Re: anti-gravity? [OT]

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

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. ;)

Your post appeared to concentrate on particles,which, I agree, are not a
good explanation for gravity.  I am taking a more general view that
gravitatioal 'attraction' could equally likely be something-or-other
'non-repulsion' .  The something-or-other isn't particles and isn't
electromagnetic waves but we don't know what it is and have ignored the
possibility that it might exist.

We invented the term "gravity" to account for an observed phenomenon but
we don't really know what it is or whether it exists -- why can't we
invent an equally plausible mass-intercepted force and see if we can
find out if that exists and what causes it?


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