Gravity and the Solar System

[Dotini]

Here's another thought: Try our best not to use the DailyMail (UK) as a source or citation for anything you ever do again in your life, or at least not here in the TB Forum. The reason is, it has a terrible global reputation for fear-mongering, exaggeration and playing to the crowds' lowest imaginable taste. Using this source, no matter how impressive in it's immediate appearance, will do more to damage your case and your reputation - right out of the starting gate! - than any statement or remark you might subsequently make in connection with that source or citation.

Protectively submitted,
Dotini

[Siggy_G]

The primary source for the above-mentioned gravity mapping of Earth can be found here:

ESA News

Although this is not entirely related to the opening post, the gravity mapping just underlines that the gravity constant (G) is misguided and would have implications on any gravity driven model. The question whether it may be related to charge is a good one, and Wallace Thornhill has brought up the very same issue. I really recommend the DVD set of his seminar at SIS this summer, where he summarized the issues of current cosmology and gravity, as well as explaining Plasma Cosmology and The Electric Universe.

SIS books and DVDs to be ordered
Select "Other Purchases" and type "W.Thornhill Electric Universe DVDs"

[JW Doogie]

I realize of course that the topographical features of the computer simulated globe have been "enhanced" in order to make the gravity stats more visually apprehendable ...

But I feel that clever visual representation should help intellectually honest ones to intuitively realize this: if our planet formed as a result of a gravity-driven coalescing of a spinning cloud of matter, it wouldn't have resulted in a truly round planet. Thus gravity is NOT be the primary driving force behind planet formation.

That's my non-scientist take on the video anyway.

[justcurious]

In light of EU observations and theory, should we reexamine the current conclusions regarding the masses of planets and stars? From what I understand the masses of these bodies is based on Newtonian physics. And we now know that the much stronger electrical force is in full effect in the cosmos. Maybe some of these massive bodies are much lighter than we expect since their mass was possibly erroneously deduced by the gravitational model.

[pavlink]

justcurious, please, have a look at "Miles Mathis 'What is G?'"
viewtopic.php?p=77085#p77085

That was my response to your question.

[nick c]

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/newtons-e ... ar-system/

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric- ... e=89xdcmfs

[justcurious]

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/newtons-electric-clockwork-solar-system/

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric- ... e=89xdcmfs

Awesome, I need to spend more time on holoscience, they also have the links to full text peer reviewed papers.

I watched a documentary on Velikovsky the other day. It seems that one of the biggest criticisms of his theories was that he described planets changing orbits, a feat that would almost impossible according to the Newtonian gravitational model, but makes a lot of sense in the context of stable orbits with feedback mechanisms (ie planet get's pulled back to the stable orbital path when going astray) as suggested in the holoscience links. We are very fortunate to have bright minds (I would call them "masters") such as Talbott, Thronhill, Dion Scott and the others .