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.
