It's been a while since I did physics so if anyone who's not Gothboy77 could correct me on anything I'm about to say I'd appreciate it
It makes sense to me. If your sandwhich was comprised of something like helium then it would float. I guess "gravity" only applies to certain sandwiches.
This is not a complicated concept. The helium balloon rises due to the
Archimedes Principle.
"Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a stationary fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object."It is the same reason that a balloon filled with a heavier gas will float on water, because it is buoyant, whereas a balloon that is full of lead will sink, because gravity is acting on lead with a greater effect than it is on the balloon of heavier gas. You can very easily test this theory by picking up a balloon full of helium and picking up a balloon full of lead and determining for yourself which one is harder to move. The helium balloon floats because the force of it's buoyancy is greater than the force of Earth's gravity acting on it. This is effective so long as there is a heavier gas (air) for the balloon to rise in. When it reaches higher into the atmosphere, where there is less gas, the balloon will stop rising as the force of it's buoyancy becomes less than the force of gravity.
Here's a neat picture that might make this concept easier:
Fg is the force of gravity. Fg is calculated as mass x gravity. This is the formula your bathroom scale uses to determine your weight.
Fb is the force of buoyancy. Fb is calculated as the mass of the fluid displaced multiplied by the force of Earth's gravity. So, essentially, you would get the volume of the balloon, calculate how much that volume of atmosphere around the balloon would weigh on Earth, and that would give you the buoyant force.
Here's a question: What prevents the very non-dense atmosphere of Earth from simply dispersing into space? What holds the sun, a big ball of helium just like in the balloon, together?
So your telling me that you would believe my words over a perfectly legit scientific article I just linked you to? Your suggestion does not sound like it would work very well
No, I want to respond to your argument, not Dr. Verlinde's argument. I have no problem with Dr. Verlinde's theory. According to this quote:
It is very much theory, and no
The argument you are making has absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Verlinde's theory.
Yes, Dr. Verlinde said "Gravity does not exist". Issac Newton and Einstein both said it exists however. As a matter of fact basically every scientist on the planet says gravity exists. So, according to your stuffty standard of evidence, I don't even need to prove the existence of gravity, because the standing authority already agrees with me. One moron saying it doesn't exist for attention does not equate to scientific proof that gravity does not exist.
Here are two experiments that were conducted in the 1800's, a time when we didn't have incredibly accurate measuring technology, that were used to prove the existence of gravity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experimenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experimentIf you were to conduct both of these experiments yourself correctly you would achieve the same results. With a bit of willpower you can construct the apparatus used in the first experiment in your backyard. Scientific proof that gravity doesn't exist would make you a very rich and famous man, so no excuses, get building!
