My gravity theory

Motor Daddy

Valued Senior Member
When you lift a rock off the surface of the earth you are extending the radius of the rock from the center of the earth. You are forcing a higher velocity on the rock, as it is a greater distance away from the center of the earth and you are forcing the rock to travel a greater distance in space per revolution of the earth as compared to the surface of the earth. In the absence of a force holding that rock at a higher velocity, the rock can not sustain that higher velocity without that force, and it returns to a spot where the velocity is correct for it, which in the earth's case is below the surface of the earth, but the earth is stopping the rock from decreasing velocity any more, as it is forcing a velocity on the rock. Ultimately there would be no velocity if you were 0 distance away from the axis. It takes more force to accelerate a larger mass, so a larger mass will require more force to accelerate the rock's velocity when you increase the radius (when you lift it). Of course, when rocks are trying to get to the axis and the mass of the earth won't let it it turns into a density order, because the more massive object will require more force to stop it from getting to the center. So you end up with a massive core and a less dense volume as you travel away from the axis.
 
Then why is the pull of objects not dependent on the rotation of a body? Say for example, the Moon, which rotates once every 28 days more or less. Gravity would be a lot less than the 1/6 g that we predict, and find.
 
When you lift a rock off the surface of the earth you are extending the radius of the rock from the center of the earth. You are forcing a higher velocity on the rock, as it is a greater distance away from the center of the earth and you are forcing the rock to travel a greater distance in space per revolution of the earth as compared to the surface of the earth. In the absence of a force holding that rock at a higher velocity, the rock can not sustain that higher velocity without that force, and it returns to a spot where the velocity is correct for it, which in the earth's case is below the surface of the earth, but the earth is stopping the rock from decreasing velocity any more, as it is forcing a velocity on the rock. Ultimately there would be no velocity if you were 0 distance away from the axis. It takes more force to accelerate a larger mass, so a larger mass will require more force to accelerate the rock's velocity when you increase the radius (when you lift it). Of course, when rocks are trying to get to the axis and the mass of the earth won't let it it turns into a density order, because the more massive object will require more force to stop it from getting to the center. So you end up with a massive core and a less dense volume as you travel away from the axis.
=============================

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
News • Science & Technology • science • christianity • ISSUE 41•33 • Aug 17, 2005

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
======================================
 
But Intelligent Falling doesn't have the problem his theory does. If anything it can vary to match the pull/push needed to give all appearances of masses actually attracting each other a certain amount.
 
Then why is the pull of objects not dependent on the rotation of a body? Say for example, the Moon, which rotates once every 28 days more or less. Gravity would be a lot less than the 1/6 g that we predict, and find.

What pull? There is only "push" from the axis. The surface of the earth is forcing you to have a velocity in space. The earth is forcing you to go around its axis. If you lift a rock away from the axis you are increasing the velocity of the rock, and also causing the radius to increase. If you increase the radius enough, like to say the surface of the atmosphere and further out, the atmosphere is not strong enough to force you to travel with the earth, so bye bye you go.
 
Interesting. I can go to the north or south pole and fly through the air because I am weightless.
 
But Intelligent Falling doesn't have the problem his theory does. If anything it can vary to match the pull/push needed to give all appearances of masses actually attracting each other a certain amount.

Problem schmoblem. You're not a mechanic like he is and you're handicapped with all your fancy learnin'.

They laughed at Galileo, too, you know!
 
What pull? There is only "push" from the axis. The surface of the earth is forcing you to have a velocity in space. The earth is forcing you to go around its axis. If you lift a rock away from the axis you are increasing the velocity of the rock, and also causing the radius to increase. If you increase the radius enough, like to say the surface of the atmosphere and further out, the atmosphere is not strong enough to force you to travel with the earth, so bye bye you go.

So explain orbits then.
 
The moon is getting further from the earth because the earth is forcing it away. The earth is getting farther from the sun because the sun is forcing it away.

The solar systems are getting further from the galaxy core as the black hole is forcing the mass away. All that galactic mass came from the core of that galaxy's black hole.
 
Then why does it take work to lift an object, if it is being forced out?

Say you are on the equator. You have a specific distance that you are traveling in space as you rotate with the earth. The earth is forcing you to be at that velocity. When you lift an object you are applying a force to the object in order to try to accelerate that object. When the net force is greater than zero you have lift off. In order to keep that acceleration you must keep applying that force. You can't take your hand away from the rock and remove the force and expect the object to keep accelerating. That's like turning off your engine while you are wide open throttle and expecting your car to keep accelerating. It ain't gonna happen, and as the force is removed the object comes down to a lower velocity, which its goal is always to get to zero.
 
You are missing the point. You claim in your opening post that it takes force to make something go up, or in your world gain velocity, but then you claim that things are being forced out, as in the Moon, the planets, etc. Pick one.
 
You are missing the point. You claim in your opening post that it takes force to make something go up, or in your world gain velocity, but then you claim that things are being forced out, as in the Moon, the planets, etc. Pick one.

It does take force to increase an object's radius from the core. The sun forced the earth away and continues to do that at all times. You too can force rocks into space at all times if you continue to force a rock away from the axis. Just keep applying a force over a duration of time.
 
The moon is getting further from the earth because the earth is forcing it away. The earth is getting farther from the sun because the sun is forcing it away.
That's impossible. Apparently you mean the gravitational attraction between objects is subject to changes in mass which would disturb the orbits ever so slightly. That remains to be seen.

The moon's orbit around the Earth is disturbed by dragging the oceans around, consuming energy.

If the Earth's orbit is changing, it is near or below the threshold of measurement error. Even then, tides on the Sun, and massive ejection events, would probably be capable of extremely small changes to Earth's average distance from the Sun.

The Sun is of course losing mass every moment. This will increase the orbital radii a very small amount.
 
That's impossible. Apparently you mean the gravitational attraction between objects...

Did I mention the word attraction anywhere in my statements? You know why? I make no claim of an attraction or repulsion. I simply state that gravity is no different than any other force. Force is force, period! You want to increase the radius of a rock from the axis? Go ahead, force it!
 
Did I mention the word attraction anywhere in my statements? You know why? I make no claim of an attraction or repulsion. I simply state that gravity is no different than any other force. Force is force, period! You want to increase the radius of a rock from the axis? Go ahead, force it!

No, a force is not a force. They arise from different causes. The electric and magnetic forces have nothing to do with the mechanical force you are talking about. They arise from fields, not from mechanical action.

Similarly, gravity is a specific force that arises merely from point mass distributions over space:

0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png

You will note this has nothing to do with ma.

Thus a force is not a force.
 
No, a force is not a force. They arise from different causes. The electric and magnetic forces have nothing to do with the mechanical force you are talking about. They arise from fields, not from mechanical action.

Similarly, gravity is a specific force that arises merely from point mass distributions over space:

0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png

You will note this has nothing to do with ma.

Thus a force is not a force.

There's a new sheriff in town now. This is my world. Newton was wrong, there is no attraction, only force.
 
Back
Top