reply to post by spy66
I may not be the best person to answer your post, but I will try it anyway, with my limited knowledge about gravity.
All objects with mass create a force on the surrounding objects, a force that gets weaker with the square of the distance between objects (two objects
with the same mass are attracted to each other with a force that is a fourth of the force between two other objects with the same mass but at half the
distance of the first two objects) and that gets stronger with the mass, so the more massive objects have a bigger influence over less massive
A satellite orbiting Earth is not attracted to Earth because of the atmosphere (if it was in the atmosphere it could not move at such high speeds and
it would need much more fuel to keep it fighting against the drag of the atmosphere) but because it has mass and the Earth has mass.
Using the old equations I learnt at school in the previous millennium, a satellite with a 1,000kg mass, orbiting at 1,000km from Earth, is attracted
to Earth by a force of some 7,338 newtons, equivalent to some 738kg.
The same force also affects the Earth, but as Earth has a much bigger inertia it's the satellite that falls to Earth (unless some force is applied to
negate the above force) and not the Earth that falls to the satellite (or both, if they had the same mass they would meet at half distance between
If you replace your enigmatic "energy field" by gravity then your explanation is more or less the same, you do not need to create something new.
And atmosphere does not have any role on objects outside itself, but if makes objects inside itself heavier because of the weight of the air above
them and pushing them down, but that force is relatively small when compared with gravity.
Gravity has been measured between objects with no magnetic influence between themselves and at the same atmospheric pressure, so, from your theory,
the only remaining possible explanation is the "energy field", that we usually call gravity.