Except it will fall a hell of a lot faster on this planet.

- and air resistance will cause the feather to flip, turn, oscillate and take longer to fall. You could try pointing the quill of the feather carefully down at the start of the experiment, but that just proves air resistance, as this should not be needed, if all objects fall as we saw wherever they are, Earth or Moon, hm?

everything does produce gravity. just because its such a small amount that it doesnt affect anything, it does exist.

And your explanation of why the feather falls faster in the vacuum is what, exactly?

and? Where is your gravity?

Gravity is everywhere, and it's invisible. Like money, if you think about it. -and money is real.

No-one has ever been to the moon, according to NASA, anyway. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hqLKaoh4fZyKj5o

*descent*. If you're going to act like a deluded smarty pants, at least learn how to write first.

Are you saying a feather and a ball bearing will drop at the same rate in Earth's atmosphere? And videos showing otherwise are a hoax?

Hes talking about the fake moon landings.

Parachutes in the CM, not SM or LM. Only the CM comes all the way back.

Sorry, I mis-read what you said about the Mun landing in your Kerbal game. The old 'extra stage, take it to the surface and start back in a full ship' idea? I have seen that NASA planned to do this, landing what was essentially the CSM plus landing gear, and leaving the moon in either all of that, or part of it, until the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous idea was presented.

SuperCorrector1 Sure, but the hammer did hit the bottom of the tube BEFORE the feather, right?

SuperCorrector1 quote - A perfect vacuum doesn't exist, but a GOOD ENOUGH one does. So what's the point of stating a good enough vacuum does exist when it seems frictional forces in this good enough vacuum impede the rate of fall? Moreover, what's the point of saying all objects fall at the same rate when it cannot be truly tested as a perfect vacuum is said not to exist? Absolute nonsense!

SuperCorrector1 what's the point of saying all objects fall at the same rate when it cannot be truly tested as a perfect vacuum is said not to exist? Absolute nonsense!

SuperCorrector1 But nobody ever been to the moon !!!!!

SuperCorrector1 Glad u agree!

+Frank Hughed No. The point is that the Earth's gravity affects them and pulls at them with the same force. That's why they hit at the same time. The hammer does produce more gravity than the feather, and so it theoretically "pulls" the planet up towards it by some infinitesimal amount, but seeing as they are falling right beside each other in the tube, they should hit at the same moment.

+Frank Hughed I've just noticed after replaying the video at a slower speed, the hammer actually hits the bottom of the tube first, then bounces upwards. The feather then comes to rest followed by the hammer.

We have experimental results to show that mass attracts mass. How do you think the universal constant of gravitation was even measured in the first place?

+Gen Erator I think it's because there was still a little air left in the tube

+Gen Erator Because there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum on Earth. There would still be a tiny bit of air, and hence air resistance, in the tube.

If you look as he tips the tube the hammer is on the 'inside' edge and the feather on the outside so the hammer begins to slide down the tube as it is turned thus it lands a spit second before the feather. Also there will have been a small amount of air left in the tube thus a small piece of air resistance remained.

All these experiments do is prove that air is a fluid, like water, and that light and heavy things sink at different rates. A golf ball would sink slower in the sea than a lead ball equal in size. It just explains density and buoyancy better. It is not proof of gravity

ray rayner You know that bouyancy is *caused* by gravity right?

+Marc Sainte-Marie Ridiculous. You might as well say magnetism does not exist, because they haven't found any "magnetons".

Paul Schober I may? Hum not exactly the same we do have DIRECT (empirical) perception of its influence, and force that acts logicly thoughout the Universe. Attraction always occur with two magnets apposite poles brought together, as well as between a magnet and ferrous. Therefore both of the two pieces attracted to each other may be magnets or one may be magnet and other may be ferrous material. Whereas *repulsion is possible only* in case of two magnets (with equal poles brought together). Therefore *repulsion is a true test of magnetism*. You CAN demonstrate as conclusively such with Gravity, on Earth just by density /weight things fall, no NEED of invisible attractions. Universe does not display such strong Forces; planets stay put and *IT* is EXPANDING OUTWORD ! Losts of debunking evidences to such mass attraction. Mr Ridiculess PS: No LAW predicts or claims any "magnetons" kid... Fundamental forces are due to the exchange of specialized force-carrying particles: photons convey electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force is transmitted by gluons and the weak nuclear force is imparted by the movement of the W and Z bosons. And *gravity*... due to what kind of particle exchange ????? String theory predicts the existence of gravitons.

+Marc Sainte-Marie You do know that even high-school students are doing experiments at science shows that demonstrate the (very slight) attraction between two massive lead weights hanging on strings, don't you? (my friend Martin beat me at the Physics 11 science fair using one). You are simply getting thrown by the fact that gravity is a force that is SO much weaker than electromagnetism or the strong and weak nuclear forces, but ITS effect is just as obvious to see. Evacuate a glass tube with a feather and stone, and you sill see them both attracted to the planet with the same force. It's called gravity. We may not yet understand its mechanics, but the laws governing attraction and distance have been worked out and proven in experiments perfectly over and over. So unless you have some experiment that disproves the currently accepted theory of gravity, you need to "go with it". Simply having a gut feeling or "faith" in something, isn't much of a counter-argument. Yes magnets are easy to demonstrate (and believe in:), but my point was, we don't need to understand the exact mechanism behind it, in order to accept the force's existence. We have no idea HOW a magnet can attract metal or another magnet over space, but only a fool would deny that it occurs, or call it "magic". Density? Not that ridiculous "buoyancy" explanation? Please. Like I said, every science school-kid has probably seen the vacuum-bottle-feather-and-coin experiment. Gravity works exactly as predicted even when no atmospheric or liquid medium is present. Yes the planets stay put, and yes it's believed the universe is still expanding from it's inception. So what? What does that have to do with "disproving" the force of gravity? All that means is that the initial expansion force is greater than the overall collective attraction of gravity. *PS: No LAW predicts or claims any "magnetons" kid...* Yes, thanks. Grandma. I was making a facetious joke, in that arguing gravitons or warped space is simply an exercise in trying to figure out the MECHANISM of the observable force, it has nothing to do with arguing its existence. Which is RIDICULOUS and rather pathetic. Photons convey magnetism? Haven't heard that theory. Never heard anyone detecting any photons coming off a magnet. But the prevalent theory of gravity is not gravitons these days, I believe it's still the warping of space-time by mass. But as I said, the mechanism is irrelevant. What you are doing is denying the EXISTENCE of the force. A force you can observe by sucking the air out of a glass tube!

+Paul Schober Sorry no I cant say I knew that, cant know everything, dont remember doing that in class. I find it hard to believe pal, no offense but if much bigger /stonger masses like planets dont come sticking together... after billions of years... well I see a problem. Beside straight cheating, maybe some magnetic minerals in those... or charge electricity (related to the magnetism), maybe you friend is smarter then you. I am thrown but the invisibility of it and all that I poster I guess you will ignore. Cavendish experiment, as if that myth is also factual! (enjoy!) Man who escaped science cult= /watch?v=lCnLRikqAws "So unless you have some experiment that disproves the currently accepted theory of gravity (yes hypocrite I mentioned it, as the Universe still expending instead of being attracted by all its inner mass...) , you need to "go with it". " YES THAT IS BASICLY IT, NO PROOF OF GRAVITY= Simply having a gut feeling or "faith" in something BECAUSE MASS TEACHED AND SOLD BY AUTHORITIES WITH CHILDHOOD BRAINWASHING. AND FALSE "SCIENCE" CONSENSUS, BUT YEAH A LOT OF SILENCE FROM SCARED SHEEP EMPLOYESS.

+Marc Sainte-Marie Scared sheep. LOL The tired refrain from all you guys. Anyone who accepts anything "official", is a terrified sheep brainwashed by an evil cabal in a hollowed-out volcano somewhere. You really need to do some honest research into this stuff. Or do the experiments yourself, because you're clearly set to disbelieve anything I say or anything an "official" says. In class? Did you take any physics courses? Even high school ones? Planets should start "sticking together"? You're not noticing any collisions, so by that you believe that gravity does not exist? Let me get this straight, you believe in the existence of planets, but you don't believe that any force holds them in orbit around stars, or their moons around them? Forgive me if I've mistaken you for someone else, but you don't believe mass attracts mass, is that it? Because whatever mechanism THAT is, that is what we term "gravity". You linked to a video of some toothless moron cackling for 10 minutes about "two balls"? You do realize he doesn't' understand the physics behind the Cavendish experiment, right? He didn't even discuss its supposed flaws, he just cackled like an idiot for 10 minutes. I'm not a hypocrite. I ADDRESSED your argument about the expanding universe. And I said the prevalent theory there is the the initial expansion/explosion was MORE powerful than the overall gravitic attraction of the universe. It HAD to be, or there would not ever have BEEN a Big Bang/expansion event, right? Sheep employees. So now 99% of the world is also being paid off to believe we live on a spinning planet, huh?

이영창 You know, that actually never crossed my mind but... it actually makes sense! xD

YOUNG CHANG LEE that's exactly what I was going to say!