There is NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY:
Here are the facts:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542What we have at the surface of the earth is the pressure of the aether which circulates through the receptive vortices of what we call in quantum mechanics electrons (actually they are the negative vortices of the aether atom); it is this pressure which causes the tidal waves. Now, the orbits of the stars and planets are due to a rotational type of aether motion, as detected by the classic experiment of G. B. Airy, which is described by me on the flatearth.net, alternative faq thread.
Newton did not believe AT ALL in attractive gravity, on the contrary:
Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':
....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'And now, Newton's explanation for the cause of the orbits of the planets/stars:
Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.
Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.
A letter to Bentley: That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.From textbooks:
These equations contain the mass-energy density ρ(r) and pressure p(r) of the medium responsiblefor producing the gravity. They illustrate a key difference between General Relativity and Newto-nian gravity: In General Relativity, pressure is a source of gravity. The units of pressure are forceper unit area, which is equivalent to energy per unit volume.
Since space-time (which does not exist anyway) is a pressure type of gravity, how then do the 1000 billion trillion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of the spherical earth? This huge pressure force would crush everything else (clouds, living beings) to the ground immediately.
The movement of the solar planetary system toward the star Vega is completely incompatible with the first law of Kepler (copied from Arryabhatia). The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.
The movement of the Sun (galactic orbit):
http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpgThe sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to O. Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.
See also:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36732.msg913575#msg913575ISS SUN VIDEOS/BLACK SUN ANTARCTICA:http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36686.msg913547#msg913547STATIONARY EARTH - CLOUD TRAJECTORIES:http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143THE VERY BEST PROOF THAT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH IS COMPLETELY FLAT:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142River Tunguska, 1908, Siberia, June 30, 7:15-7:20 a.m.
The explosion took place at an altitude of 7 km; the visual obstacle from London is over 9000 KILOMETERS IN HEIGHT.
A woman north of London wrote the London Times that on midnight of July 1st the sky glowed so brightly it was possible to read large print inside her house.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared;
we saw it between 12 o'clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.
This means that the TRAJECTORY OF THE FIREBALL SENT BY N. TESLA WAS SEEN FROM LONDON, FOR 10 MINUTES BEFORE THE ACTUAL EXPLOSION TOOK PLACE.
The exceptional research done by T.R. LeMaire shows that the ball lightning produced by Nikola Tesla was carefully directioned to the Tunguska River, in order not to endanger lives:
T.R. LeMaire, a science writer, continues this thought, by suggesting "The Tunguska blast's timing seems too fortuitous for an accident" (LeMaire 1980). He claims that a five-hour delay would make the target of destruction St. Petersburg, adding that a tiny change of course in space would have devastated populated areas of China or India.
Can we assume that the 'pilot' chose a cloudless day with excellent visibility from aloft to assure a safe drop? American Military strategy called for identical weather conditions; for a perfect strike on Hiroshima's industrial heart, the Enola Gay's bombardier was forbidden to release through a cloud cover: he had to see the target below. To maximize blast destruction, minimize radiation perils: the bomb was set to explode at a high altitude rather than against the ground. Similarly, the Siberian missile detonated high in the air, reducing or even eliminating fallout hazard (LeMaire 1980).
LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:
The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60?55' N, 101?57' E (LeMaire 1980).