Perhaps there are two different things at play and we collectively call them gravity?

Also, the rest of your post doesn't really make much sense. Like, "the weight of an object can be measured due to water displacement" shows you don't know what you are talking about.

>>8967690
>>cavendish was wrong
>>newton was wrong
>>einstein was wrong
I'll take some anonymous guy on the internet's word for it!

File: b1bcc38d9304212a9fbcc052f8cf7b84878c318b.jpg (198KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 800x800px

>Perhaps there are two different things at play and we collectively call them gravity?

>>8967968
why else are you here except for some anonymous guys words.

>>8967690
you should be ip banned

>>8966197
Well gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same, then if an object isn't affected by gravity then it wouldn't have inertia, so it would be the easiest object to move on the universe.

>>8968463
>censor those who disagree and argue with ad hominems
>science

>Deflect the gravitons
>Antigravity

Where's the flaw?

>>8968519
Do you mean theoretically deflect the theoretical gravitons, that exist between the theoretical gravitational waves or do you mean undermine/recreate/prove the existence of gravity as an emergent properties of mass itself from the moon sun and earth?