Hello guys,
Thanks for the replies, I went through each of them, DroidFuel, I watched your video on Youtube, thank you. This is great that there is a controversy like FE because this places canonical physics at test. I believe that such tests may only improve our models.
So yes our understanding of 'gravity' is not complete. Einstein theory is a just next leap of Newtonian physics. I'm sure that in finite time there will be another leap that will finally fix that dark matter in place. The model however is pretty good even nowadays. It does describe different Earth phenomena and for small scale events we have the mathematics that does work without involving 'dark matter'. But I'm with you to improve the theory. I think that to do so we should look at the very basis. We are striking too far trying to contradict the whole physics just with a recent theory of dark matter. Let's start with a much smaller examples where gravity does provide some explanation of how the stuff works.
Here are a list of obviously existing phenomena (I saw it!). I want us to try to find a good model/explanation how these work without gravity:
1) moons orbiting planets (even don't take Moon as an example, but Io, Europe, Callisto and Ganymede I was talking about earlier), there are even asteroids orbiting other bigger asteroids (observable via telescope).
2) Meteors hitting Earth surface as well as other planets
3) Even comet falling on Jupiter surface as example.
4) As I mentioned before, tides
If we will have better model that describes this, maybe we are already on another leap...
Another question that came to me is why relatively large-scale celestial bodies have form of sphere? We should pay attention to how this will fit with the rest of gravitylessness theory.
Now, DroidFuel, I would like to comment on your video, I'll post a video time for better referencing.
0) |0:16| Unfortunately, Tesla did not provide his own gravity theory. At least it's not known for me. He did criticized Einstein's theory though. This doesn't help us in understanding the world.
1) |02:25| Michelson–Morley experiment does not show that Earth is motionless, it hinted that Earth is motionless relatively to aether (which doesn't exist according to modern views)! This further made a big problem to aether supporters. This experiment actually was a keystone which led to development of SR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment2) |02:31| Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment further investigated this and actually prooved that the angular velocity of Earth as measured by astronomy is correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment3) |02:38| "Airey's failure". Again, as 1) it simple dealt with light speed in aether and showed that there is no aether. I would not reference such experiments, especially that nobody reproduced them recently (am I right?). Do we have this experiment made with latest big telescopes or specially built tubes?
4) |04:10| Sagnac effect was not thrown like you said, it is in use by GPS and is part of SR. Read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effectThe rest of the video is just your opinion. But I would not make such statements.
In general we need experiments remade with latest equipment. Only this will help us to understand whether there is a movement of Earth.
Also, all this is a bit offtopic as I want to keep this thread about gravity. Yes, I know, it is indirectly relates via GR which has gravity as a 'state of space', but I'd like to focus on the 'small-scale' affects like I noted above.