Yet another crackpot gravity thread

[lenvanzanten]

What if gravity was not a downward pull but a downward force? Say that particles from our atmosphere are attracted to the centre of the earth and exert some downward motion, crazy maybe,

 

You are getting close, the following link brings you to reality,

http://www.leonardswebpage.info/Leonards/fw28.htm

See also pages 14, 39, 40, and 44.

Yours Leonard Van Zanten

[D H]

Thread moved to speculation.

 

The cited website is nonsense. For example,

It is mathematically evident that the gravitational pull upon an object is not the same at all points upon the earth, varying by some eleven percent from equator to pole.

is nonsense, both numerically and in terms of what the author is attempting to imply. The Earth's gravitational strength varies by about 0.5%, not 11%, and we know what makes these measurable variations occur.

 

 

We however may be intrigued to behold how this gravitational force finds its birth by way of “movement into movement upon a twofold inertia".

Word salad.

 

 

And while it may seem acceptable to us that objects are attracted unto one another proportional to their masses, the evidence in both law and experiment are stacked against it.

Scientific laws and theories do not provide evidence of anything. They have to conform with evidence or they cease to be scientific laws and theories. The evidence is very much in favor of both Newtonian gravity and its refinement, general relativity.

 

 

Hence, the property of mass that gives rise to its force of attraction is found to be “its own movement".

More word salad.

 

 

With such an incredibly wrong-headed and poorly-worded intro, that is quite enough for me.

[lenvanzanten]

And you call yourself an expert???

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

For the well amd open minded, I am sorry I said anything at all, and rather delete the same, my mind is on facts not theories, but not everyone is able to comprehend and least of all such as deem themselves experts.

[swansont]

If you are looking for a credulous audience, you came to the wrong place. If you have a claim, especially one contrary to science that has many, many years of evidence to buttress it, you need to back it up with evidence of your own.

 

It's nothing personal, mind you. That's just how the game is played.

[insane_alien]

I think you'll find that we are all very open minded here. Infact, we are open to the possibility that you are right and the possibility you are talking bull.

 

See, we have this rule set that allows us to draw the line between fact and fiction. It is called the scientific method and uses evidence.

 

We all enjoy a bit of fiction now and then and will even use crackpot theories for humerous effect, but this does not mean that we accept them as truth, quite the opposite in fact. Your hypothesis fails the fact test and hence, is fiction. We will accept it as fiction but we will not accept it as fact.

 

This has nothing to do with our minds being closed, our minds are open and everything that goes in is catalogued and ordered in the correct place(or in certain circumstances just thrown out again because it isn't useful to us).