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: GogoJF on 17 Jun 2010 23:19 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. > > 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. smallest particle = weightless = fastest = c larger particle = more weight = slower larger planet = more weight = slower smaller particles on planet travel = appear to travel faster = motion
From: GogoJF on 17 Jun 2010 23:31 On Jun 17, 10:19 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.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. > > > 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. > > smallest particle = weightless = fastest = c > larger particle = more weight = slower > larger planet = more weight = slower > smaller particles on planet travel = appear to travel faster = motion The moon is a quarter of the size of earth. So, it is so large of an object that it has virtually zero speed as compared to the speed of light, (of the smaller Earthly objects). That's why Michelson got null.
From: Greg Neill on 18 Jun 2010 08:22 GogoJF wrote: > > The moon is a quarter of the size of earth. So, it is so large of an > object that it has virtually zero speed as compared to the speed of > light, (of the smaller Earthly objects). That's why Michelson got > null. Borrowing from Uncle Al: 1. Kepler's laws 2. Newtonian Physics 3. Idiot.
From: Puppet_Sock on 18 Jun 2010 10:02 On Jun 17, 12:43 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [my vorpal keyboard went snicker] > Well, life had to become extremely stable before we started to talk of > life of "stillness". We live our lives inertly. [snack] Would you please live your life inertly? That would be so nice. Socks
From: Uncle Al on 18 Jun 2010 11:11
Greg Neill wrote: > > GogoJF wrote: > > > > The moon is a quarter of the size of earth. So, it is so large of an > > object that it has virtually zero speed as compared to the speed of > > light, (of the smaller Earthly objects). That's why Michelson got > > null. > > Borrowing from Uncle Al: > > 1. Kepler's laws > 2. Newtonian Physics > 3. Idiot. [Note in proof: "idiot" is lowercase without a terminal period. The congenitally inconsequential must never be respected.] -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |