Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive- that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat- earths-gravity/>
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air >pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:27:32 +0100) it happened liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote in <1qsepmy.1igbph81ebujn0N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>:
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first >heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air >pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions. >When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
I still go with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:27:32 +0100) it happened
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote in
<1qsepmy.1igbph81ebujn0N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>:
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive- >>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat- >>>> earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions. >>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
I still go with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#
It was an interesting explanation in the light of the way things were
thought of at the time: physical particles and elastic collisions.
Voight's explanation makes sense if you simply conside "a force" without trying to evoke an explanation for that force. We can be fairly certain
it isn't caused by physical particles or electromagnetic waves, but who
is to say there isn't another 'thing' in space that we haven't
identified yet.
I agree with you: rather than saying this theory is impossible because
we don't know anything that could cause it, why don't we say this theory could point to something we don't know about yet.
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
fit easily into such a picture.
Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has
to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free >neutrons.
Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
accuracy in the lab.
And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles. >With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the >resulting fluctuations would be very visible.
Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get >closer.) Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off >right after an A380. No such effects are observed.
Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if >relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given >reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
zero.
And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and >regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.
To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the >particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed >arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.
This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.
And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on >electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs. They set far tighter
limits on most of these classical effects.
So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
or other relativistic effects.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions. When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t fit easily into such a picture.
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive- >>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat- >>>> earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions. >>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
fit easily into such a picture.
If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or volume, that is easily explained.
Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
equally well be a push based on mass?
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive- >>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat- >>>> earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first >>> heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea >>> we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects >>> we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions. >>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact >>> how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed)
don’t fit easily into such a picture.
If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or volume, that is easily explained.
Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could equally well be a push based on mass?
Whenever you feel like reading the rest of my post, let me know. ;)
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t fit easily into such a picture.
Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has
to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free neutrons.
Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
accuracy in the lab.
And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles. With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the resulting fluctuations would be very visible.
Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get closer.) Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off right after an A380. No such effects are observed.
Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
zero.
And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.
To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.
This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.
And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs. They set far tighter
limits on most of these classical effects.
So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
or other relativistic effects.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive- >>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat- >>>> earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions. >>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t >> fit easily into such a picture.
Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has >> to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free >> neutrons.
Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
accuracy in the lab.
And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles.
With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the
resulting fluctuations would be very visible.
Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get
closer.) Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off
right after an A380. No such effects are observed.
Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if
relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given >> reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
zero.
And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and
regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.
To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the
particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed >> arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.
This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.
And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on
electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs. They set far tighter
limits on most of these classical effects.
So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
or other relativistic effects.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?
(That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the
world?)
If you're interested in outlandish theories for gravity -and much else-
read the two papers published by Wolfgang Schnell in 'Il Nuovo Cimento'
in 1998. Starting from a model of the universe as a dense spherical
chunk of very rigid particles that can sustain shear and compression
waves and dislocations, he derives the existence of mass and electric
charge, relativity and gravity, and works out the masses of a whole
list of elementary particles.
There were two papers. I have them here:
W. Schnell, A non-local wave model for particles and fields,
Il Nuovo Cimento, VOL. 113 B, N. 2, Febbraio 1998 ><https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf>
and
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-2.pdf>.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 21:56:53 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
[snip]
If you're interested in outlandish theories for gravity -and much else-
read the two papers published by Wolfgang Schnell in 'Il Nuovo Cimento'
in 1998. Starting from a model of the universe as a dense spherical
chunk of very rigid particles that can sustain shear and compression
waves and dislocations, he derives the existence of mass and electric
charge, relativity and gravity, and works out the masses of a whole
list of elementary particles.
There were two papers. I have them here:
W. Schnell, A non-local wave model for particles and fields,
Il Nuovo Cimento, VOL. 113 B, N. 2, Febbraio 1998
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf>
and
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-2.pdf>.
The above URLs won't work until "cern/ch" is replaced by "cern.ch".
Joe
If you're interested in outlandish theories for gravity -and much else-
read the two papers published by Wolfgang Schnell in 'Il Nuovo Cimento'
in 1998. Starting from a model of the universe as a dense spherical
chunk of very rigid particles that can sustain shear and compression
waves and dislocations, he derives the existence of mass and electric
charge, relativity and gravity, and works out the masses of a whole
list of elementary particles.
There were two papers. I have them here:
W. Schnell, A non-local wave model for particles and fields,
Il Nuovo Cimento, VOL. 113 B, N. 2, Febbraio 1998 ><https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-1.pdf>
and
<https://cern/ch/jeroen/tmp/Wolfgang-Schnell-2.pdf>.
Nobody paid much attention. They are altogether too weird, but
intriguing nevertheless.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive- >>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat- >>>> earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions. >>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t >> fit easily into such a picture.
Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has >> to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free >> neutrons.
Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
accuracy in the lab.
And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles.
With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the
resulting fluctuations would be very visible.
Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get
closer.) Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off
right after an A380. No such effects are observed.
Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if
relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given >> reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
zero.
And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and
regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.
To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the
particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed >> arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.
This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.
And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on
electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs. They set far tighter
limits on most of these classical effects.
So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
or other relativistic effects.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?
(That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the world?)
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
or other relativistic effects.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?
(That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the
world?)
On 22/04/2024 17:11, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain
gravity
or other relativistic effects.
+1
The trouble is that simple *wrong* answers appeal to a lot of people.
The "Einstein was wrong" brigade have been going ever since he first published the special theory of relativity.
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/11/100-authors-against-einstein-a-look-in-the-rearview-mirror/
His repost to "A hundred authors against Einstein" was that it would
only take one iff they were actually correct. That is true of all
science. It doesn't matter how elegant the theory is it can still be
refuted by an experimental test where it predicts the wrong answer.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?
(That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the
world?)
Invariants of motion are a higher level version of the classical
conservation laws that can be formulated in general relativity.
Mathematical notation is just our best way so far of ensuring accuracy, logical consistency and precision in our description of things.
Hand waving with "just so" stories can only get you so far. Natural
language is far too ambiguous and flexible to be effective for science.
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions. >> > When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
fit easily into such a picture.
If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or volume, that is easily explained.
Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
equally well be a push based on mass?
On 2024-04-22, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive- >>> >> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat- >>> >> earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first >>> > heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea >>> > we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects >>> > we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions. >>> > When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact >>> > how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) donâ??t >>> fit easily into such a picture.
If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
volume, that is easily explained.
Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
equally well be a push based on mass?
Can you get there from Kepplers laws of planetary motion, or even vice- >versa.
If you assume that the Earth is flat and the Moon is painted on the >firmament, then perhaps a push theory of gravity can be entertained, but
it does not seem to work well with the majority understanding of nature.
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:53:25 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-04-22, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive- >>>>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat- >>>>>> earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first >>>>> heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea >>>>> we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air >>>>> pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects >>>>> we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions. >>>>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other >>>>> from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact >>>>> how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it >>>>> from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational >>>> mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) donâ??t
fit easily into such a picture.
If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
volume, that is easily explained.
Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
equally well be a push based on mass?
Can you get there from Kepplers laws of planetary motion, or even vice-
versa.
If you assume that the Earth is flat and the Moon is painted on the
firmament, then perhaps a push theory of gravity can be entertained, but
it does not seem to work well with the majority understanding of nature.
The universe is a giant balloon with stuff painted on it. Or we live
in a planetarium.
Since gravity moves at the speed of light, none of the classic
equations of planetary motion are true. Lately the 3-body problem is
popular, but the finite speed of gravity complicates that too.
An object is not attracted to another object, but to where it used to
be. Objects are attracted to gravity waves.
On 24/04/2024 15:30, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:53:25 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-04-22, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive- >>>>>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat- >>>>>>> earths-gravity/>
Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first >>>>>> heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea >>>>>> we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air >>>>>> pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects >>>>>> we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions. >>>>>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other >>>>>> from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies >>>>>> towards each other.
I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact >>>>>> how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it >>>>>> from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical >>>>>> observed effects.
Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational >>>>> mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) donâ??t
fit easily into such a picture.
If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or >>>> volume, that is easily explained.
Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
equally well be a push based on mass?
Can you get there from Kepplers laws of planetary motion, or even vice-
versa.
It might require considerable sleight of hand to have Gauss's theorem
still work even if you could fudge it somehow.
If you assume that the Earth is flat and the Moon is painted on the
firmament, then perhaps a push theory of gravity can be entertained, but >>> it does not seem to work well with the majority understanding of nature.
The universe is a giant balloon with stuff painted on it. Or we live
in a planetarium.
It is entirely possible that we live in a very sophisticated simulation
and that possibility becomes considerably more likely iff we should ever >succeed in building a non-trivial word length quantum computer.
Since gravity moves at the speed of light, none of the classic
equations of planetary motion are true. Lately the 3-body problem is
popular, but the finite speed of gravity complicates that too.
Gravitational *changes* move at the speed of light, but the distortion
of spacetime is already there as a property of how objects move in GR.
Gravitational waves move at the speed of light but the gravitational >influence of the two massive components in orbit was always there out to
a huge distance determined by their age or the age of the universe
whichever happens to be shorter. It becomes a lot more noticeable when
they get really close together and spin up faster and faster.
Errors in the processing of Fortran continuation card beyond 9 were
found by observational discreprancies observed in pulsars that got close >enough to Jupiter occassionally for the gravitational corrections for
delays along light paths near large masses to really matter.
An object is not attracted to another object, but to where it used to
be. Objects are attracted to gravity waves.
*NO*! That is completely wrong. Classical mechanics requires "the force
of" gravity to have infinite propagation speed or it doesn't work. That
was why Newton found it somewhat troublesome as "action at a distance".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Newton's_"causes_hitherto_unknown"
The solar system would collapse in on itself if the force of gravity was >anything other than *exactly* radial as everything in orbit would then >experience a drag force and spiral into the sun. That clearly doesn't
happen.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 93:19:14 |
| Calls: | 6,717 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,252 |
| Messages: | 5,359,147 |
| Posted today: | 1 |