In fact, gravity an anti-scientific hypothesis, since action at a distance is rejected by true science

There is still evidence of the falsity of gravity, it seems this antithesis was put forward by Galileo. If there was gravity, then 2 objects of different gravity, connected between them, would fall more slowly, because a lighter object would slow down a heavier one. Consequently, an increase in mass both accelerates and slows the fall. This is contradiction.

Edited April 3, 20214 yr by altaylar2000

Oh, do tell.

Walk through this example in detail 

7 hours ago, altaylar2000 said:

In fact, gravity an anti-scientific hypothesis, since action at a distance is rejected by true science

There is still evidence of the falsity of gravity, it seems this antithesis was put forward by Galileo. If there was gravity, then 2 objects of different gravity, connected between them, would fall more slowly, because a lighter object would slow down a heavier one. Consequently, an increase in mass both accelerates and slows the fall. This is contradiction.

That was the argument put forth by Galileo against the Aristotelian model of gravity that posited that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones.   It was not meant an argument against gravity itself,  but against that particular model. He wasn't saying that gravity didn't exist, but that it didn't behave like Aristotle said it did.  The model for gravity that replaced the old one didn't suffer from this feature.

11 minutes ago, Janus said:

That was the argument put forth by Galileo against the Aristotelian model of gravity that posited that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones.   It was not meant an argument against gravity itself,  but against that particular model. He wasn't saying that gravity didn't exist, but that it didn't behave like Aristotle said it did.  The model for gravity that replaced the old one didn't suffer from this feature.

As far as I remember, Aristotle did not say anything like that, he said that the heavy goes to the center, and the light materia goes from the center of the rectilinear movement

Aristotle had no concept of gravity at all

1 minute ago, altaylar2000 said:

As far as I remember

That’s good enough to convince me! 

1 hour ago, altaylar2000 said:

As far as I remember, Aristotle did not say anything like that, he said that the heavy goes to the center, and the light materia goes from the center of the rectilinear movement

Janus is right, it was an argument from Galileo against the Aristotelian view on falling objects. In Aristotelian physics, an object twice as heavy as another, falls twice as fast. Galileo's argument works against that viewpoint, but not against Newton's, in which all objects fall with the same velocity (or better acceleration), independent on their mass, and therefore independent on their weight in the same gravitation field. So you are physically and historically wrong.

Just to add, Galileo is the first person known, who said that all objects fall the same way, independent of their mass.

Edited April 3, 20214 yr by Eise
made an addition...

5 minutes ago, Eise said:

Janus is right, it was an argument from Galileo against the Aristotelian view on falling objects. In Aristotelian physics, an object twice as heavy as another, falls twice as fast. Galileo's argument works against that viewpoint, but not against Newton's, in which all objects fall with the same velocity (or better acceleration), independent on their mass, and therefore independent on their weight in the same gravitation field. So you are physically and historically wrong.

Just to add, Galileo is the first person known, that all objects fall the same way, independent of their mass.

Yes, maybe I was wrong about Galileo.
The claim that objects fall at the same speed is absurd.
From the point of view of Aristotle, this is generally impossible, because he has no emptiness. He's got a heavy substance with a light one always just swaps places

Accordingly, the body always has some kind of resistance.

Then the world is absurd. See a ball and feathers falling in vacuum: