The fundamental basis of mainstream Gravitational Theory is that physical bodies generate an attractive “force proportional to their masses”.

Gravitation, or gravity, is the natural phenomenon by which physical bodies appear to attract each other with a force proportional to their masses.

The mainstream gravitational theory is proudly based upon the mathematics of Sir Isaac Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation which was published in 1687.

Newton’s law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

However, nearly a century later, the first untethered flight of a “hot air balloon” in 1782 clearly demonstrated the real world phenomenon where “hot air rises”.

On November 21, 1783, in Annonay, France, the first untethered manned flight was performed by Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier and François Laurent d’Arlandes in a hot air balloon created on December 14, 1782 by the Montgolfier brothers.

This real world phenomenon clearly falsifies Newton’s mathematical law of universal gravitation because [as Wikipedia clearly acknowledges] the “hot air balloon” overcomes the effects of gravity by changing its density – not by changing its mass.

The heated air inside the envelope makes it buoyant since it has a lower density than the relatively cold air outside the envelope.

Unfortunately, the mainstream [again] chooses to ignore real world observations and persist with Newton’s mathematical [heuristics] theory of gravity by deflecting the reader with the theory of buoyancy and Archimedes’ principle.

Increasing the air temperature inside the envelope makes it lighter than the surrounding (ambient) air. The balloon floats because of the buoyant force exerted on it. This force is the same force that acts on objects when they are in water and is described by Archimedes’ principle.

Sadly, for the mainstream, this just further undermines their Newtonian heuristics by clearly showing that Archimedes falsified their theory in 212 BC when he realised buoyancy was determined by an object’s density based upon the objects mass [“weight”] and volume [“fluid displaced”].

Archimedes’ principle is named after Archimedes of Syracuse, who first discovered this law in 212 B.C. For more objects, floating and sunken, and in gases as well as liquids (i.e. a fluid), Archimedes’ principle may be stated thus in terms of forces:

Any object, wholly or partially immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object.

Archimedes of Syracusehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy#Archimedes.27_principle

Should the reader wish to confirm that the force of “gravity” experienced by an object is determined by its density [not its mass] then they simply need to open their eyes and see how “gravity” structures the [real] world.

The structure of our Earthly domain is very clearly structured by density:

Each layer [in its turn] ordered by density.

Stars that are 100 time the mass of the Sun can when they explode become black holes. The over all mass of the star decreases because it sheds outer material when it explodes but the density of the core increases because of gravity/implosion on the left over matter. Otherwise the star itself should be a black hole.

This posting is confusing.

A quick summary is:

1) There is Newton’s law of gravity.

2) But, a hot air balloon rises.

3) Therefore, Newton’s law of gravity is wrong.

The correct situation is this:

1) There is Newton’s law of gravity.

2) But, a hot air balloon rises.

3) The buoyant force on the balloon is greater than the force of gravity on the balloon. Both the law of gravity and Archimedes’ principle are valid. Neither is disproved.

There is no conflict between “mass” and “density”. There are mathematically connected by the volume containing the mass.

This posting is confusing.

For example, consider this “thought experiment”. Object A and Object B are suspended in a vacuum, the same height, above Earth.

(For you Warmists, remember there are TWO objects, A and B.)

Object A has a density of 1. (Forget units laddies, this is a “thought experiment”. Insert the units of your nation as you desire.)

Object B has a density of 2. (B density is twice A, if you are trying to follow in the units of your choice.)

(For you Warmists, go back and start over, as you no longer understand.)

So, since it is all about density, not mass…

“Should the reader wish to confirm that the force of “gravity” experienced by an object is determined by its density [not its mass] then they simply need to open their eyes and see how “gravity” structures the [real] world.”

…then the force of gravity will be greater on B, since B has a greater density, right?

If you answered “yes”–

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz… (That is the sound of an buzzer, annoying, huh?) It means you are WRONG.

If you thought B had the greater force due to gravity, you were WRONG.

Object A had a mass of 4 and a volume of 4 = density of 1

Object B had a mass of 2 and a volume of 1 = density of 2

Object B had the greater density, but less mass.

Density if meaningless unless you know the volume.

Buzzzzzz me if you don’t understand….

Let’s try to avoid confusion.

Note mkelly, above. He/she has been taught that black holes are real. He/she has been taught that the science about black holes is real. mkelly does not want to be confused. He/she is not responsible for what he/she is taught in public education.

Let’s try to help him/her.

I never said black holes are real or not I was just giving and example of the difference using mass and density. Please read again and try to grasp what is said about massive stars and black holes.

Hi mkelly. Thanks for responding. I was happy to “read again” your comment.

And, I am still trying “to grasp what is said about massive stars and black holes.”

Now, I am confused also….

You confuse easily then.

Again, thank you mkelly for your response.

“Confuse” is a transitive verb. You may have meant to say “You get confused easily then”.

But, I am so confused.

(Hey, rather than bad syntax, there were no typos in your last comment. We like improvement.)

Gentlemen; I’m exceptionally late to this discussion but I do have a question or observation. The above discussion pertains only to gasses? If you heat a solid or a liquid in a containment in equal mass to an equal heat it will not exceed the bonds of gravity unless it can change state to a gas.? So if I understand this correctly it is all a matter of density vs mass. If you add energy–heat– to any object –mass– in a containment eventually you will over come gravity and he mass will rise.? The next question is for Mkelly. If a star explodes and sends outer shell outwards in all directions and the core implodes forming a black hole: Why is the expanding outer shell not sucked back into the black hole? If the black hole is ultimate gravity then all the expanding stellar debris should instaneuosly reverse course and be sucked into the gravitational vacumn?