0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You say "This is all to say, that a mass also falls naturally through a vacuum, without “need” of any downward “attraction”, until it strikes any solid “floor”." (and similar things.)How do you define downward?In the case of model 1 you say "This is all to say, that a mass falls naturally through an atmosphere, without “need” (or presence) of any downward “attraction”, until it reaches/strikes its “floor”."Again, same question, how does it know which way is downward? Equivalently, how does it "know" where the floor is, in order to aim for it?If there isn't some force acting on things to make them fall "down" how come they "know" not to go sideways, or up, or stay still? I say that force is gravity and I don't understand what "downward" means except in terms of in the direction of the force of gravity
"As far as your not believing that gravity has no “force”"Sorry, but that's the oposite of what I said; "I say that force is gravity".What happens if my helpful robot friend (who doesn't need any air and doesn't take any to the moon with him) stands on the moon and drop a rock?Does the rock stay still, fall towards the earth or fall towards the moon?I say it falls to the moon and that's due to gravity.
I haven't been following this closely. If gravity is not supplying the force which pulls bodies of mass together, what is?Could you also explain how you have arrived at rule 2? I dont see why a mass in a sealed gas filled container in would float inside the container in a vaccuum, or do you only mean in space? What would happen to a mass in a sealed container which was evacuated of gas, but still sealed from the seperate vaccuum of space? (not to suggest that there are many different kinds of vaccuum, but that if a vaccuum-filled sealed container was sent into space, I would expect to see a body of mass inside it act in avery similar way to the same sealed container filled with gas)
How do you explain Cavendish's experiment etc.I think it's down to Newton being right etc.can we leave relativity out of this please because it generally gives me a headache).
Also, when you say that "If matter had “attractive force” as Newton theorized in his “Theory of gravitation”, people and objects would not be floating in the air inside the ship, or at least, other floating objects would be massing together in the air of the ship. This does not happen at all, even though with free flotation, there is a perfect condition in which this could happen, but it does not, because gravitational attraction is an incorrect theory. Objects even touch as they slowly pass, but none stay together." Have you worked out just how slowly they would drift together?Imagine 2 balls of mass 1 kg set free in space a metre apart. They would accelerate together at about 0.0000000000667 m/s/sthe longest space flights are about a year. If nothing else acted on the 2 objects then after a year they would have picked up a speed of 2mm/sec.Do you really think anyone would notice?
There really is a perfectly measurable force; its not "some kind of miniscule appearance of attraction that is virtually unmeasurable"It's perfectly measurable and, for things as big as the earth its even quite big. It's called gravity. It works fine and it is the right "size" to explain Caendishes results and the tides. Why try to introduce some new theory?Something that is insignificant for a pair of 1KG balls can be significant when the balls weigh as much as the moon and the earth. You ask "then where does your speed scale fit in?" It fits in perfectly well thank you. If I change the experiment to make one of the balls the mass of the earth (6X 10^24 Kg) and then increase the distance to equal the earth's radius (6.4X10^6 Metres)then I get a force thats 9.77 Newtons and that would accelerat the 1 KG ball at about 9.8 m/s/s Exactly what is observed in reality.It's all very well for you to say "I won't try to defend my logic against something I don't believe - like gravity that "attracts"." but you really need to have an alternative explanation for things like Cavendish's work. You can say that you don't wish to talk about Newton's or Einsteins theories. Fair enough. You can't sensibly ignore experimental results like those produced by Cavendish.Gravity really does exist; it's why I'm sat on a chair not floating in space and it's perfectly measurable. It's not a strong force so you need very big things or very sensitive measurements but that doesn't stop it being real.
Newton ignored many attempts by others to get him to explain "causality" when it came to gravity and pressed ahead with his ideas despite proof of cause. Newton saw the apple fall and by observation assumed that the inherent positive attraction of the earth's "gravity" caused it to fall toward the earth and yet, we still do not know what gravity is or its cause.If gravity was a pushing force and not attractive and affected mass, wouldn't the observations be the same?Two objects would still approach each other but not by attraction, observation of planets and tides would still be the same, and you would still be able to sit on that chair. Bee
You need an explanation of Cavendish's result and a reason to not believe in gravity..Why introduce the electrostatic force equation when you can't explain why you don't accept the experimental evidence from Cavendish and many other things?Just for the record, while they both have an inverse square law there is a real difference. Like charges repel...
1 Your theory offers no explanation of anything that Newtonian gravity doesn't explain.2 Your theory talks about things falling without giving a meaningful explanation of how they know which way is "down" for them to fall.3 Your theory contradicts observable experimental facts.