New theory of gravity
in [Physics]
|
Prev: fundamental representations
Next: heavy water in comets is already proof Re: Additive Creation; Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #169; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Matthew Lybanon on 16 Jun 2010 10:26 In article <f914a798-bf43-43b3-8ebe-3e27a82aa9b1(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, GogoJF <jfgogo22(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 2:48�pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 15, 2:27�pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > I propose a new theory of gravity. �According to conventional theory, > > > two objects of different weight, dropped off a tower, will land at > > > precisely the same time. > > > > > According to my new theory, the two objects only appear to land at the > > > same time because, in reference to the size of the Earth, the two > > > different weighted objects are virtually the same weight when compared > > > to the size of the Earth. > > > > > According to my new theory, larger objects fall more slowly than > > > smaller objects. �As objects become larger and larger, and finally can > > > be compared to the size of the Earth, these objects will begin to fall > > > more slowly. > > > > � Your new theory is contradicted by observation. > > In this case, the results of the observation obscure the truth of the > situation. The results of the observation tend either to confirm or contradict your theory. If you are saying that your theory cannot produce any observable effect that would distinguish it from other theories, then it is nothing but an intellectual exercise. The fact that you have a really neat idea does not make it a scientific theory.
From: Y.Porat on 16 Jun 2010 10:45 On Jun 15, 9:27 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I propose a new theory of gravity. According to conventional theory, > two objects of different weight, dropped off a tower, will land at > precisely the same time. > > According to my new theory, the two objects only appear to land at the > same time because, in reference to the size of the Earth, the two > different weighted objects are virtually the same weight when compared > to the size of the Earth. > > According to my new theory, larger objects fall more slowly than > smaller objects. As objects become larger and larger, and finally can > be compared to the size of the Earth, these objects will begin to fall > more slowly. > > Case in point. The moon is an object approximately one quarter the > size of the Earth. Since it is such a large object and still is > dictated by the Earth, (revolves around it), there finally comes a > critical point where the object, not only falls slower, but stops > falling altogether and is suspended in animation. This is my > definition of the strength of gravity. > > I believe that the conventional theory of gravity is superficial, and > only describes motion in terms of our limited point of view. ---------------- Mr Gogo before Analyzing the 'velocity of fall' you have first to explain WHY AT ALL 'FALL ' iow what makes*** that** attraction force !!!! (before running you have to learn walking ...!!!) ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------
From: Cwatters on 16 Jun 2010 13:36 "GogoJF" <jfgogo22(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:04fdeddd-7003-4029-8685-29d4826e75cd(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > Case in point. The moon is an object approximately one quarter the > size of the Earth. Since it is such a large object and still is > dictated by the Earth, (revolves around it), there finally comes a > critical point where the object, not only falls slower, but stops > falling altogether and is suspended in animation. This is my > definition of the strength of gravity. The earth is too small to stop it falling towards the sun. Stars orbiting the black hole at the center of the galaxy still fall towards it. So exactly how big do things have to be before they "stop falling"?
From: GogoJF on 17 Jun 2010 00:43 On Jun 16, 12:36 pm, "Cwatters" <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > "GogoJF" <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:04fdeddd-7003-4029-8685-29d4826e75cd(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > Case in point. The moon is an object approximately one quarter the > > > size of the Earth. Since it is such a large object and still is > > dictated by the Earth, (revolves around it), there finally comes a > > critical point where the object, not only falls slower, but stops > > falling altogether and is suspended in animation. This is my > > definition of the strength of gravity. > > The earth is too small to stop it falling towards the sun. > Stars orbiting the black hole at the center of the galaxy still fall towards > it. > > So exactly how big do things have to be before they "stop falling"? Well, life had to become extremely stable before we started to talk of life of "stillness". We live our lives inertly.
From: bert on 17 Jun 2010 10:41
On Jun 16, 10:26 am, Matthew Lybanon <lyba...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > In article > <f914a798-bf43-43b3-8ebe-3e27a82aa...(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Jun 15, 2:48 pm, Sam <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 15, 2:27 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > I propose a new theory of gravity. According to conventional theory, > > > > two objects of different weight, dropped off a tower, will land at > > > > precisely the same time. > > > > > According to my new theory, the two objects only appear to land at the > > > > same time because, in reference to the size of the Earth, the two > > > > different weighted objects are virtually the same weight when compared > > > > to the size of the Earth. > > > > > According to my new theory, larger objects fall more slowly than > > > > smaller objects. As objects become larger and larger, and finally can > > > > be compared to the size of the Earth, these objects will begin to fall > > > > more slowly. > > > > Your new theory is contradicted by observation. > > > In this case, the results of the observation obscure the truth of the > > situation. > > The results of the observation tend either to confirm or contradict your > theory. If you are saying that your theory cannot produce any > observable effect that would distinguish it from other theories, then it > is nothing but an intellectual exercise. The fact that you have a > really neat idea does not make it a scientific theory.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - GR curve space answers why size and weight do not effect rate of fall. Best to keep in mind the Earth could come up to the apple. But alaise inertia takes care of that and inertia and gravity two sides to same coin. Tricky but true TreBert |