## What is Gravity?

Simon Shack's (Tycho Brahe-inspired) geoaxial binary system. Discuss the book and website for the most accurate configuration of our solar system ever devised - which soundly puts to rest the geometrically impossible Copernican-Keplerian model.

### Re: What is Gravity?

On the other hand, if it is a pure pulling force, then why would the moon not be pulled towards the earth. The moon appears to be synched up with the earth, like caught in a magnetic orbit. The spin of the moon relative to the sun, is once per its monthly orbit of the earth.

This "magnetic locking" you mention is extremely interesting, and from what I've learned from looking at Simon's science, it is a much more prevalent phenomenon than we have even previously understood.

Our little "universe" here around the Sun, Earth, Moon, Mars, etc. is truly like clockwork.

If you wanted to explain this as "gravity" (a rather outmoded word associated with Newton's alchemical studies, at this point, as far as I'm concerned) then we should include what is traditionally called "anti-gravity" in the same definition. Since that merely confuses things and divides what may be a selfsame force into "attraction" and "repulsion", we might want to start with something more basic and compare gravitational effects to an electromagnetic like determiner without needing to specifically define that yet.

That is, all three effects — "buoyancy" ("anti-gravity") and "gravity" (Earthly objects, the rare celestial matter such as meteor materials being drawn to the Earth and observed parallels on nearby planets serving as our only proof of a universal gravity that is said to exist throughout the known universe) and "magnetic locking" (such as the clockwork and seemingly miraculous whole-number rhythms of the observable spheres in our Earth system) — might be read as a single kind of force: one that "works out" (without necessarily implying intelligence behind it) what is seemingly "attracted" or "repelled" from what, and in what rhythms and patterns (something like cymatics perhaps) that these things appear to be.

Anyway, I think you are onto something. Keep up your studies, aa5 and let us know if you find out more!

My personal suspicion is that we may need to get away from the idea that these phenomena are totally understood and "solved" within observable phenomena of the universe made of human senses and known particles like electrons. There may be something "underlying" (or "overlying" but in any case harder to observe) that determines what we merely discover as "gravity" and "buoyancy". This is probably why mathematical attempts to define the universe's activities have to invent things like the "graviton".
hoi.polloi

Posts: 4994
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

Thanks Hoi. You are right about the wording. Scientific terms are loaded with assumptions. When developing a theory on your own, you basically need your own terminology. And the terminology needs to be very, very precise. For example on Wikipedia there is 6 different definitions in science of the word 'Force', depending on which formula and area of science one is talking about.

If trying to explain a crazy idea to friends, if your terms are the same terms as already used in science, those words will come pre-loaded in your friends mind with all sorts of assumptions. Which will make it very difficult for them to understand what you are talking about.

Terms & definitions I am using:

Gravity: The 'pulling' force towards the center of the Earth(or other large celestial body).
Anti-Gravity: Our proposed 'pushing' force emanating from the center of the Earth, that balances out with Gravity in the case of the moon for one.

Force: F=Mass*Acceleration. Eg.. the force of gravity accelerates objects down at 9.8 m/s not factoring in buoyancy.

Centrifugal: A circular momentum headed outwards.
Centripetal: A circular momentum headed inwards.

Momentum: The accumulated forces embedded in an object. So a 5,000,000 pound boulder travelling at 10,000 km/hr in space.. well that is going to release a hell of a lot of energy if it smashes into something.

I was thinking about this pulling force of gravity. And if I had a ball at the end of a rope, and whirled the rope around me until the ball was 'orbiting' me. I noticed that it take me applying a little bit of pull to hold onto the rope. Against the centrifugal force outwards of the ball. On the other hand it took me whirling it around(applying a force) to get that momentum of moving away from me.

I believe even without air resistance, that the constant pulling from my hand on the rope, would eventually sap the momentum of centrifugal force outwards (slowing down the ball's orbit). And then if I continued pulling, the ball would be brought towards me. Until eventually the ball would go into my pulling hand. (simulating the pull of gravity).

On your clockwork point. I was listening to scientists saying that the universe will end in entropy, everything tends towards this randomness/chaotic. Yet I look at our little solar system, and it looks amazingly orderly to me. People 500 years ago said its like clockwork - yep we even set our calendars to it. People 5 years ago said, its almost like a computer.
aa5
Member

Posts: 180
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

### Re: What is Gravity?

I am reading 'A Theory of Natural Philosophy' by Roger Boscovitch, written in 1763. I found out about the book, as Tesla said it was his favorite book. Boscovitch was a Croatian philosopher, who shocked the scientific world of the day with his theory, causing massive debate. He starts from some simple observations and philosophical axioms, and then step by step goes unimaginably deep into what the nature of the universe must be, to produce those end results. It is the most beautiful & brutal use of logic I have ever seen.

He presents the following scenario: Two objects of the same shape and mass are travelling in the same direction. Object 1 is in front and is travelling at 6 miles per hour(mph), object 2 a distance behind object 1 is travelling at 12 mph. Alas object 2 catches up to and slams into the back of the object 1. With the law of the conservation of momentum the end result of this collision is that object 1 is accelerated to 9 miles per hour, and object 2 is decelerated to 9 miles per hour.

The law of continuity means that an object cannot decelerate from 12 mph to 9 mph, without transitioning through all of the velocities between those two numbers. Remember Xeno of Greece, where you find a really small difference in the change of velocity like 0.0001 mph, and he always finds a difference yet smaller?

Unfortunately for the conventional wisdom, this means that while object 1 is transitioning from 6.00 mph to 6.01 mph to 6.02 mph, object 2 is simultaneously transitioning from 12.00 mph to 11.99 mph to 11.98 mph. But this cannot be because then object 2 would be moving faster than object 1, and they were already touching each other during this transition of velocities! And therefore object 2 would have to move inside of object 1, which isn't possible & does not happen in the real world.

The only answer must be that there is a repulsive force between matter at very small distances. And this force must rise towards infinity in a parabolic manner, the closer the two units of matter get to each other. As imagine object 2 was travelling at 12,000 mph and object 1 still at 6 mph. The repulsive force generated would have to be much greater in this case owing to the greater velocity difference to close & worse, there would be less time for the repulsive force to act, again owing to the greater velocity difference.

This becomes the formula, the force of repulsion = (1 / distance between objects) squared. Which is another part of a complex curve that includes Newton's observation that the force of attraction between two objects.. gravity = 1 / (distance between objects squared)
aa5
Member

Posts: 180
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

### Re: What is Gravity?

An interesting formula I came across is that the magnetic attraction or repulsion between two magnets is proportional to the same inverse square law as Gravity. The same goes for the pull/push between two electric fields. And the intensity of light also falls by the inverse square of the distance.

The reason for this, is that the surface area (A) of a sphere grows at A = 4(pi)(r-squared). r being the radius of the sphere.

For light I get that there is a light source illuminating in all directions equally. So if I go twice the radius that I currently am, away from the light, the intensity of the light beams will be one quarter what they were at my former location.

But for magnetism I imagine circular field lines around the magnet. As opposed to the light which shoots out at straight lines. There must be 3d spherical waves or something emanating from the magnet in order to have this fall off in strength as the radius grows. From my early reading on magnetic fields it sounds like the field lines just appear out of nowhere, but it could be the author's way of writing it or my interpretation of the writing.

I was wondering if you can shield gravity the way you can block light. Or if you can shield against a magnet.
aa5
Member

Posts: 180
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

### Re: What is Gravity?

Scud said, "What?! Two plumb lines dropped down a mine shaft 4,250 feet deep showed a divergence at the weighted end rather than the expected convergence??! Couldn’t be so, could it? Well it appears that the experiment and results were indeed real... "

Scud, How interesting! Pity the experiment wasn't repeated. Wonder what the plumb bobs were made of? Could the material have been of a slightly magnetic material so that they slightly repelled each other? Or so that one was attracted to the side of the shaft so that it diverged from the other. Well if one were to really suppose that earth is hollow w the sky in the middle, at least we'd know what gravity is: centrifugal force! Ha!
Penelope
Member

Posts: 68
Joined: January 19th, 2018, 4:48 am

### Re: What is Gravity?

Penelope wrote:Scud said, "What?! Two plumb lines dropped down a mine shaft 4,250 feet deep showed a divergence at the weighted end rather than the expected convergence??! Couldn’t be so, could it? Well it appears that the experiment and results were indeed real... "

Scud, How interesting! Pity the experiment wasn't repeated. Wonder what the plumb bobs were made of? Could the material have been of a slightly magnetic material so that they slightly repelled each other? Or so that one was attracted to the side of the shaft so that it diverged from the other. Well if one were to really suppose that earth is hollow w the sky in the middle, at least we'd know what gravity is: centrifugal force! Ha!

Centrifugal force would not explain gravity near the poles, only near the equator. If you'd like a more "complete" theory about such matters, I suggest the "Wild Heretic" blog.

However, please let us leave those matters there and not on CluesForum.

Also, in general, I hope you don't mind a slightly unconventional request from us admins. I advise that the membership here should refrain from posts at CluesForum on cosmological and science matters until Simon's theory comes out (later this year, possibly very very soon) so that we may safely "paradigm shift" with all the incredible suggestions and ideas and intuition that may naturally come to our mind when we integrate Simon's discoveries.

Please, don't read this as harsh. Of course, we should feel free to muse on all sorts of subjects having to do with fakery and mass deception. There are many so-called "theories" being tossed about these days, some of them probably meant to undermine the very things Simon and others are working to reveal — other "theories" may be exploited to hold back the level of rational and reasonable discourse that we should all hope to be engaged in. That isn't a specific accusation about anything or anyone or their interests. I certainly don't meant to "hype" what needs no hype or put down anyone (that doesn't deserve it). I hope I am not premature in having these feelings of caution around science matters. Allow us to be cautious in our presentation, however.

In this particular case I think we may need to pay closer attention to what aa5 was writing recently, as it pertains to magnetism and other related fields, under "normal" assumptions of a very round, very convex globe Earth. The reasons will become very plain when the model is released. I hope that you are all prepared to be a little open minded to the ramifications ... and what the model suggests in your mind when you consider the discoveries.

Simon, kham and myself have been looking at Simon's massive work of the past few years and it truly deserves attention that other theorists might think they deserve despite Simon's theory being more sound, better at organizing the results of rational inquiry and also a great deal more self-consistent. This is just meant to be a simple request for everyone to be just a little more patient and give it the due attention it really deserves on its own merits, when it does become quite public.

Those who rightfully question the modern scientific paradigm's faults and problems should not be disappointed with the solutions of the TYCHOS, as Simon has coined and written it. On the contrary, I hope it is as satisfying to you as a "solution" to such ridiculous Einsteinian notions as "Relativity" as it was for me to read and feel that several long-standing mysteries of the broken and obsolete Copernican model can now be safely discarded to the dustbin of historically unsatisfactory ideas.

hoi.polloi

Posts: 4994
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

Was only a joke, hoi polloi; I'm not an adherent of flat or hollow earth. Are you really saying we can't continue a dialogue on any cosmological issue until Simon's book has come out?
Penelope
Member

Posts: 68
Joined: January 19th, 2018, 4:48 am

### Re: What is Gravity?

Was only a joke, hoi polloi; I'm not an adherent of flat or hollow earth. Are you really saying we can't continue a dialogue on any cosmological issue until Simon's book has come out?

Oh, it was a joke? Alright. Sorry to be a cranky pants. I just wanted to suggest that if we discuss these things we keep it very "grounded" in present planetary and astronomical assumptions/debates for the time being.
hoi.polloi

Posts: 4994
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

Let's see if we can keep this discussion within the context of TYCHOS's amazing discoveries.

Now that we have a much more grounded basis for exploring the idea of gravity (a proper solar system model, the TYCHOS), I think it's safe to bring this discussion into that context, since it offers the best new evidence for what gravity may be.

I think it's high time we now asked if the following two phenomena are exactly related in the same way we've assumed:

1. Falling to Earth

2. Orbital stations of the stellar, lunar and planetary bodies

---

Previously, it has been assumed by the royally supported Isaac Newton (really speculated might be a more proper word at times) that what causes things to fall to Earth is an "attraction".

He also decided that linking the way things move in the cosmos to this "falling" process would be a wise speculation.

But how wise was it?

NASA would have us believe it was not only wise but inspired, in the sense that gravity is a purely attractive force. But does this actually make sense?

If things were simply "falling" around each other, then if something massive were to get a degraded orbit, like a moon, then it should logically have a rapidly accelerating degradation. The likelihood of collisions causing degraded orbits will increase over time, and the likelihood that we exist in the perfect timeframe where nothing in our system is in a rapidly degrading orbit will decrease over time. Therefore, it is asking quite a lot of us to consider that attraction-only gravity has resulted in some perfect harmonious relationship between orbiting bodies that preserved everything as is simply by sheer luck.

The Copernican theory attempts to reconcile this extraordinary ask by separating the influences of the planetary and lunar bodies from one another and saying one or another is very very very slowly getting further from or closer to us and just by coincidence things are relatively stable for now.

But if the TYCHOS tells us anything it's that there is no need for such an extraordinary ask of our credulity. Instead, the planets, moons and stars are in a holistic magnetic-like relationship and each body is directly related to the others in a single four-dimensional shape that is unveiled by the motions of the orbs in their extremely consistent and mutually supportive orbits; and these orbits maintain themselves with some kind of attractive and repulsive force or combination of forces, which naturally corrects and maintains each body's orbit within its proper harmonic place.

It is much more believable to consider the TYCHOS principle that orbs are kept in their place by new principles of gravity that have existed since ancient pre-history and will continue to exist long into the future. It might be, therefore, a "cosmic law" of some kind that the TYCHOS reveals about how "gravity" functions for orbiting bodies.

In addition, it is extremely appropriate, I feel, to at long last re-separate the concepts of "falling" gravity and of "orbital" gravity.

NASA would have us believe that human-made computerized satellite objects "prove" the link between falling gravity and orbital gravity, and they would have us believe you could launch something like it into space at "just the right angle" and there will not be enough random disturbances to cause the object to degrade too quickly. But what if all those human-made satellites are false leads? What if they never existed? What if Near Earth Objects and Asteroids are the objects which naturally have a related relationship to planets and moons, while human-made objects do not — firstly because nothing human-made can get into the orbital space we envy but secondly because they simply do not have the particular metal content (and/or other qualities of naturally occurring bodies in space) required to gain a harmonic place in the heavens?

Of course, once we understand the principles better after new study, we might find that falling gravity and orbital gravity can or should be united once more, but it might be in a presently unexpected or unpredicted way. For example, what if one form of buoyancy is a better explanation for "falling gravity" on Earth while one form of electromagnetism is a better explanation for "orbital gravity"? In that case, falling gravity would only need to be tied to orbital gravity in the sense that buoyancy has to do with electromagnetism because of matter's electromagnetic nature.

In any case, I hope that we can now appreciate that the TYCHOS suggests an amazing new explanation for gravity, which involves tidal locking of orbiting moons and rhythmic relationships between near bodies. For the time being, the gravity that causes falling bodies on Earth may be separated out and set aside to make room for all the new discoveries the TYCHOS inspires about orbital gravity.

Simon already suggested it in the TYCHOS book but I feel it's worth reiterating that orbital gravity should not really be called "gravity". Instead, the word "gravity" is best left reserved for falling objects; while the forces at work in orbits has yet to be named.

I partially jest in the tradition of scientific principles named after their discoverers, but perhaps it ought to be called a Tychosian or Simonian force!

I would love to hear more about aa5's studies, however, since they seem directly in line with things the geoptical truths of the TYCHOS may be revealing.
hoi.polloi

Posts: 4994
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

I just spoke with a very kind, patient scientist who specializes in Brown Dwarves and I asked him a bit about some of the explorational topics related to the TYCHOS. Unfortunately, he was not open to the consideration that Stellar Metamorphosis has any basis in reality (more on this in another topic) but more critical to this topic he seemed dead set on the concept that Newtonian gravity alone explains tidal locking.

His official explanation, which I find very incredible and quite a stretch of the imagination, is that tidal locking is caused by the bodies becoming slightly elongated along the gravitational direction. Therefore, the theory states, Earth is slowing down in its spinning due to the Moon "working on" the Earth and causing it to eventually lock perfectly with the Moon.

Quite funnily to my sensibilities he also suggested that this "slowing down caused by the Moon" is the reason for leap seconds adjusting time. I think Simon has a much better explanation for time changes (and our present system's failure to properly adjust for steady predictable motion due to their bad model) but moving on ...

The contradictions in this labyrinthine explanation for the behavior of planets and moons solely due to Newtonian gravity is boggling to me. It's like saying the reason a boat floats is because the wind pushes on the sail. It's avoiding a true explanation in favor of some simplistic distraction.

He also dismisses by proxy the concept that Mercury is properly tidally locked to the Sun (being unaware of the optical illusion caused by the PVP) and so I assumed of course he would be in favor, though I didn't ask, of the idea that Venus is not tidally locked, either.

Of course, if it were shown that all three were tidally locked and it had nothing to do with any bulging of mass (or that they have it backwards — namely, at best, the electromagnetic behavior is the main cause of any slight physical bulging) then we would at least have respected (and/or tenured) types consider that they haven't solved everything with centuries old hucksterism.

Let's go back to the concept that the Moon is "working on" slowing down the Earth. How is it ever shown in physics that a force has the magical properties attributed to "gravity"? If gravity worked magically as this explanation presents, it means that while this smaller object is "locked" in place by its bulge, the Earth's larger and more massive shape has no major effect on the Moon.

This absurdity doesn't make any sense.

If the explanation for Earth's rotation while the Moon does not move is that the Earth's oceans and tides are the explanation for this so-called "tidal" locking because they do the work of bending out to space with the Moon, and also continue to rotate Earth, then we should see Earth's bulge slowing down and speeding up in its rotation in a sort of parabolic gyroscopic effect as the ocean bulge leaves the Moon's bulge, and we should at least see the bulges directly correlate to the Moon's face. We should also see dramatic shifts in the Moon's orientation and it would break the tidal locking. We do not.

If the explanation for Earth's rotation while the Moon does not move is that Earth is more evenly smooth than the "coneheaded" Moon and therefore any bulge is negligible, what would give the Moon any reason to "lock" its face to the Earth? Furthermore, as the explanation is that the smaller Moon is "working" on the much larger Earth's spin but the Earth is not doing any work on the Moon's spin, this grows increasingly bizarre and inadequate a hypothesis as Earth's bulge does become relevant and we get back to the first problem.

Therefore, Newtonian gravity and basic mechanistic physics, with absolutely no consideration of magnet-like effects, is the most strange and surreal explanation for tidal locking.

I asked this same speaker, who was largely focused on the non-viability of transporting ourselves to other worlds (to be sure, he was quite intelligent), about the possibility of any kind of magnetic or electromagnetic explanation for tidal locking of various bodies in our system and in other systems and he dismissed that as not possible because, he reasoned, a magnetic locking would cause opposite poles of various planets to smash together. He thought I was talking about magnets!

With the official explanation of Mars being that it has no magnetic field whatsoever because of a lack of conductive material at its core I think mainstream science is having a huge failure to understand magnetism because they are stuck in the sense that they need to attach a particle and particle behavior to every phenomenon in the universe. They are stuck in atomistic thinking instead of seeing the vast evidence for wave and instantaneous connections between everything.

Without the imagination to understand how an electromagnetic behavior can be balanced and self-correcting rather than just floating reacting particles, they will fail to advance their sciences into the future.
hoi.polloi

Posts: 4994
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

It's mind boggling to see all the creativity, ingenuity and pure madness that's gone into explaining away observations and experiments that disprove old "laws" and theories.

Oh, Mercury does not move as it should according to Copernicus and an experiment (Michelson-Morley) shows that the Earth is in fact not hurtling around the Sun at 100,000 kph. Bring out Einstein and proclaim that light bends even time itself (but only when it's self aware imaginary photons figures out they are in vacuum).

Oh, binary stars do not move as Newton and Einstein predicts. Assume the smaller star has ridiculously high mass.

Sigh. I guess our next generation of thinkers has their work set out - Tear down about 100 years of BS and start from there.

The Tychos model and the Stellar Metamorphosis theory are the first new ideas in astronomy that actually make sense.

If the Moon is a dead star/planet, then it's an object the size of Africa with a mass about the same as Earth. Well then it makes sense that it seems to have such influence over the other celestial bodies (as Simon shows in his book). And the fact that the Moon from its distance can significantly reduce gravity (tides) (gravity being diamagnetic or something else) here on Earth is also testimony to that.
patrix
Member

Posts: 255
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

### Re: What is Gravity?

Well, and my point is I don't think the Moon necessarily needs greater mass to have a "massive" effect if you get my drift. What we consider to be "mass" may be nothing more than the effect of a greater attraction or magnetic pit itself causing so-called "weight" rather than saying "more molecules" equals "more gravity". I don't think it's so simplistic. At least, not in that Newton-assumed connection. I think this is a fair line of questioning now considering we are seeing much more "massive" objects orbiting smaller ones and so on.

Just as a large metal ball can have a tiny electric charge and a BB can be super-magnetized, I think this is more along the lines of what we may have to consider. Size matters, certainly, but the size of something invisible or pseudo-visible may be more critical than mere physical presence or something better than "atomic mass" theory.
hoi.polloi

Posts: 4994
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

Good point, and Earth has a large nickel and iron core and that may be what's left of the old planet/star Moon and therefore it's highly magnetic.
patrix
Member

Posts: 255
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Previous