the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity

[JeffreyW]

Gravity effectively operates from a point source, eg the center of the Sun etc.

That is not proven nor known. There is no such thing as a point. Gravity's source and reason for existence, how it is distributed, is unknown.

I concur. A point is a geometric idea that has no extension. Anybody with basic understand of geometry understands this. This understanding is routinely ignored by establishment physicists. They choose to make "points" as 3D reality. This means they do not care for physics or reality, but only choose to do math.

"5. Mathematician: Someone who does not care for physics or reality, but chooses to do math."

5. Mathematicians. They are useless unless they apply some of their math to physics, which like I said in #4, math is confused for physics all the time.

The mathematicians will never understand the causes of gravitation. This is not because they are "dumb" but because they confuse math for physics.

+100 you got it. A "point" is only conceptual. It has no dimension or ability to conduct any form of physical influence.

There is also no such thing as a "2D surface" in actuality. It is only a mathematical concept for practical construction. One cannot go out to the grocery or hardware store and bring a "2D surface" back home for the family to view and experience.

Moreover, a "2D surface", in a topographical sense, is a contradiction of terms. It is a nonsense phrase.

The mathematicians think they are describing reality with zero dimensional black holes, 1 dimensional points, 2 dimensional surfaces, (skip three dimensional reality) and go straight to 4th dimensional space time warping... It is 100% clear mathematicians are not physicists. They are frauds, snake oil peddlers, scam artists. They are inventing bullcrap that does not exist.

Let it be known that two 2 dimensional surfaces intersecting are what "electromagnetic waves" are according to Maxwell's equations. No wonder these fools don't understand what light is!

[CharlesChandler]

My understanding of the OP is that we have a known gravity for the Earth, because we can measure ourselves, and stuff we send up into space, and then we observe the orbit of the Moon, which is slowly drifting away from the Earth, and then we calculate the gravitational force based on that, which comes up with a really low number, which requires that the Moon be less dense than water, when clearly it's a rocky object, more dense than water.

Like meemoe_uk, I agree that a part of what is calculated as gravity is actually the electric force, in what Pollack calls the "like-likes-like" configuration (i.e., the negatively charged planets are being pulled together by a mutual attraction to the positive plasma between them). If that's true, the discrepancy is evidence that the Moon is not so negatively charged, and therefore doesn't want to play the "like-likes-like" game. It may well be a rocky body, more dense than water, but if it isn't charged, it won't appear to be as "massive".

I wonder if there are data on the Moon's charge?

And are all of the planets/moon that do not have an atmosphere very low in density? (I'm convinced that atmospheres are Debye sheaths, that can only exist by their electrostatic attraction to the planet/moon.)

[viscount aero]

The mathematicians think they are describing reality with zero dimensional black holes, 1 dimensional points, 2 dimensional surfaces, (skip three dimensional reality) and go straight to 4th dimensional space time warping... It is 100% clear mathematicians are not physicists. They are frauds, snake oil peddlers, scam artists. They are inventing bullcrap that does not exist.

Let it be known that two 2 dimensional surfaces intersecting are what "electromagnetic waves" are according to Maxwell's equations. No wonder these fools don't understand what light is!

yes

Isn't it baffling that everything but 3D has relevance in cosmic mechanics and phenomena?

[marengo]

Out of interest, whats your explanation for Mars and Mercury having the same surface gravity?

I cannot believe that you are asking this question.
Simply, the surface is at a different distance from the effective point source at the center of the planets.
The planet with greatest mass also has a larger radius.Are you forgetting that acc = GM/r^2.

[marengo]

That is not proven nor known. There is no such thing as a point. Gravity's source and reason for existence, how it is distributed, is unknown.

Newton proved it.
Perhaps there may not be such a thing as a point but I said EFFECTIVELY.
It is true that gravity is not entirely understood. Try reading my paper on gravity for a more complete understanding.
However Newtons law is correct except for very extreme cases.

[marengo]

I concur. A point is a geometric idea that has no extension. Anybody with basic understand of geometry understands this. This understanding is routinely ignored by establishment physicists. They choose to make "points" as 3D reality. This means they do not care for physics or reality, but only choose to do math.

"5. Mathematician: Someone who does not care for physics or reality, but chooses to do math."

5. Mathematicians. They are useless unless they apply some of their math to physics, which like I said in #4, math is confused for physics all the time.

I dont see your point (Ha Ha). No-one, including myself, is saying that a 'point' is a physical thing. Just because people use maths and theoretical concepts does not meant that they are idiots in practical physics as you would like to believe.
You seem to be over keen to run people down.

[marengo]

+100 you got it. A "point" is only conceptual. It has no dimension or ability to conduct any form of physical influence.

There is also no such thing as a "2D surface" in actuality. It is only a mathematical concept for practical construction. One cannot go out to the grocery or hardware store and bring a "2D surface" back home for the family to view and experience.

Moreover, a "2D surface", in a topographical sense, is a contradiction of terms. It is a nonsense phrase.

You have the knack of always wandering off the point (Ha Ha)
We are supposed to be talking about gravity.
Everyone knows (dont they?) that points are conceptual creations. So why keep belabouring the 'point'?

[marengo]

The mathematicians think they are describing reality with zero dimensional black holes, 1 dimensional points, 2 dimensional surfaces, (skip three dimensional reality) and go straight to 4th dimensional space time warping... It is 100% clear mathematicians are not physicists. They are frauds, snake oil peddlers, scam artists. They are inventing bullcrap that does not exist.

Let it be known that two 2 dimensional surfaces intersecting are what "electromagnetic waves" are according to Maxwell's equations. No wonder these fools don't understand what light is!

I go some way to agreeing with you. Sometimes mathematicians destroy good physics.
Nevertheless physics could not exist without mathematics.
I employ maths in my Aether papers out of necessity. If you think that is bad then why dont you tell me exactly where I have gone wrong? I will wager I dont get a decent reply to that question.

[marengo]

My understanding of the OP is that we have a known gravity for the Earth, because we can measure ourselves, and stuff we send up into space, and then we observe the orbit of the Moon, which is slowly drifting away from the Earth, and then we calculate the gravitational force based on that, which comes up with a really low number, which requires that the Moon be less dense than water, when clearly it's a rocky object, more dense than water.

Your post is unintelligible.
The orbit of the Moon is a function of the gravitational attraction of Earth and the orbital velocity of the Moon. The density of the Moon does not come into it.

[marengo]

Let it be known that two 2 dimensional surfaces intersecting are what "electromagnetic waves" are according to Maxwell's equations. No wonder these fools don't understand what light is!

Perhaps, as a non-fool, you would care to enlighten us on what light really is?

[viscount aero]

That is not proven nor known. There is no such thing as a point. Gravity's source and reason for existence, how it is distributed, is unknown.

Newton proved it.

No he didn't. He created an approximation of what it does--not what it is or how or why it exists.

Perhaps there may not be such a thing as a point...

In agreeing with me you just contradicted your own assertion that gravity acts as a "point source"...

..but I said EFFECTIVELY.

Yes I agree--you effectively said nothing factual and contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

It is true that gravity is not entirely understood.

That's right.

Try reading my paper on gravity for a more complete understanding.

LOL ok How can anyone read your paper for a "more complete understanding" of gravity when you agree with me that gravity cannot be entirely understood!

However Newtons law is correct except for very extreme cases.

How can you continue to actually believe this when gravity cannot be known as to its origin or to the nature of its mechanism for existing? Are we to assume, too, that gravitational behavior on macro scales--as found in galaxies--is an extreme case? Galaxies are anomalous things? Right You might as well be talking about the big bang and telling readers to "read my papers for a more complete understanding of the big bang" when the origin of the universe, like gravity itself, cannot be understood in actuality, not by electric cosmos, not by the standard model.

[nick c]

However Newtons law is correct except for very extreme cases.

Well, it does not work at cosmic scales, witness the need for the ad hoc addition of a supposition that the majority of matter in the universe is Dark (unseen, undetectable, non baryonic) Matter.
And there are problems with the solar system as a gravitational system too. The little fact that Newtonian calculations of a multi planet solar system tend toward unpredictability over time is often ignored by those who seem to prefer to regard the Solar System as a perpetual clock.
recommended reading:
Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System

[CharlesChandler]

My understanding of the OP is that we have a known gravity for the Earth, because we can measure ourselves, and stuff we send up into space, and then we observe the orbit of the Moon, which is slowly drifting away from the Earth, and then we calculate the gravitational force based on that, which comes up with a really low number, which requires that the Moon be less dense than water, when clearly it's a rocky object, more dense than water.

Your post is unintelligible.
The orbit of the Moon is a function of the gravitational attraction of Earth and the orbital velocity of the Moon. The density of the Moon does not come into it.

The density doesn't enter into the calculation of the orbital characteristics of the Moon. But once the gravitational attraction is estimated, then we "think" we know the mass of the Moon. And we definitely know the radius, so we can calculate the volume. And just for the fun of it, we can find the density, as the mass/volume. The problem with that is that the density comes out lighter than water, when a rocky moon should be heavier than water. This means that one of our assumptions is false. Having been there, we're pretty sure of the distance, and the radius, and we're sure of the mass of the Earth. There are only two assumptions in there: 1) that gravity is the only force operative at the astronomical scale, and 2) that a rocky moon could be lighter than water. One of those assumptions is false.

[GaryN]

@CC

..and we're sure of the mass of the Earth

Are you sure we are sure?

[CharlesChandler]

@CC

..and we're sure of the mass of the Earth

Are you sure we are sure?

Yes. On Earth, we can experimentally isolate all of the forces, including gravity, inertia, and electric charge. We can see the 1:1 correspondence of gravity and inertia, hence the concept of mass as something that gives rise to both gravitational and inertial forces, though gravity varies with the distance between the bodies, while inertia is integral to the body itself, so that doesn't change. When we send rockets out into space, we can measure the distance from Earth, and the force of gravity diminishes as expected. So the Earth is a well-established benchmark.

That isn't to say that it's the only force, and there are anomalies, even here on Earth. I'm convinced that all of the anomalies are evidence of the electric force. But the force of gravity can be measured independent of the electric force here on Earth, so I'm not convinced that all gravity reduces to the electric force. Gravity is a force. It's just that it isn't the only force. And the problem in calculating orbits is that they're all predicated on the Earth's mass. Even the mass of the Sun was derived from the mass of the Earth, which we couldn't calculate accurately until the Space Age, when we gained the ability to measure gravity at varying distances. And in space, the gravitational anomalies are a bit more extreme. I'm convinced that there is an electrostatic attraction between celestial bodies, due to their net charges.