Re: anti-gravity? [OT]

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 ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk