Sujet : Re: anti-gravity? [OT]
De : jjSNIPlarkin (at) *nospam* highNONOlandtechnology.com (John Larkin)
Groupes : sci.electronics.designDate : 24. Apr 2024, 16:30:38
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Highland Tech
Message-ID : <3h5i2jttkoq431vb86kmg0oosit321os1p@4ax.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
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.