Sujet : Re: anti-gravity? [OT]
De : bill.sloman (at) *nospam* ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
Groupes : sci.electronics.designDate : 22. Apr 2024, 17:02:46
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v05u6n$10nag$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 23/04/2024 12:50 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
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.
But it isn't backed up by any experimental observations that point to anything we haven't known about for centuries now, as is pointed out by Jan Panteltje's wikipedia link, which he doesn't seem to understand.
The basic idea came from "Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690" He was a friend of Newton, but rather less clever.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney