GRAVITY EXPLANATION OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS!

Recommended Posts

I have posted straight into the trash can, I know my place.

Gravity explained that the Earth wants to go straight/linear, away from the Sun but can not.

Like the ball on a string that is attached to a central pole and hit with a racket.

It will rotate the pole.

NEW idea, it is not the entire Earth that wants to go forward/linear, but only the Earth's core, been equal to the Sun's polarity and been repelled.

Where as the crust etc, is been attracted to the Sun, and also attracted to the Earth's core.

In short -

It is not the Earth trying go straight like Einstein and co thought, but the core itself.

Edited by Relative

• Replies 90
• Created

Popular Days

Gravity explained that the Earth wants to go straight/linear, away from the Sun but can not.

Gravity doesn't talk...

NEW idea, it is not the entire Earth that wants to go forward/linear, but only the Earth's core, been equal to the Sun's polarity and been repelled.

No, all the mass on Earth is affected by gravity.

EDIT: All mass is affected by gravity.

Edited by Unity+
Share on other sites

Gravity doesn't talk...

No, all the mass on Earth is affected by gravity.

EDIT: All mass is affected by gravity.

All mass around the Earth's core is attracted to the core, opposites attract, equal repels.

Edited by hypervalent_iodine
Fixed quote tags
Share on other sites

Gravity doesn't talk...

No, all the mass on Earth is affected by gravity.

EDIT: All mass is affected by gravity.

All mass around the Earth's core is attracted to the core, opposites attract, equal repels.

What are you trying to accomplish forcing this faulty speculative idea upon me? Yes, the mass on Earth is attracted towards the Earth. However, this does not mean that gravity from the Sun only affects the core of the Earth.
Share on other sites

What are you trying to accomplish forcing this faulty speculative idea upon me? Yes, the mass on Earth is attracted towards the Earth. However, this does not mean that gravity from the Sun only affects the core of the Earth.

No the sun tries to pull mass towards it, the suns gravity attracts mass.

But the Sun also repels at the same time, the Earth's core, that is the balance of gravity.

And I am not trying to force my idea on you, but it is an idea that fits perfect, and also explains the moon and all planets formation.

Share on other sites

No the sun tries to pull mass towards it, the suns gravity attracts mass.

But the Sun also repels at the same time, the Earth's core, that is the balance of gravity.

And I am not trying to force my idea on you, but it is an idea that fits perfect, and also explains the moon and all planets formation.

Gravity doesn't repel.

Yes, the Sun's gravity pulls objects toward it.

The reason why gravity allows orbits is because of the idea of an object being pulled in by a larger object, causing falling to become a orbit effect(correct me if I am wrong).

Imagine a bullet being shot at Earth in such a position that the gravity causes the bullet to orbit around the planet or object of orbit.

Share on other sites

Do you have any mathematics behind your hypothesis?
If it doesn't, it is not a good explanation, as an idea about something in physics requires mathematics.

Share on other sites

Gravity orbitals is explained not by falling, but by a planet trying to travel linear away from the pulling source, hence a circled rotation path of the Sun.

And the cannon ball is attracted back to the ground by losing velocity, the core pulling the ball back to the ground.

Share on other sites

Gravity orbitals is explained not by falling, but by a planet trying to travel linear away from the pulling source, hence a circled rotation path of the Sun.

And the cannon ball is attracted back to the ground by losing velocity, the core pulling the ball back to the ground.

It isn't just the core that pulls back the ball to the ground.

Share on other sites

Do you have any mathematics behind your hypothesis?

If it doesn't, it is not a good explanation, as an idea about something in physics requires mathematics.

I understand that maths is important in Physics, but fundamental ideas with valid relative logic should be considered surely.

I am quite new to science, And can only create a rough guessed formula.

GR= <F=mav> -+ DE

Mass accelerated at velocity in direction to energy attraction.

Yes I know that is probably meaningless.

Share on other sites

I understand that maths is important in Physics, but fundamental ideas with valid relative logic should be considered surely.

I am quite new to science, And can only create a rough guessed formula.

GR= <F=mav> -+ DE

Mass accelerated at velocity in direction to energy attraction.

Yes I know that is probably meaningless.

No, mathematics is needed in order to provide a way to predict from the idea. Simply providing an idea is not sufficient.

Share on other sites

It isn't just the core that pulls back the ball to the ground.

Gravity pulls inwards to the center if I am not mistaken.

At the center is the core.

I have seen no other apparent evidence of gravity,been of mass been attracted to mass.

No, mathematics is needed in order to provide a way to predict from the idea. Simply providing an idea is not sufficient.

Yes I imagine there would be maths, but it would be impossible to know the dimensions of planetary cores compared to mass body.

And the Sun has electromagnetism, our core has electromagnetism, they are the same electromagnetism.

The mass is different.

And that IS how it works.

Share on other sites

Gravity pulls inwards to the center if I am not mistaken.

At the center is the core.

I have seen no other apparent evidence of gravity,been of mass been attracted to mass.

Yes I imagine there would be maths, but it would be impossible to know the dimensions of planetary cores compared to mass body.

And the Sun has electromagnetism, our core has electromagnetism, they are the same electromagnetism.

The mass is different.

And that IS how it works.

How does your conjecture explain gravitational anomalies, deviations from the idealized case, caused by such things as changes in terrain and density near the planets surface? Current theory explains it quite well and is used in mining to find ore deposits etc.

Share on other sites

I have posted straight into the trash can, I know my place.

!

Moderator Note

This is speculations, not the trash. One cannot respond to posts placed in the trash.

Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

This is speculations, not the trash. One cannot respond to posts placed in the trash.

I apologise to the forum, I forgot this a different forum to the other one.

They had a trash can, which I was automatically put in with my ideas.

My apologies I did not mean bad intentions.

I just got use to been treated badly by other forum.

How does your conjecture explain gravitational anomalies, deviations from the idealized case, caused by such things as changes in terrain and density near the planets surface? Current theory explains it quite well and is used in mining to find ore deposits etc.

I am not certain that would make a difference to what I am saying, I am not 100% sure on what you are asking though.

If you mean the layers of the planet, why would that change!.

After re-reading, I think you mean like mountains and deep sea etc, the shape of the Earth.

I would explain that has erosion, plate shift, and meteor damage over billions of years.

Because of Thermodynamics, eventually the Earth's core takes on too much energy trying to equal to the Sun. The energy pressure as in the same as solar flares from the Sun, the Earth's core has to release pressure, I.E Earthquakes.

Not a solar flare but a release of its energy.

Share on other sites

He's referring to the uneven mass distribution within the Earth itself.

Depending on your scale's sensitivity you'll see differences in the amount of force produced(weight) based on your location.

ie. F = G(m1m2)/r2

As for seeing Gravity not in reference to things like planets, the Cavendish experiment is probably the best example.

Subsequently he was able to figure out the approximate density of the entire planet Earth, so not too shabby.

As for orbiting it is based on an object's velocity. Cannonball example is a good one. Perpetually "over the horizon" before it can hit.

Even with all that there is still a ton more to Gravity, but that is probably enough for now.

Edited by Endy0816
Share on other sites

He's referring to the uneven mass distribution within the Earth itself.

Depending on your scale's sensitivity you'll see differences in the amount of force produced(weight) based on your location.

ie. F = G(m1m2)/r2

As for seeing Gravity not in reference to things like planets, the Cavendish experiment is probably the best example.

Subsequently he was able to figure out the approximate density of the entire planet Earth, so not too shabby.

As for orbiting it is based on an object's velocity. Cannonball example is a good one. Perpetually "over the horizon" before it can hit.

Even with all that there is still a ton more to Gravity, but that is probably enough for now.

Thank you you for the explanation. I understand now what you are saying, and to be honest , I am a little amused at the thought of the torsion wire,

I would expect different force levels of gravity over the entire planet .

My reasoning - we are of egg shape, the test would have to be run on the equator line at the same time of day for each location,and vector towards the Sun.

Example I am in the UK, the density of rock etc below my feet is different to the equator.

Edited by hypervalent_iodine
Fixed quote tags
Share on other sites

Why would the mass per unit volume change depending on your latitude and what does that have to due with your idea?

Share on other sites

I understand that maths is important in Physics, but fundamental ideas with valid relative logic should be considered surely.

Not if they are just made up, with no evidence supporting them, and contradicted by all known evidence. There is no reason at all to consider this idea. It is just wrong.

Unless you can provide some evidence ...

Share on other sites

Not if they are just made up, with no evidence supporting them, and contradicted by all known evidence. There is no reason at all to consider this idea. It is just wrong.

Unless you can provide some evidence ...

I have a question of logic.

If a rocket can escape the pull of gravity with relative little velocity but a constant propulsion.

Why can the moon not escape at 1.03 km/h?

Share on other sites

Why can the moon not escape at 1.03 km/h?

What's happening here on Earth as a result of the Moon?

Edited by Endy0816
Share on other sites

I have a question of logic.

If a rocket can escape the pull of gravity with relative little velocity but a constant propulsion.

Why can the moon not escape at 1.03 km/h?

because the rocket goes up and the moon goes sideways.

Was that a serious question?

Share on other sites

because the rocket goes up and the moon goes sideways.

Was that a serious question?

The moon does not go sideways, the moon is trying to go straight according to gravity theory.

The same as the other planets. And I am going to stick my neck out and say,

If gravity was true to theory , the planets by velocity and mass are in the wrong order.

I will go check the maths for that now but I am guessing I may be correct.

What's happening here on Earth as a result of the Moon?

I know the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, and the drag slowed it's rotation.

''Jupiter orbits the sun at an average velocity of 47,002 km/h (29,205 mi/h). This makes it less than half (0.438 times) the Earth's orbital velocity. So the Earth actually overtakes Jupiter every 399 days. Jupiter's orbit size around the Sun is a little over 778 million kilometers wide (483 million miles), which makes it 5.2 times wider than the Earth's. Its orbital circumference is 4.88 billion kilometers (3.03 billion miles) long, 5.2 times longer than the Earth's. Along this orbital path, the closest that Jupiter comes to the Sun (perihelion) is at a distance of 740, 679, 835 km (460, 236, 112 mi), while its farthest distance (aphelion) is 816,001,807 km (507,040,015 miles).''

''velocity=107,300 km/h '' of the earth

Can any one see the maths I am getting at?

velocity compared to mass compared to distance from the sun?

Does it fit are the planets in the correct places at the correct distance?

So if Jupiter is 5.2 times wider and half as slow as the earth , should Jupiter not be closer to the Sun?

Share on other sites

The moon does not go sideways, the moon is trying to go straight according to gravity theory.

The same as the other planets. And I am going to stick my neck out and say,

If gravity was true to theory , the planets by velocity and mass are in the wrong order.

I will go check the maths for that now but I am guessing I may be correct.

Does it fit are the planets in the correct places at the correct distance?

So if Jupiter is 5.2 times wider and half as slow as the earth , should Jupiter not be closer to the Sun?

If I look at the moon I see it cross the sky from left to right.

That's sideways by simple observation.

According to Newton's 1st law it should carry on in a straight line, but gravity pulls it towards us.

That competition between trying to past us and trying to go towards us is what keeps it in orbit.

And do you really think that people have got the planet's masses wrong for the last 400 years or so?

Seriously? Do you think we can make use of gravity in launching space probes without knowing which way it goes?

Share on other sites

And do you really think that people have got the planet's masses wrong for the last 400 years or so?

Seriously? Do you think we can make use of gravity in launching space probes without knowing which way it goes?

The only reason why I would think this is if our government was running the space program.

Create an account

Register a new account