Question

What evidence would have been needed to refute the theory of gravity before it was proven to be a law?(1 point) Responses Observations showing that objects of different masses fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Observations showing that objects of different masses fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Experiments demonstrating that objects do not accelerate towards the Earth when dropped. Experiments demonstrating that objects do not accelerate towards the Earth when dropped. Discoveries that gravitational forces only act on objects in space, not on Earth. Discoveries that gravitational forces only act on objects in space, not on Earth. Evidence that the gravitational force is stronger at higher altitudes than at sea level.

Answer 1

what is the answer

Answer 2

To refute the theory of gravity before it was proven to be a law, the most compelling evidence would have been "experiments demonstrating that objects do not accelerate towards the Earth when dropped." This would directly contradict the fundamental aspect of the theory of gravity, which states that objects fall towards the Earth due to gravitational attraction. If experiments showed that dropped objects remained stationary or moved in a different manner, it would challenge the validity of the theory of gravity. Other options listed, like observations about falling rates or the behavior of gravitational forces, do not directly refute the core concept of gravity itself.

Answer 3

The answer is: **Experiments demonstrating that objects do not accelerate towards the Earth when dropped.** This type of evidence would directly contradict the fundamental principle of gravity, which states that objects fall toward the Earth due to gravitational attraction.