Gravity Doesn't Exist

[mars_or_die]

Lets start by looking at our own solar system. If Gravity was responsible for the planets orbits as is currently believed then we would have no moon, no comets soaring around, no meteor(ite)s impacting the Earth. Here is why...<br /><br />Current theories (and that is all they are) on Gravity say that gravity is relative to the mass of an object. So by that logic, the Sun would produce 1,000's of times more gravity than say, the Earth. A gravitational field that strong would eventually suck everything into it (like a black hole). It would constantly draw orbits of planets, comets, etc. closer to the sun. It would suck the Moon right out of orbit around the Earth. But this is not the case. It is a PROVEN FACT that our solar system is EXPANDING. The Earth IS NOT GETTING CLOSER to the Sun.<br /><br />Now let's look here on Earth itself. If gravity was responsible for keeping us DOWN TO EARTH then while I am standing upright in the United States people around the world in Australia would be UPSIDE DOWN. Additionally people in Europe and Russia would be on their sides. That is absolutely proposterous and probably the reason humanity believed the Earth was flat for as long as they did.<br /><br />Now with that said, there is obviously and observable some FORCE that binds us to the Earth, binds the moon to the Earth, binds the Earth to the Sun, binds our solar system to the Milky Way, etc.<br /><br />But the misquided scientifically accepted theory of UNIVERSAL GRAVITY is ABSURD at best and ridiculously ludicrous. <br /><br />Gravity is ABSOLUTELY NOT a DIRECT EFFECT of an OBJECTS MASS. If it was you would not be able to drop a peanut and a gold brick at the same time, from the same height (inside a vacuum) and have them both hit the ground at the same time. Which by the way has been PROVEN over and over again. To boot the Sun would pull us off the surface of Earth, thru Earth's atmosphere, freeze us in the vastness of space, pull us towards the Sun for us to thaw just before we imp

 

[vogon13]

We had a poster not too long ago that denied electricity existed.<br /><br />I have no idea how he got his PC to work . . . .<br /><br /><br />Do you still seem to be attracted to the earth's surface or are you levitating or accelerating upward through the atmosphere?<br /><br />Help me out here.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

excellent thread topic.<br /><br />gravity is a geometric result of acceleration only. it is not dependent or proportional to an object's mass. the earth, the planets, are all expanding outward at a constant rate, accelerating constantly, expanding <i>relative to their sizes --not masses.</i>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">are you levitating or accelerating upward through the atmosphere? <br /></font><br /><br />you are levitating, free-floating without gravity. the earth is accelerating beneath you, expanding relative to it's enormous size relative to yours.

 

[jatslo]

bonzelite: "... <font color="orange">gravity is a geometric result of acceleration</font>..." That might be valid; for example, if I ran really fast in the other direction, then I could jump off the planet, and fly to Mars without too much effort.

 

[bonzelite]

escape velocity is really the overcoming of the earth's expansion.

 

[tap_sa]

<b>Medic!</b>

 

[jatslo]

If solar enigmatics places a squeeze on the electromagnetic field that encapsulates the Earth, then the ensuing effect would justify increased core spin, that when quantified in a lab, as increased gravity. These oscillations are being measured, and some believe that the gravity oscillations are a direct result of gravitons phasing in and out of the cosmos, which add credence to "String Theory". I suspect the oscillations are retrospect of electromagnetic field compression of the "Planet Core".<br /><br />On another note; sound waves are pretty good at spinning objects in space-time, while (EM) prevents mitosis. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[derekmcd]

Forgive me for not understanding your theory. How is the earth expanding and accelerating? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[thepiper]

The main problem with gravity is that way back in the days of steam engines it was decided that gravity was a property of an object, like color and hardness. Then this became accepted as dogma and everything else was built upon it. That is why practically everything else is incorrect and why people look for alternate explanations.<br /><br />I don't think the Earth is expanding, that is an <b><i>ad hoc</i></b> explanation that is only required because the problem is looked at using the current set of "laws", laws which are fundamentally incorrect. Gravity can <b>not</b> be a property of matter (mass) because it would then not exist between the source and the effect. This MUST be accounted for. <br /><br />What is the "speed of gravity"? Ask yourself this: you suddenly pop into existence about 185 miles up above the Earth. How long will it take before you feel its gravitational effect? A while? A millisecond? Istantly? A millisecond would be the speed of light, but I think it would be instant and thus faster than light.<br /><br />Is the Earth orbiting the Sun's current position or is it orbiting the empty spot where the Sun was 8.3 minutes ago? The real answer is apparently neither:<br /><br /><font color="orange">By direct calculation from geometric ephemerides fitted to such observations, such as those published by the U.S. Naval Observatory or the Development Ephemerides of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc seconds <b>in front</b> of the visible Sun, where the Sun will appear to be in 8.3 minutes.</font><br /><br />Gravity is a side-effect of electromagnetism, which is in fact what rules our universe. One of the only truly known aspects of gravity is that it is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from its source. The same appplies to light and heat. And since the electric force is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, the force of gravity is effectively zero in the presence of the e

 

[bonzelite]

^^^electric universe does not account for expansion of matter to create acceleration. acceleration occurs at the atomic level, at a constant rate, as everthing possesses <i>expansion and acceleration, not gravity as it is currently believed to be.</i> it is not ad hoc, as "g" can be created geometrically, and d=1/2at^2 proves this, with "a" being replaced with "g" being completely un-necessary. <br /><br />this is my opinion.

 

[thepiper]

You start with the assumption that this expansion exists, and this expansion is based <b>solely</b> on redshift being an indicator of recession speed and therefore distance.<br /><br />Look into Halton Arp's work. Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps (look into "quantized redshift").<br /><br />Arp suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherent redshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent.<br /><br />It is therefore possible that redshift is more a sign of age than of recession velocity, that the universe is NOT expanding, and that the part we are able to see is nowhere near as vast as most believe. No expansion of the universe = no need for expanding planets.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />You start with the assumption that this expansion exists, and this expansion is based solely on redshift being an indicator of recession speed and therefore distance. <br /></font><br /><br />first off, it may not exist. i want to make that clear. <br /><br />secondly, i think it does based not on redshift, but on the 9.8m/s² acceleration effect that gravity creates on this earth --regardless of the object's mass that is falling (except for very large objects, such as the moon that attracts the earth to it). gravity is constant for objects resting on the earth, or "falling" to the earth. as the earth expands, it meets and accelerates up to the objects, not the other way around where we perceive things to "fall." there is really no gravity, but only free-floating conditions. this is how a feather and a brick can fall to earth at the same rate, neglecting wind resistance. <br /><br /><font color="orange"><br />It is therefore possible that redshift is more a sign of age than of recession velocity, that the universe is NOT expanding, </font><br /><br />that may be true, as well. objects may expand into the empty space, with space itself remaining static.

 

[jatslo]

Currently, gravity is not a measurable force; however, there is something in space that resembles a gyroscope of sorts with a particular angle on something that when quantified, measures gravitational anomalies, in which I suspect that those anomalies are, in fact, oscillations. Your expansion hypothesis is interesting, because it would be something to observe, if these events occur within a dissipation environment. For example, as a system dissipates, matter converts to energy, in which that energy arcs into space when it has no foothold on a space, or when that foothold fills to capacity, as in a capacitor. As that system dissipates, it loses mass, increases in volume, and decreases in gravity.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"> Your expansion hypothesis is interesting, because it would be something to observe...</font><br /><br />you can observe it right now by taking a big rock and a shirt and dropping them from the same height. regardless of their masses, they will be hit by the acceleration of 9.8m/s² as the earth comes up to meet them.

 

[jatslo]

You forgot the "in a vacuum" part. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[derekmcd]

So, as the earth comes up to meet the rock and shirt, do people on the other side of the planet feel lighter? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[jatslo]

bonzelite is speaking in scalar; therefore, the Earth would rush up to meet everything simultaneously. So hypothetically, everything is expanding at a constant rate, including you and me, and that is why we cannot place our finger on the possible factoid. However, observations suggest that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, so galaxies would appear to be getting smaller as they get further and further away. Could it be that we are getting bigger, or increasing in volume while the displacement between the masses is growing? If the diplacement mass between stars within our own galaxy is increasing, then that would be interesting evidence, I think.<br /><br />Can you step out of your box?

 

[bonzelite]

you're pretty much hitting on the idea, yes. <br /><br />

 

[jatslo]

It is a good idea, bonzelite, and there is evidence that will support it. Visualizing these types of phenomena is almost as hard as visualizing time. For example, if the universe is expanding, the galaxies are expanding, the stars are expanding, the planets are expanding, and so on, and the rate of expansion is centrifugal.

 

[thepiper]

I have no problem accepting the possibility of an expanding earth. After all, no matter how deep we dig down we find traces of past life. But I think it is a slower process than could account for the full effects of gravity.<br /><br />This expansion would have occurred over the course of hundreds of thousands of years (and would still be happening), leading to the higher gravity environment we have today under which dinosaurs and megaflora could no longer exist.<br /><br />Yet I see it as more of a physical expansion of the planet itself and I believe that, if anything, we have grown smaller due to the higher gravity. The phrase "There were giants in the earth in those days" comes to mind.

 

[derekmcd]

Explain how the moon affects tides if it is due to acceleration and not mass. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[jatslo]

ThePiper: "... <font color="orange">we have grown smaller due to the higher gravity.</font>" The fact that dinosaurs were humungous (muscular), that would support a increased gravity, in my opinion, since the solar system was more massive 60-million years ago, or was it?<br /><br />We need to reverse order for this to work; oh my!?!?!?<br /><br />Okay, the rate of dissipation could of been greater than it is today, because the solar system was more massive. For example, the rate of dissipation could be stepping down as there is less matter to energy conversion occuring presently. DUH!!! I'll make it work!!<br />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />I have no problem accepting the possibility of an expanding earth. After all, no matter how deep we dig down we find traces of past life. But I think it is a slower process than could account for the full effects of gravity. </font><br /><br />cool. <br /><br />i tend to be all or nothing about it. our "gravity" is created by the expansion. it is the full effect.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />This expansion would have occurred over the course of hundreds of thousands of years (and would still be happening), leading to the higher gravity environment we have today under which dinosaurs and megaflora could no longer exist. <br /></font><br /><br />excellent point. longer ago, yes, the earth would have been proportionately smaller and with less relative expansion. therefore, yes, the relative acceleration of the smaller earth would render less force upon objects. an extreme example would be a basketball. it's smaller size renders a smaller relative distance that it expands, yet all objects are expanding at a constant rate, so the effect of the enlargements is inperceptible optically, but is revealed in the constant acceleration of the earth when objects of dissimilar masses are "dropped." <br /><br />we have grown, therefore, <i>larger,</i> and continue this trend perpetually. <br />

 

[jatslo]

Huh... if there was more of something 60-million years ago, then the rate of dissipation is multiplied exponentially; therefore, the dino-humanoids were larger, because the gravity was greater than the gravity of today.