Does Gravity actually exists ?

Many Internet forums have carried discussion of the Electric Universe hypothesis. Much of that discussion has added more confusion than clarity, due to common misunderstandings of the electrical principles. Here we invite participants to discuss their experiences and to summarize questions that have yet to be answered.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Does Gravity actually exists ?

Unread postby IgorTesla » Fri Sep 11, 2015 9:07 pm

First of all i like to thank the people involved in the EU-theory for letting me be part of this community and hopefully i can contribute in a positive way.

After years of watching videos and reading articles about the a variety of scientific disciplines i kept thinking about gravity itself.
To me gravity has always been a very doubtfull mystery for which i yet have to find an answer and perhaps even a confirmation that gravity is just another mistake made due to the blind trust in mathematical science.

If gravity is a pulling force then how come the fallspeed of any object is constant and the same for everything that falls to earth ?
Shouldn't weight then dictate the velocity of an object falling to earth and wouldn't the rotation of the planet disturb the trajectory of the falling object ?
The only way i can explain these anomalies is that it isn't a pulling force at work but a pushing force thus contradicting the gravity theory.
Or is it just because the rotation of the earth itself that prevents us from being pulled towards the core of the planet ?
Hopefully i'm not asking stupid questions but i'm just not satisfied with the existence of the gravity theory itself.
Wouldn't it be impossible for small flying creatures (like fruitflies) to even take off if gravity exists ?
User avatar
IgorTesla
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:36 pm

Re: Does Gravity actually exists ?

Unread postby Pi sees » Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:56 pm

If gravity is a pulling force then how come the fallspeed of any object is constant and the same for everything that falls to earth ?


This is one of the things about gravity that makes me think it's a fictitious force. The others things that make me think that gravity is a fictitious force are:

[*]the fact that you can't block it at all by any means;
[*]the fact that it only ever seems to attract;
[*]the extreme weakness and inconsistency of the Gravitational Constant (big G);
[*]the bizarre dimensions of the Gravitational Constant (meters cubed per kilogram per second squared);
[*]my own experiences of how other fictitious forces (e.g. centrifugal force, straight-line acceleration in a vehicle) have the same sort of *feeling* as gravity;
[*]the fact that gravitons have never been detected, despite us being in an environment (i.e. the surface of Earth) where there should be an abundance of them; and
[*] the absurd theoretical concepts based on gravity (e.g. dark matter, spacetime).

At this point I am beginning to suspect that one of the fundamental notions of physics - i.e. that objects naturally tend to move in straight lines unless acted upon by another force - may be flawed. Apart from the fact that we do not ever see objects travel in straight lines in nature (except for mass-less subatomic "particles" like photons), the idea of an inherent tendency for straight-line motion is at the center of Einstein's absurd idea about gravity being due to a "curvature" of "spacetime".
Pi sees
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 7:04 am

Re: Does Gravity actually exists ?

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:14 am

Pi sees wrote:Apart from the fact that we do not ever see objects travel in straight lines in nature (except for mass-less subatomic "particles" like photons), the idea of an inherent tendency for straight-line motion is at the center of Einstein's absurd idea about gravity being due to a "curvature" of "spacetime".


Photon paths do curve, photons go in every direction, also all matter recycles photons (into the poles and out at the equator). It is just that the photons we see have a straight path to our eyes (or detectors). Photons do have mass and energy and spin (and are thus physical entities).

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Does Gravity actually exists ?

Unread postby IgorTesla » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:26 am

I think just a simple "WOW" will suffice :)

I'd never realized all the other implications you mentioned that indeed makes one wonder how science had ever came up with the idea of gravity being a real force (or natural constant).

Thank you for the new insight you gave me and indeed the list goes on and on if we keep looking at reality.

Hopefully one day science will wake up from this nightmare called gravity so we can all get back to business.
User avatar
IgorTesla
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:36 pm

Re: Does Gravity actually exists ?

Unread postby Pi sees » Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:50 pm

IgorTesla wrote:I'd never realized all the other implications you mentioned that indeed makes one wonder how science had ever came up with the idea of gravity being a real force (or natural constant).


Yes its a curious situation, isn't it. I think there are two reasons why gravity is taken to be real:

    1) It seems real, because we live on the surface of planet Earth where we are constantly surrounded by effects attributed to gravity (e.g. our feet staying on the ground); and

    2) Our physics starts off with the idea that all objects move in rectilinear paths by default, and we need something like gravity to "explain" the obvious incompatibility of this idea with empirical reality.

Virtually nothing was known about electricity and magnetism back when Newton devised his Universal Law of Gravitation. Even today, mainstream science refuses to believe that electricity and magnetism play significant roles in celestial motions. So when Newton observed the motions of the moons and planets around their parent bodies, it was both natural and tempting for him to conclude that these celestial motions were due to the same thing that causes apples to fall to the ground. Yet when he was asked about what gravity actually is, Newton response was "I frame no hypothesis" (i.e. he had no idea and wasn't willing to speculate).

So basically we've been lumped with this concept of "gravity" because of an historical accident, and it's become deeply ingrained in modern physics to the point of pathology.

Thank you for the new insight you gave me and indeed the list goes on and on if we keep looking at reality.


You're welcome :) Yes, the list does go on: for example, think of all the effort and expense that has been - and continues to be - put into the fruitless search for Einstein's gravitational waves. Or the strange variations in gravity when it's measured at certain locations (e.g. over continental shelves, on top of mountains, deep underground). Or the uncertainty about how fast gravity needs to propagate in order to keep the solar system in tact. Or the uncomfortable resemblance that mass-based gravitational attraction bears to action-at-a-distance, even if you do allow for some mysterious malleable "spacetime".

Hopefully one day science will wake up from this nightmare called gravity so we can all get back to business


I suspect that the orbits of moons, planets, and stars are due to "electromagnetic circumduction", as Velikovsky called it. As for terrestrial gravity (aka apple gravity), my thinking is as follows:

In most cases, objects which fall to the ground have usually come from ground to begin with. For example, falling apples come from apple trees, which in turn grow out of and are connected to the ground. Even orbiting satellites have their physical origin in minerals that were dug from the ground and then launched into space (in satellite form). Extraterrestrial objects such as meteorites appear to fall to Earth from a terrestrial observer's point of view, but they actually collide with the Earth rather than fall to it.

When an object is raised off/from the ground, it is imbued with angular momentum from the Earth's rotational and orbital motion (because it was part of the earth to begin with). When the object is then dropped, it has no energy left to maintain its elevated position; the momentum it inherits from the earth is only enough to keep it moving along its initial (earth-based) trajectory. However, the falling object also cannot move laterally in any direction relative to the Earth's surface, because doing so would violate of the Law of Conservation of Energy (i.e. because any such movement would be a form of work). As a result of these two energy constraints, the falling object has no 'choice' but to fall to earth along a trajectory which appears to be directly vertical to a terrestrial observer. In order to do this, it must also fall at an accelerating rate relative to the Earth's surface owing to the curved rotational and orbital trajectory of the Earth. Total momentum is conserved when the accelerating falling object hits the ground - or some intermediary object which is ultimately connected to the ground - and effectively returns its borrowed momentum to the earth (with the resulting splatting or shattering being directly proportional to the amount of momentum the object 'borrows' from the earth during its accelerated descent).
Pi sees
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 7:04 am

Re: Does Gravity actually exists ?

Unread postby IgorTesla » Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:39 am

I have just been reading the article "The Basics", about a rock and the remnants after it was smashed, then got back to your findings and i was like : "Oh hell, we never solve the mystery of everything and nothing ..."
In the end there is nothing left to work with other then accepting the fact that a greater intelligent power (supernatural) must exists.
The more we dig the more we loose reality out of sight and the more fantasies (gravity) will replace reality.

Maybe the Matrix was closer to the truth then we actually realize ...
User avatar
IgorTesla
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:36 pm

Re: Does Gravity actually exists ?

Unread postby Sam Batchelar » Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:38 am

IgorTesla wrote:First of all i like to thank the people involved in the EU-theory for letting me be part of this community and hopefully i can contribute in a positive way.

After years of watching videos and reading articles about the a variety of scientific disciplines i kept thinking about gravity itself.
To me gravity has always been a very doubtfull mystery for which i yet have to find an answer and perhaps even a confirmation that gravity is just another mistake made due to the blind trust in mathematical science.

If gravity is a pulling force then how come the fallspeed of any object is constant and the same for everything that falls to earth ?
Shouldn't weight then dictate the velocity of an object falling to earth and wouldn't the rotation of the planet disturb the trajectory of the falling object ?
The only way i can explain these anomalies is that it isn't a pulling force at work but a pushing force thus contradicting the gravity theory.
Or is it just because the rotation of the earth itself that prevents us from being pulled towards the core of the planet ?
Hopefully i'm not asking stupid questions but i'm just not satisfied with the existence of the gravity theory itself.
Wouldn't it be impossible for small flying creatures (like fruitflies) to even take off if gravity exists ?



Hello,

The simplest way I may explain to you your observation of the constant acceleration rate of objects due to gravity and its ultimate cause can be expressed with reapect to another situation, this being acceleration due to momentum, in other words some kind of pressure baised acceleration like air pressure or prehaps the acceleration of some automobile. What can be gathered about force from this situation in conjunction with the gravitational situation is adiquate to learn something about force in general (in other words the consistencys in the multitude of manifestations of force). Now taking the automobile and increasing its volume (adding more metal for example) as expressed in physics as mass ultimatly the rate of acceleration decreases by the inverse proportion to the volume or mass while the applied force is constant. Now taking gravity the volume of the automobile increases linearily proportional to the increase in its weight or the force imposed on it due to gravity. So this being the condition neccacary to produce a constant acceleration the acceleration due to gravity is constant independent of mass. Expressed symbolically, A, as acceleration, F , as force and, M as volume or mass. F / M = A . In the case of gravity . F1 / F2 = M1 / M2 , being a symbolic expression of the direct prorportionality between force and volume. Now when written as, F1 / M1 = F2 / M2 then it serves although equivilent to the former expression, to illustrate the ratio which is the acceleration as being constant for any mass or volume. It should be noted F1 means a primary force quantity while F2 is a secondary quantity, and the same for, M . Now what can observed is that the basic existance of force and its relation to acceleration is a inverse proportionality between volume or mass and acceleration. It being possibly to state that it is the volumetric existence of gravity the serves to cancel out this inverse proportionality to leave a constant acceleration rate.

Now I am going to express my own direction with respect to gravity and exactly why the current notions of gravity do not completly add up so to speak.
Taking the gravitational acceleration at 500 feet (D1) while the acceleration is 9.8 m/s² , D2 being, 50,000 feet using (D1 / D2)² = A2 / A1 , this gives A2 at a value of: 0.00098 m/s² . So obviously the notions of gravity being as simple as they are currently being considered to be are inncorect. Now with respect to the direction suggested being the ability of varyous insects to fly this is a interesting direction to go in, i am sure it has the potential to provide some insight as to what types of effects are present to result in what is called gravity.

Your questions are valied I think, they should ultimatly lead you to some kind of understanding far in excess of simply accepting what you are told.

Yours sincerely
Sam Batchelar
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 5:03 pm

Re: Does Gravity actually exists ?

Unread postby PVir » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:45 am

I am forced to go with Ken Wheelers explanation - move towards counterspace in short.
I do not know if this video is the most appropriate due to his specific way of explaining things ;) but I guess all are like that so it is as good as every his video on this topic.
PVir
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:56 am


Return to Electric Universe - Net Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest