The GRAVITY conspiracy (Part 1)

page: 7
57
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I completely read your post, you have made some very vaild points however, you did make some errors in judgment and logic, although your math is correct, and your equations. Your title is the one deceiving error "the gravity conspiracy" it is not a conspiracy, merely a flawed logic and lack in understanding of gravity has created its misconceptions.

Most believe, the mass of the planet is what keeps the moon in place, but its the speed and the mass, much like Stephen Hawking has explained in his work, but some people just make up thier own theory, some believe it is the core of the planet (which no matter how many times you try to explain it to them, they simply do not understand) those people are beyond your educational skills.

There is no reason to proclaim gravity as a conspiracy, you have an intellgent well educated mind, do not pose yourself into a conspiracy-like mind, labeling everything that doesn't add up completely a conspiracy, when it is not one, merely a lack in human logic.

EDIT: but if you want to look at it from a differnt light, gravity doesn't exist as a constant force, merely a distortion in space/time, Newton lived in a primtive time, and could not forsee this but had a good idea that lead to the definate answer. Many people follow Newtons laws as if he were a God, because they just assume every bright mind that comes up with a good idea, is right 100%, when that is flawed, we are a flawed species.
edit on 8-10-2010 by Anthony1138 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

To me it looks like there is movement induced gravity and dipole induced gravity.

Since both would be operating on an inverse square relationship, telling them apart would be incredibly difficult.

Both are non-sheildable and act in the same manner.

edit on 8-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)
What does that even mean? So this magnetic "gravity" is different than regular magnetism? And what's this new "movement induced" gravity? Are you saying there are now two new kinds of gravity, both different than newtonian gravity due to mass? And somehow these two new kinds of gravity are of equal proportion, so they are indistinguishable?



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Basically what you have done here is simply to remove a variable, and yet still come up with a correct answer. The problem is that it does not account for any observed phenomenon, this is obvious without even having to crunch the numbers at all. For instance, if there were no need to include a force of gravity to keep an object in orbit, then it would be perfectly possible for you (using your formula) to get a cherry to orbit an apple. The thing is no matter how you toss the cherry...it will never orbit around an apple, unless you tie the cherry to the apple with a string and swing it. The rope you tie it with is analogous to gravity. In other words you have found a clever way to crunch some numbers to do away with gravity, but you haven't really done away with anything. Centripital motion does NOT HAPPEN without something to hold it in place....Otherwise it flies off....I think this is where you make your error...in imagining that cetripital force can happen all on its own. All you have really proven is that if you had a very large rope, and tied it to the moon, and the other end to the earth...you coud get the moon to orbit the earth just like it does with gravity! LOL!



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
It is well established by experiment that gravity is neither related to magnetism nor to the centrifugal force. Gravity is a spacetime distortion caused by mass. The real question is why mass bends spacetime.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by theAymen
 

No, the planets do not "line there poles to the suns".
The earth is tilted at 23º to its orbit around the Sun. Its orbit is inclined 7º to the axis of the Sun

Mercury: 0º, 3º
Venus: 177º, 4º
Mars: 25º, 6º
Jupiter: 3º, 6º
Saturn: 27º, 6º
Uranus: 98º, 6º
Neptune: 28º, 6º

Why don't you read a book sometime?



???
i didnt mean that...bu thanks i was looking at these numbers...so venuss poles are inverted compared to the rest...wow....

?? i meant their poles are lined up inbetween the suns poles ....also every planet is differnet, has different masses, different amount of sattelites etc

THEY ARE ALL INBETWEEN THE SUNS +&- POLES...LINED UP i didnt mean there poles are streamlined



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by theAymen

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by theAymen
 

No, the planets do not "line there poles to the suns".
The earth is tilted at 23º to its orbit around the Sun. Its orbit is inclined 7º to the axis of the Sun

Mercury: 0º, 3º
Venus: 177º, 4º
Mars: 25º, 6º
Jupiter: 3º, 6º
Saturn: 27º, 6º
Uranus: 98º, 6º
Neptune: 28º, 6º

Why don't you read a book sometime?



???
i didnt mean that...bu thanks i was looking at these numbers...so venuss poles are inverted compared to the rest...wow....

?? i meant their poles are lined up inbetween the suns poles ....also every planet is differnet, has different masses, different amount of sattelites etc

THEY ARE ALL INBETWEEN THE SUNS +&- POLES...LINED UP i didnt mean there poles are streamlined
You realize that all but one of the 90 possible orbital inclinations (rounded to the nearest degree) would be "between the suns poles," right? As Phage points out, the 8 planets orbit in a zone that varies from +/-3 degrees to +/-7 degrees above the below the equator of the sun. This is perfectly explained by a purely gravitational explanation of the formation of the solar system.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
You realize that all but one of the 90 possible orbital inclinations (rounded to the nearest degree) would be "between the suns poles," right? As Phage points out, the 8 planets orbit in a zone that varies from +/-3 degrees to +/-7 degrees above the below the equator of the sun. This is perfectly explained by a purely gravitational explanation of the formation of the solar system.


ttu tut..no it doesnt...thats a variance of 10 degrees...thats clearly a synchonistic pattern...gravity doesnt explain that.

also..as i have said...gravity only explains a collision...the moon should spiral inwards towards the earth...but it hasnt..to add the moon doesnt spiral around N to S poles.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by theAymen

Originally posted by nataylor
You realize that all but one of the 90 possible orbital inclinations (rounded to the nearest degree) would be "between the suns poles," right? As Phage points out, the 8 planets orbit in a zone that varies from +/-3 degrees to +/-7 degrees above the below the equator of the sun. This is perfectly explained by a purely gravitational explanation of the formation of the solar system.


ttu tut..no it doesnt...thats a variance of 10 degrees...thats clearly a synchonistic pattern...gravity doesnt explain that.

also..as i have said...gravity only explains a collision...the moon should spiral inwards towards the earth...but it hasnt..to add the moon doesnt spiral around N to S poles.
Of course gravity explains it. The solar system formed from an acretion disk. All the material that now now makes up the sun and planets was rotating as one big cloud. As it coalesced into the sun and planets, it was already spinning in the current direction of the spin of the sun and the orbits of the planets. Given it takes large energy inputs to change the inclination of an object in orbit, it makes sense most of the material that forums the planets would remain in roughly the same plane.

By what mechanism do you propose planets are limited to specific orbital inclinations?



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by theAymen




also..as i have said...gravity only explains a collision...the moon should spiral inwards towards the earth...but it hasnt..to add the moon doesnt spiral around N to S poles.
Are you serious?
You are totally ignoring the fact that the Sun is acting on the moon as well as the earth.
You do know that, right?
That is why the moons orbit had perturbations.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I have read all of this thread and I have to agree many others, no matter what visible or not in the OPs equation G is still there and G can not nor ever will be a constant.

With that said:

I have always believed that the Newton theory is ass backwards.
I think that the force known as "gravity" is a Push not a Pull.

If bodies in space were attracted to one another there would be constant collisions.
Star clusters would be just that... clusters all stuck together.
In fact wouldn't ALL masses be drawn together into a big clump?

"Push" makes so much more sense to me.
The Universe is said to be expanding. Wouldn't it be contracting if gravity was truly a Pull force.

I definetly lean toward PUSH gravity concept, particularly the Tachyon field theories of Nieper and much of the ZPE/Aether contingents.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by azureskys
 


Yeah, gravity is a push force, thats why when you throw a ball in the air, it gets pushed away from earth, not.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 



No it gets pushed back to the Earth



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by azureskys
 

I have to ask.
By what?



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


In the push theory of gravity, there is an absolute upper limit for gravitational force, which corresponds to the total mass in the universe. Gravity is actually caused (in the push theory) by particles emitted by all of the other masses in the universe.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by azureskys
 

So...the force of gravity is equal in all directions and locations?
How do orbits work then? Why does orbital velocity increase at peri(helion) and decrease at ap(helion)?



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Mach's Principle might be the answer to your question.

In the Push theory gravitational effect of an object is an exponential function of the thickness of the object, integrated over solid angles. Therefore there is a small gravity deficit when you approach a planet very closely. Similarly, there should be a surplus gravitation field as you leave the solar system, relative to the inverse square law.
This would mean that there are no black holes.




The origin of gravitational force in other masses has the consequence that the force is repulsive at large, cosmological distances, but attractive at short distances. And this easily explains the expansion of the universe. The attraction at short distances (on the cosmological scale) is due to shadowing. That is, a planet throws a shadow on nearby objects, which means that the force from that side is reduced. Clearly the effect of this force will be proportional to the size of the shadow, which follows an inverse square law.

edit on 9-10-2010 by azureskys because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-10-2010 by azureskys because: added more to my original thought



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by azureskys
 

Eris does not approach the Sun "very closely". I think the Sun can be considered "very thick". And yet, the orbital velocity of Eris increases greatly at perihelion (38AU) as compared to its orbital velocity at aphelion (97AU). All the planets, while not as eccentric as Eris, exhibit this behavior without approaching the Sun "very closely". How can this be if the force of gravity is pushing equally from everywhere?

Oh..you edited.
At short distances gravity attracts. And a large distances it repels. That explains everything. It makes no sense...but it explains...actually nothing, come to think of it.

So the Sun is pushing things to Earth? What happens at night when the Earth is shadowing the Sun's push (or is it a pull)? Do things fall slower than they do in the daytime when it isn't (or is it faster)?

edit on 10/9/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/9/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


No nothing slows

Traveling electromagnetic waves create electromagnetic radiation pressure and this would provide both a push from the illuminated high pressure side, and a pull from the shadowed low pressure side.

(So It seems to be a Push-Me-Pull-You, instead of just Push or just Pull)

Consider 2 masses; M1 and M2, one shadowing the other, this is what would take place:

M2 shadows the electromagnetic radiation that would reach M1 in it's absence.
The net force vector on M1 would result in its movement toward M2.
In a similar way M1 will cast a shadow on M2.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by azureskys
 




Traveling electromagnetic waves create electromagnetic radiation pressure and this would provide both a push from the illuminated high pressure side, and a pull from the shadowed low pressure side


But you say that the illumination comes from the all matter itself, so there would be no "shadowed side".



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Sorry I am very sleepy

Presumably a/the sun is creating the illumination





new topics
top topics
 
57
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join