Re: anti-gravity? [OT]

Liste des GroupesRevenir à se design 
Sujet : Re: anti-gravity? [OT]
De : liz (at) *nospam* poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)
Groupes : sci.electronics.design
Date : 22. Apr 2024, 16:50:27
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Poppy Records
Message-ID : <1qsfabm.graxv01yk06x8N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : MacSOUP/2.4.6
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 ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Date Sujet#  Auteur
21 Apr 24 * anti-gravity?50jim whitby
21 Apr 24 +* Re: anti-gravity?28jim whitby
21 Apr 24 i+* Re: anti-gravity?21Phil Hobbs
21 Apr 24 ii+* Re: anti-gravity?19John Larkin
21 Apr 24 iii+* Re: anti-gravity?15Phil Hobbs
21 Apr 24 iiii`* Re: anti-gravity?14Martin Brown
21 Apr 24 iiii +* Re: anti-gravity?12Joe Gwinn
21 Apr 24 iiii i+* Re: anti-gravity?2Phil Hobbs
21 Apr 24 iiii ii`- Re: anti-gravity?1Joe Gwinn
22 Apr 24 iiii i+* Re: anti-gravity?2John Larkin
22 Apr 24 iiii ii`- Re: anti-gravity?1Joe Gwinn
22 Apr 24 iiii i`* Re: anti-gravity?7Martin Brown
22 Apr 24 iiii i `* Re: anti-gravity?6Jeff Layman
23 Apr 24 iiii i  `* Re: anti-gravity?5Martin Brown
23 Apr 24 iiii i   +- Re: anti-gravity?1Jan Panteltje
24 Apr 24 iiii i   `* Re: anti-gravity?3Jan Panteltje
24 Apr 24 iiii i    `* Re: anti-gravity?2Martin Brown
24 Apr 24 iiii i     `- Re: anti-gravity?1Jan Panteltje
22 Apr 24 iiii `- Re: anti-gravity?1John R Walliker
21 Apr 24 iii`* Re: anti-gravity?3jim whitby
21 Apr 24 iii `* Re: anti-gravity?2Jeff Layman
21 Apr 24 iii  `- Re: anti-gravity?1Bill Sloman
22 Apr 24 ii`- Re: anti-gravity?1Clive Arthur
22 Apr 24 i`* Re: anti-gravity?6Martin Brown
22 Apr 24 i `* Re: anti-gravity?5wmartin
22 Apr 24 i  `* Re: anti-gravity?4John Larkin
22 Apr 24 i   +* Re: anti-gravity?2Phil Hobbs
22 Apr 24 i   i`- Re: anti-gravity?1John Larkin
23 Apr 24 i   `- Re: anti-gravity?1Martin Brown
21 Apr 24 +- Re: anti-gravity?1ehsjr
22 Apr 24 `* Re: anti-gravity? [OT]20Liz Tuddenham
22 Apr 24  +* Re: anti-gravity? [OT]3Jan Panteltje
22 Apr 24  i`* Re: anti-gravity? [OT]2Liz Tuddenham
22 Apr 24  i `- Re: anti-gravity? [OT]1Bill Sloman
22 Apr 24  `* Re: anti-gravity? [OT]16Phil Hobbs
22 Apr 24   +* Re: anti-gravity? [OT]5John Larkin
22 Apr 24   i+- Re: anti-gravity? [OT]1bitrex
23 Apr 24   i+- Re: anti-gravity? [OT]1Bill Sloman
23 Apr 24   i`* Re: anti-gravity? [OT]2Martin Brown
23 Apr 24   i `- Re: anti-gravity? [OT]1bitrex
22 Apr 24   +* Re: anti-gravity? [OT]6Liz Tuddenham
22 Apr 24   i+* Re: anti-gravity? [OT]2Phil Hobbs
22 Apr 24   ii`- Re: anti-gravity? [OT]1Liz Tuddenham
24 Apr 24   i`* Re: anti-gravity? [OT]3John Larkin
24 Apr 24   i `* Re: anti-gravity? [OT]2Martin Brown
24 Apr 24   i  `- Re: anti-gravity? [OT]1John Larkin
22 Apr 24   `* Re: anti-gravity? [OT]4Jeroen Belleman
22 Apr 24    +* Re: anti-gravity? [OT]2Joe Gwinn
22 Apr 24    i`- Re: anti-gravity? [OT]1Jeroen Belleman
23 Apr 24    `- Re: anti-gravity? [OT]1Jan Panteltje

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal