To effectively contradict the theory of gravity before it was established as a law, the following types of evidence would have been pertinent:
-
Experiments demonstrating that objects of different masses fall at different rates in a vacuum: If there had been consistent, reproducible experiments showing that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones in a vacuum, it would have called into question the universality of gravity as described by Galileo and later Newton, who proposed that all objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass.
-
Observations of objects floating upwards without any external force: If there were reliable and repeatable observations of objects spontaneously moving upward without any external force acting on them, it would directly contradict the fundamental principles of gravity, which assert that masses attract each other.
-
Discovery of a force stronger than gravity that acts universally on all matter: The discovery of such a force would have posed a significant challenge to the gravitational theory, as it would imply that gravity is not the dominant force acting on all matter universally, which is foundational to gravitational theory.
-
Consistent measurements showing that the gravitational constant varies significantly on Earth: If measurements had shown that the gravitational constant (G) varied widely in a consistent manner across different locations on Earth, this would have undermined the idea of a uniform gravitational field and the predictability of gravitational interactions.
In essence, any evidence that contradicted the basic tenets of gravitational attraction, the uniformity of gravitational acceleration, or the constancy of the gravitational constant would have been necessary to challenge the theory of gravity.
3 answers