# How can gravity as a cause that something falls be proven according to the empirical scientific method? Is deductive thinking also correct?

The scientific method in physics is not *deduction* but *induction*.Deduction is only applied in mathematical calculations, but based on mathematical methods alone you cannot get new knowledge about nature.

In mathematics, with a few postulates, a countless number of theorems can be made according to deduction, all of which have a logical truth.However, all these postulates and theorems do not have to describe any physical reality. For this you have to go outside or to the laboratory to observe nature, or use physical intuition, and make a choice from those countless models: the model which best describes nature.

It has also gone for the gravity laws of Newton and Einstein.These are created from postulates that describe a physical reality. Based on such postulates, you can create a physical model and test it with nature. If all predictions of that model are correct, then the model is good. If the predictions of that model are not all correct, then the model is not the complete truth (but may still be usable).

Based on deduction alone, you cannot find out if the gravity law is correct.You have to calculate a prediction and test it out to nature.

Newton’s gravity laws have been empirically tested (in nature) and have only produced predictions at very precise measurements at the end of the 19th century that do not always appear to work.The gravitational laws Einstein rely on that of Newton but give a model of the reality from which until today no deviation from the predictions has been discovered.

Einstein’s gravitational laws have never been denied, which is the right word.Evidence, that’s something for mathematicians. Evidence teaches you something about the consistency of a theory, not whether it corresponds to nature, for which you need a physicist or astronomer.

Interesting question with some peculiar aspects!

**First aspect**: ‘ Falling ‘ is by definition a movement due to ‘ gravity ‘.Ready!

**Second aspect**: Actually, ‘ Gravity ‘ is an unfortunate term.According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, it is the inflection of space-time caused by mass. The moon goes from our perspective into orbit around the Earth, but goes through the distorted space-time as the true right. This means that ‘ gravity ‘ would in fact not be a force. The Cuckoo sei between the fundamental forces. The latter may be an explanation of why we cannot find gravitones. So let’s call the ‘ gravity ‘ in relativistic sense ‘ gravitation ‘. So things don’t fall as we simply observe them when we look from the bent space-time perspective. Your question is extremely difficult (for me at least) to treat it correctly. I wonder whether the question still has any significance from this point of view.

**Third aspect**: Even though Gravitation does not seem to be a force in relativistic sense, in everyday life we can certainly consider it a force.The approach according to Newton. (Just as light on quantum level does not actually consist of waves, it is very useful at macroscopic level to consider it as waves.) Well, let’s call the ‘ gravitation ‘ from an everyday point of view ‘ Gravity ‘. According to Newton, a mass will only accelerate/slow down if there is one force on it, or if there is a imbalance of forces that seize it. If we build a system where we turn off all external (known) forces, a non-magnetic mass in a big dark vacuum Faraday cage for example (just for the certainty), we can see if acceleration still occurs if we Mass release from a higher point in the cage. If we measure the same gear on different days and different times of the day, we can assume that the resultant remaining force is constant, even if it is a balance of multiple forces that we don’t (yet) know. To test whether it is actually only gravity that remains, we must first define what we mean by gravity. Let us say that gravity depends on the amount of mass of the objects in question and the distance between the ‘ points of gravity ‘. That means that if we run the experiment on top of a mountain and in a nearby valley there must be a difference in the acceleration (a) of the masses. Now we repeat the experiments with a double mass in the setup. If Gravity (Fz) is actually of mass (m) dependent and we maintain the definition of force (F = m * a), then the same result in acceleration difference means that gravity has doubled. With our different results for the acceleration (these are called ‘ G ‘ instead of ‘ a ‘), we can demonstrate that this only depends on the distance from the mass to the ‘ centre of gravity ‘ of the earth. We have now demonstrated that things are falling by gravity. From each experiment we can determine the local ‘ g ‘ and Fz = M * g. From the combination of the experiments we can derive Newton’s complete formula, Fz = G * Ma * Mb/R ^ 2. (Ma is the mass of the Earth, Mb the mass of the gene we drop and G the General Gravitationdestante.) When we test different heights, we can derive the quadratic influence of the distance and even determine the local distance (R) to the ‘ centre of gravity ‘ of the earth. What rest is G * Ma that we must regard as joint constant without further information. Voila! Of course the measurements must be very accurate and the height differences are of great importance. The differences in ‘ G ‘ are small and without the height differences, I do not believe that it is only gravity.

**Fourth aspect**: Deductive thinking is, in my opinion, a part of the empirical cycle.So yeah, on its fog partially correct.

I’m not a physicist, so it’s best to have a deviant picture of the current and/or classical theory of gravitation.If so, let me correct myself by ‘ someone-who-on-physics-sits ‘. This is how I see it at the moment and I’ve had a lot of fun writing this all up. So if it has become TLDR, I just couldn’t withhold me.

Gravity cannot manipulate you and in that way take it as an independent variable in an empirical experiment.This will not allow you to verify the hypothesis above.

With relative density, you can.You can manipulate the density relative to one another in order to find the cause or something falls or not.

Example 1: If you drop an egg in fresh water then it sings to the bottom.Put your salt by the water, you manipulate the independent variable density, then the egg floats. Now water has a more dense density compared to the egg. The cause that the egg falls or floats is therefore the density.

Example 2: A helium balloon rises because helium has a lower density t. O. v the air.But in a vacuum chamber you can manipulate the density of air. So when you make the density of air smaller than helium, the balloon drops again.

That way you can also explain why a piece of metal remains floating in a liquid alkahest.And a hot air balloon at 35 kilometers altitude can float.

Gravity is a deductic creator to make the globe work.