Is Isaac newton's, Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?

But were derived as a result of experimental work and neither had any attached "theory" as to "why" at the time.

Newton hid the fact that he developed the entire notion of gravity from MAGNETISM:


http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/3817

'In asserting that he was not making an hypothesis regarding the nature of the gravitational force, Newton was inviting trouble. The Courtesans correctly saw his gravitational force as an hypothesis. That Newton denied this by adhering to a restricted concept of hypothesis deepened the confusion. For Newton believed that his philosophical system gave certain truth, hence the term hypothesis had no place within it since an hypothesis was a mere assumption used to establish a probable truth. In explaining why he rejects the use of hypothesis Newton says

“...and the reason of my making exception to the word, was to prevent the prevalence of a term, which might be prejudicial to true philosophy.”

Huygens rejected this notion of a “true philosophy” interpreted as the philosophy leading to an absolute certain truth. For Huygens an hypothesis demonstrated by induction and deduction was a probable truth, but for Newton, an hypothesis was an absurd notion. He dealt only in truth itself, so an hypothesis was a notion he rejected.

Newton’s method of philosophy is usually either not clearly stated, or when clearly stated,
inconsistent with his practice. It purports to derive principles from experiments rendered general by induction, but we never explicitly find this procedure in his work. The method was to perform experiments and then formulate hypothesis or preliminary causes from the experiments. After a suitable mathematical proof was obtained with its apparent certainty, the theory was restructured and all references to the specific details of the experiments were removed. This accounts for the ambiguous references to magnetic experiments which we find in the Principia. The method had the major flaw that with the experiments removed and the physical model suppressed the resulting theory lost its intelligibility as a physical explanation. Hence it became merely a set of geometrical propositions.

Others who employ the use of the term hypothesis properly face the absurd situation that they are labeling their own system false by doing so, because Newton claims all hypotheses are feigned or pretended truths. The result is insulting, since Newton characterizes all systems other than his own as false, and merely pretending to seek the truth, while being fundamentally incapable of ever achieving it.

His bullheaded response has been debated as to its meaning for many years. Yet, it is difficult to see how it can be construed otherwise than as an insult. Newton seems to be saying that all of his hypotheses are true, because he does not present false ones. Further, because he only deals in truth, he has no need of the concept of an hypothesis, which is a false assumption. Thus for Newton all hypotheses in his system are true, because he never presents a false one."

Here is what Newton wrote in the Principia:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is
interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

The Cartesians immediately recognized that Newton’s gravity relied on the principle of action and reaction with the new conception that the action occurred at a distance. So for them the new gravitational force was merely the old concept of occult force and hidden qualities in a new form. While the principle of action and reaction was not vulnerable, because the Cartesian vortex relied upon the notion of a communication of motion, through action and reaction of impact. The idea of action at a distance by attraction, however, was a vulnerable idea.

If you are wondering, dear reader, what all this has to do with magnetism, the answer is as follows. Newton’s experimental basis for his principal of universal gravitation is magnetism. Where Gilbert saw magnetism as the universal force of nature, Newton substituted gravity. He sees magnetic attraction as a force analogous to gravity. His procedure is inductive. He performs experiments, and then inductively derives laws of mechanical action. But, he does not reveal this in the final presentation of the Principia. The inductive procedure is suppressed, leaving only the mathematical laws and the deductions derived from them. This leads to the Cartesian criticism that his system has no physics.

Huygens dismissed the attraction idea:

”Concerning the cause of the flux given by M. Newton, I am by no means satisfied [by it], nor by all the other theories that he builds upon his principle of attraction, which to me seems absurd, as I have already mentioned in the addition to the Discourse on Gravity. And I have often wondered how he could have given himself all the trouble of making such a number of investigations and difficult calculations that have no other foundation than this very principle."


Leibnitz certainly understood, probably better than any other critics of Newton’s theory, that the Newtonian gravity was a form of magnetic attraction described in terms of a mathematical law. His own theory of gravity clearly shows the role of magnetism in the conception of gravity. Leibnitz did not hide the connection, he made it explicit.


As such it could be called an attempt to develop a "Luminiferous Aether Theory of Gravitation" but it in no way diminishes his "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation".

What ?!

Here is the exact quote FROM THE PRINCIPIA ITSELF:


https://books.google.ro/books?id=VW_CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=isaac+newton+In+attractions,+I+briefly+demonstrate+the+thing+after+this+manner.+Suppose+an+obstacle+is+interposed+to+hinder+the+meeting+of+any+two+bodies+A,+B,+attracting+one+the+other&source=bl&ots=eRsq4NaOYt&sig=ACfU3U3NMCiW4fsquNSq0t25is5H6aobrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipgr6fw6fgAhWnAGMBHXZMAlQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20In%20attractions%2C%20I%20briefly%20demonstrate%20the%20thing%20after%20this%20manner.%20Suppose%20an%20obstacle%20is%20interposed%20to%20hinder%20the%20meeting%20of%20any%20two%20bodies%20A%2C%20B%2C%20attracting%20one%20the%20other&f=false

Here is what Newton wrote in the Principia:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is
interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY, a pressure which causes two objects to move toward each other.

For your information, Newton has JUST THRASHED, in no uncertain terms, right on the pages of the Principia, the notion of "attractive gravity".

It has the effect of causing a mutual attraction between masses.

Please describe the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

It's known as one of the fundamental forces in physics, along with electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. It is not (yet) known why these exist, but their existence and characteristics are well known and well understood, even if not completely understood. The fundamental cause of electric charge and magnetic fields is also not known, if it makes you feel any more smug. Sorry. We don't know everything yet. We probably never will.

Are you asserting that something cannot exist, despite compelling evidence that it obviously does exist, until some human can fully and completely understand it? That seems to be what you're doing.

This is the issue you are dodging.

Obviously you cannot, so then you are telling your readers that four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere by pure magic.

No, you're the one telling people that there's magic involved, not me.

The mass of each water molecule is attracted to the combined mass of the rest of the earth.

By all means, please explain HOW each water molecule is attracted to the combined mass.

Have you ever thought about this preposterous statement?

[Edited for clarity]

Yes.

Do you understand the implications of having a string of gravitons connect the inner core of the Earth to each water molecule of lake Ontario, or to yourself for that matter?

Yes. What, specifically, is the problem? Gravitons, by the way, are still hypothetical.

Why is a rock accelerated downward when you drop it?

Obviously you haven't got a clue.

It's because mass is attracted to mass. This is known to happen. You're projecting your cluelessness.

NEWTON, PRINCIPIA:

<long url>

Here is what Newton wrote in the Principia: [more than 300 years ago]

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is
interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY, a pressure which causes two objects to move toward each other.

Um, no. In the part you emphasized, the pressure on the obstacle is caused by the force of the objects being attracted to each other. Read it again.

Can you please describe what is meant by PRESSURE? How is this pressure caused?
What is the physical agent which causes the pressure on the obstacle?

The pressure on the obstacle is caused by the force exerted on one of the bodies by the other due to gravitation and resisted by the obstacle.

When you're standing on a fixed surface, your weight (which is the force exerted on your mass by the earth's mass) produces pressure on the surface you're standing on. If it's strong enough to withstand the pressure exerted over the area of contact, you don't move wrt the earth. If it's not strong enough, it yields and your mass moves closer to the center of the earth until you encounter an obstacle that can withstand the pressure (or pressure times area of contact, which is force).

Is it clear to you yet?

Please read again.

You first!

Pasting text again doesn't mean you read or understand it. In this case it's clear you don't.

It takes a single counterexample to demolish/invalidate a theory: Newton has just demolished the concept of attractive gravity.

Not in any way. You are simply mistaken about what is being said, that's all. Publicizing your lack of understanding doesn't demolish anything except your own cred.

Newton clearly states the following in the Principia: the pressure of body A exerted on the obstacle is greater than the pressure exerted by body B on it, therefore the stronger pressure will prevail, and the obstacle will move toward body B.

That universal law of gravitation IS NOT an attractive law of gravitation, as described by Newton in the same body of work.

Let's see... he just describes an obstacle being crushed or moved by the force between bodies attracted toward each other by gravity. How in the world did you arrive at the conclusion that gravity is not attractive? This is another mystery of the universe that may be harder to solve than the fundamental cause of the fundamental forces.

The same work which puts forth the universal law of graviation is the same work which clearly describes PRESSURE GRAVITY to explain how an object moves toward another body.

You can no longer claim attractive gravity. EVER.

Wanna bet?

Are you saying you accept Newton’s law of universal gravitation?

Just read Newton's words:

<the same thing repeated, again>

The law based on mass and distance is null and void on a spherical Earth, given the pressure gravity described above.

Nope. It's clear that you're completely baffled by it, though. Fortunately, the universe takes no notice of this.

So you don’t accept Newton’s law of universal gravitation?

Do you like water lilies?



Imagine what a gravitational force caused by pressure, would do to the plant life on a lake (as an example) on a spherical Earth: the force needed to keep in place trillions of billions of gallons of water would crush to the ground any life form in no time at all.

Hmmm.  There appears to be life in the deep ocean doing OK.

I think if life evolves in/was made for high pressure environments and isn’t full of low pressure cavities or something, it should be fine.  Anyway that’s another subject.

And you’re saying his work is logically inconsistent?

Exactly,

Great, thanks.  Nice to know where you’re going with all this.

just as Newton realized the same thing after all:

OK, not so sure about this.  I’ve nevver heard of any personal crisis Newton had with his work.  Unlike Einstein and quantum mechanics.

Anyway I’ll leave the rest for now. 

Laters.

The pressure on the obstacle is caused by the force exerted on one of the bodies by the other due to gravitation and resisted by the obstacle.

This is absolutely priceless!!!

Please explain the mechanism for us.

What is the physical agent of this PRESSURE FORCE?

the pressure on the obstacle is caused by the force of the objects being attracted to each other.

You are at a loss to understand the example provided by Newton.

We have body A, an obstacle in the middle, and body B to the right.

Now read:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A

How does body A pressurize the obstacle? Do you understand the meaning of the word pressure? The obstacle, according to Newton, is being pressurized from the left side by body A.

Do you understand the meaning of pressure gravity as opposed to attractive gravity?

If the obstacle moves due to a pressure force applied to it, then it is not attraction at all.

You are reaching the point where you want BOTH attractive and pressure gravities at the same time. That cannot be. Attractive gravity and pressure gravity are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED concepts.

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B

Therefore, the obstacle is acted upon by a PRESSURE FORCE exerted by body A. The obstacle moves because of an outside pressure being applied to it. Just like the bodies A and B.

It's because mass is attracted to mass.

By all means, this is your fourth chance to explain the attractive mechanism.

You are assuming it is attractive, yet Newton describes a diametrically opposed concept: pressure gravity.

Let's see... he just describes an obstacle being crushed or moved by the force between bodies attracted toward each other by gravity.

For Newton, two bodies are attracted to each other because of the pressure exerted on them.

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.

Do you understand? Can you understand?

The very same thing he explains in the Principia:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is
interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

Please explain to your readers the physical agent of the pressure gravitational force.

How does the obstacle move to the right by being pressurized from the force exerted by body A?

According to Newton, body A is applying a PRESSURE on the obstacle.


by the force between bodies attracted toward each other by gravity

This is your fifth chance to explain the attractive mechanism.

You have just made an assumption, that of attractive gravity.

How does it work? Explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Explain how two gravitons attract each other.


When you're standing on a fixed surface, your weight (which is the force exerted on your mass by the earth's mass) produces pressure on the surface you're standing on.

Don't try this bullsh*t here.

Then, explain why a scale does not register the weight of the column of air above it.

“A column of air one square meter in cross section is said to weigh over 100,000 Newtons or 10.2 metric tonnes or 11.2 (short) tons at sea level. This leads any child to ask how the human body can stand up under so much weight. And if we do a websearch, we do indeed find an answer for children at a NASA information site:

Why doesn't all that pressure squash me? Remember that you have air inside your body too, that air balances out the pressure outside so you stay nice and firm and not squishy.

That answer is so misleading I think we can call it an outright lie. The human body is not filled with air, except in the case of flatulent answers like this. The body is about 62% water, so the water must equalize most of any air pressure that exists. The body is made up of cells, remember, and cells are not filled with air. Cells can be as much as 90% water. Yes, the body contains oxygen that it gets from the air, but this oxygen is dissolved in the blood. It does not persist as air or continue to have air pressure once it enters the blood stream. Your lungs are the only things “filled with air” and only when you breathe in. If the air in your lungs was equalizing several tons of pressure, then when you breathed out your body would implode.

Let's go to a different sort of website: David Esker's site, which is often quite informative. David says this about atmospheric pressure:

The area on the face of an average adult's hand is about 0.0116 m2 or 18.0 square inches so there is about 1200 N (270 pounds) of force bearing down on an average adult human hand. Since the pressure is the same for both inside and outside of us, the net forces balance out to zero. Rather than weighing us down, we are indifferent to this force.

We may be indifferent to this force, but David should not be so indifferent to the questions begged here. If we have 270 pounds bearing down on one hand, why doesn't that force register on a normal scale? Go look at your bathroom scale. The atmosphere should be pressing down on that scale right now. Why doesn't it register a number? That scale is probably about a square foot, so it should register about a ton, or 2,000 pounds. Why don't we have to re-zero all bathroom scales to 2,000 pounds? If we did that, wouldn't that mean that I really weigh 2,170 lbs?

The only remaining dodge at this point is for the mainstream scientist to mimic the NASA feint and claim the scale is full of air. “For the scale to compress, there must be space underneath it, and that space is filled with air. The pressure underneath the scale equals the pressure above it, so it doesn't register the weight of the air.” This ridiculous argument is actually the accepted one: I am not making it up. The problem, if you don't already see it, is that these scientists have claimed the human body is also filled with one atmosphere of pressure, from air or otherwise; and if we weigh that body, it is standing on a scale also “floating” on air. Therefore the human body should also weigh nothing on the scale, according to this logic. If a column of air weighing 11 tons can be completely levitated by air pressure, why not a 170 pound man? The experts might say it is a matter of density, but neither Newton's nor Einstein's equations have a density variable in them. The force of gravity is supposed to be a function of mass, not density. If it is a matter of density, how does the field know I am denser than the column of air? Mr. Gravity is looking up at me and the column from underneath: how does he know I have more density than the column of air?

Or, return to David Esker's example. If I put my hand flat on a table, he claims there is 270 pounds of force bearing down on it. My hand is acting like a scale, and it “feels” 270 pounds of weight. But, like the scale, my hand is already pressurized. Why does my hand feel the weight but not the scale? If I lift my hand a fraction of an inch off the table, there is now air underneath it. Is my hand now equalized, like the scale? Do I now feel no force from the atmosphere? If I feel no force from the atmosphere, why does my hand not swell up to twice its size, like an astronaut in a hard vacuum without a spacesuit?

What if I lay my hand on the scale: am I to believe that my hand feels the force but not the scale? One of these scientists answered me that the top of my hand equalized the weight of the air, so that it was not transferred to the scale. The problem here, if you cannot see it already, is that if the top of my hand is capable of pushing back with 270 pounds of force, the bottom of my hand should be, too. In which case the scale will be feeling that force.

These scientists want us to believe that if we removed the atmosphere, we could wear cows as hats without stooping and could jump up to the clouds just by the strength of our calf muscles. If my outstretched arm can resist 800 pounds of atmospheric weight, then, without the atmosphere, I should be able to lift 800 pounds with one hand. Do you believe that? I don't. Can you lift 300 pounds with one arm, straight out to the side, on the top of a tall mountain? You should be able to, according to their math. Can you even lift a third more weight than normal at the top of a tall mountain? No, and it has nothing to do with being shagged out from lack of oxygen.

Let me explain what I mean by “levitating force.” Current theory tries to explain the zero-weight of the atmosphere on scales by one of two dodges. I have already ridiculed one dodge. The other dodge is that the lower atmosphere levitates the upper atmosphere, via air pressure. Each level is levitated by the level below it. The lowest level of the atmosphere is in equilibrium, being caught between the upper levels and the surface of the Earth. The air pressure of this lowest level pushes equally against the Earth and the upper levels, so the net force is zero. Scales exist in this lowest level, so they do not register a weight or force.

Again, I did not make this up. Many or most people are satisfied with that kind of answer, which makes one frightened for the future. Even someone with the intelligence of David Esker is satisfied with that kind of answer. He has not seen fit to question it. In fact, NO ONE has questioned it, that I know of. As I have shown in my book, hundreds of extremely transparent questions are begged in broad daylight, and thousands of truly despicable answers are posted to simple questions—as above with NASA—and no one ever budges an inch. Not only does your average web surfer not blink an eye, all the Russells and Feynmans and Godels and Hilberts and Wiles have passed them by without a pause—too busy with fake math to notice that the atmosphere doesn't register on a scale and things like that.

But just stop and analyze that answer for a moment. Gasses are hard to picture, so let us replace that lowest level of the atmosphere by Atlas. Say we let Atlas hold up the atmosphere. He puts one hand on the Earth and holds the atmosphere up with the other hand. Like the gas, he would create an equal and opposite force in each direction. And, also like the gas, we could sum those forces. Since they are in vector opposition, the vertical forces would sum to zero. So far so good. But now let us put a scale under his hand on the Earth. According to the answer above, the scale would read nothing, since the forces have summed to zero. Do you still believe that? Do you really think that one hand of Atlas could hold up the sky without creating any pressure on that scale with the other hand? If you believe it, you must also believe in the sky hook.

No, we have a real problem here. We have a reverse Chicken Little problem, since the standard model cannot explain why the sky is not falling. The sky has mass, so it should have weight, but it registers nothing on the scale. How is that possible? How can a column of air that weighs 11 tons fail to fall or register on a scale? Anything else that weighed 11 tons would fall and would register on the scale. If you propose that air pressure levitates the column of air, you must explain why that same air pressure does not levitate an elephant. If you claim that it is because there isn't enough air under the elephant to do the job, you imply that more air might do the job. If we took the elephant up to an altitude of five miles, would he be levitated then? Would he be partially levitated?

And that brings us back to the air in the scale. It was claimed above that the air in or under the scale was enough to levitate the 11 ton column of air. If the air under the scale can levitate an 11 ton column of air, why can it not levitate a 4 ton elephant?”

But were derived as a result of experimental work and neither had any attached "theory" as to "why" at the time.

Newton hid the fact that he developed the entire notion of gravity from MAGNETISM:
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/3817

How do you work that out? Your paper states, "The evidence is certain that he made the attempt, but he was unable to develop an alternative to the prevailing Cartesian formulation of magnetic theory."
But I see nowhere that says "that he developed the entire notion of gravity from MAGNETISM" and the inverse square law for magnetic poles was not known in Newton's time:

Quantitative studies of magnetic phenomena initiated in the eighteenth century by Frenchman Charles Coulomb (1736-1806), who established the inverse square law of force, which states that the attractive force between two magnetized objects is directly proportional to the product of their individual fields and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

So Newton could hardly have "developed the entire notion of gravity from MAGNETISM" especially as with short magnets the force at a distance falls of as the inverse cube.
I imagine that he saw that analogy of magnetic and electrostatic forces being "action at a distance" (called "occult forces" at the time) as justification for gravitation's being "action at a distance".

'In asserting that he was not making an hypothesis regarding the nature of the gravitational force, Newton was inviting trouble. The Courtesans << the who? >> correctly saw his gravitational force as an hypothesis. That Newton denied this by adhering to a restricted concept of hypothesis deepened the confusion.

Of course, he would deny it!
A hypothesis is an, as yet, suggested explanation for the reason something behaves in a certain way. If sufficient evidence supports that hypothesis it may become a theory but will never be a law.
 
Newton never put his Law of Universal Gravitation as an explanation as to why gravitation behaves as an attractive force of .
That describes the experimental results not the theory behind gravitation so is not a theory or a hypothesis or a theory.
And in Newton's day that fitted Hooke and Newton's experimental work, fitted the orbital period of the moon and Newton's predicted the oblateness of the earth.
His calculations were rather simplistic and resulted in the equatorial diameter of the Earth being about 1 part in 230 larger than the polar diameter.
Modern figures are about 1 part in estimates are about 1 part in 297.4.

For Newton believed that his philosophical system gave certain truth, hence the term hypothesis had no place within it since an hypothesis was a mere assumption used to establish a probable truth. In explaining why he rejects the use of hypothesis Newton says

“...and the reason of my making exception to the word, was to prevent the prevalence of a term, which might be prejudicial to true philosophy.”

Huygens rejected this notion of a “true philosophy” interpreted as the philosophy leading to an absolute certain truth. For Huygens an hypothesis demonstrated by induction and deduction was a probable truth, but for Newton, an hypothesis was an absurd notion. He dealt only in truth itself, so an hypothesis was a notion he rejected.

Newton’s method of philosophy is usually either not clearly stated, or when clearly stated,
inconsistent with his practice. It purports to derive principles from experiments rendered general by induction, but we never explicitly find this procedure in his work. The method was to perform experiments and then formulate hypothesis or preliminary causes from the experiments. After a suitable mathematical proof was obtained with its apparent certainty, the theory was restructured and all references to the specific details of the experiments were removed. This accounts for the ambiguous references to magnetic experiments which we find in the Principia. The method had the major flaw that with the experiments removed and the physical model suppressed the resulting theory lost its intelligibility as a physical explanation. Hence it became merely a set of geometrical propositions.

Others who employ the use of the term hypothesis properly face the absurd situation that they are labeling their own system false by doing so, because Newton claims all hypotheses are feigned or pretended truths. The result is insulting, since Newton characterizes all systems other than his own as false, and merely pretending to seek the truth, while being fundamentally incapable of ever achieving it.

His bullheaded response has been debated as to its meaning for many years. Yet, it is difficult to see how it can be construed otherwise than as an insult. Newton seems to be saying that all of his hypotheses are true, because he does not present false ones. Further, because he only deals in truth, he has no need of the concept of an hypothesis, which is a false assumption. Thus for Newton all hypotheses in his system are true, because he never presents a false one."

Here is what Newton wrote in the Principia:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is
interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

The Cartesians immediately recognized that Newton’s gravity relied on the principle of action and reaction with the new conception that the action occurred at a distance. So for them the new gravitational force was merely the old concept of occult force and hidden qualities in a new form. While the principle of action and reaction was not vulnerable, because the Cartesian vortex relied upon the notion of a communication of motion, through action and reaction of impact. The idea of action at a distance by attraction, however, was a vulnerable idea.
For your information, Newton has JUST THRASHED, in no uncertain terms, right on the pages of the Principia, the notion of "attractive gravity".

Just face it, in the seventeenth century things were quite different and historically "Magnetism and electrostatic forces were regarded as occult action at a distance from ancient times" simply because they were "action at a distance" and seemed like magic.

A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY, a pressure which causes two objects to move toward each other.

For your information, Newton has JUST THRASHED, in no uncertain terms, right on the pages of the Principia, the notion of "attractive gravity".

And would you class Einstein's GR as gravitation being an "attractive force" - at least not directly.
But the whole point is that when Newton presented his "Law of Universal Gravitation" he was presenting what gravitation did not why it worked that way.
His discussion that you bring out from his Principia is just Newton's looking for explanations of his "Law of Universal Gravitation".

And like it or not that "Law of Universal Gravitation" has been verified experimentally almost countless times and demonstrated qualitatively hundreds of times.

It has the effect of causing a mutual attraction between masses.

Please describe the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

Mass warping space-time.

You cannot invoke "space-time" at all.

There is no such thing as general relativity, or spacetime continuum.

Please explain to your readers how attractive gravitation functions. If you cannot, then what you are telling yourself and to your readers is that gravity on a spherical earth is governed by pure magic.

Take a look at how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 data for general relativity:

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.


Moreover, Einstein made a terrible blunder.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

We can infer immediately that Einstein had no knowledge whatsoever of the original ether equations derived by Maxwell, and based his false/erroneous conclusions on the MODIFIED/CENSORED Heaviside-Lorentz equations.


"Einstein claims that “The principle of the constancy of the velocityof light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”.

If the Lorentz force had still been included as one of Maxwell’s equations, they could
have been written in total time derivative format (see Appendix A in ‘The Double
Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field’) and Einstein would not have been able to make
this claim. A total time derivative electromagnetic wave equation would allow the
electromagnetic wave speed to alter from the perspective of a moving observer."


Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erroneous claim regarding the speed of light:



Here is the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations, which prove that the speed of light is variable and not constant:



There is no such thing as general relativity.



A modern historian tells us that “Oddly enough, the man who discovered the inverse
square law believed that it did not apply to magnetic attractions.” What Newton seems to be saying is that experimental measures do not support the law of the inverse square for magnetism; therefore we must consider it as different from gravity. Newton seems to be expecting that one day this might change, so he does not entirely rule out magnetism as a central acting force.

Newton performed NO experiments at all from he could have derived an inverse cube law.

When Musschenbroek measured the force between two spherical loadstones, an experiment he performed Christmas eve 1724, he suspended one magnet above the other and used a counterbalance to measure the force. Changing the distance between the loadstones, he derived a table of force versus separation distance. But this table revealed no simple force law. This was certainly a puzzle to Musschenbroek. Newton had obtained a force law which found that magnetic attraction varied as the cube of the separation distance.

“Would that the experiments from which Newton gathered this result had been recorded! For perhaps that man of stupendous subtlety in mathematics found a way to segregate attractions and repulsions, the proportion of which he found to decrease as the third power of the distance.”

But no one attempted it until Mitchell made the definitive statement.

Regarding magnetic action Mitchell explains that:

“Whenever any Magnetism is found, whether in the Magnet itself, or any piece of Iron, etc., excited by the Magnet there are always found two poles, which are generally called North and South; and the North pole of one Magnet always attracts the South pole, and repels the North pole of another: and vice versa.”

This is followed by the statement that:

“Each pole attracts or repels exactly equally, at equal distances, in every direction”.

In contradiction to the results of Musschenbroek, he states definitively that:

“The Magnetical Attraction and Repulsion are exactly equal to each other”, and asserts that this overthrows the theory of Cartesian vortices because “those who imagine
Magnetism to depend upon a subtle fluid” do not admit this conclusion. Continuing on he
remarks that:

“Most people, who have mentioned any thing relating to this property of the Magnet, have agreed, not only that the Attraction and Repulsion of Magnets are not equal to each other, but that also, they do not observe the same rule of increase and decrease.”

Now arriving at the most important point of this discussion he states that:

“The Attraction and Repulsion of Magnets decrease, as the squares of the distances from the respective Poles increase”.

We see here that Mitchell’s statement of the inverse square law was based on his assertion that each pole of a magnet uniformly attracts or repels equally in all directions at the same distance, a principle that has the status of an unproved postulate or axiom. The axiom surely arises from his intuition that all the problems in establishing magnetic force laws can be cleared up once this principle is appreciated.

Mitchell presents his assertions regarding the magnetic force law while reviewing the
experimental results of his predecessors. In commenting upon their efforts he says:

“The conclusions of these Gentlemen were drawn from their experiments, without their being aware of the third property of magnets, just mentioned [namely, each pole attracts or repels exactly, at equal distances, in every direction]; which if they had made proper allowances for, together with the increase and diminution of power in the Magnets they tried their experiments with, all the irregularities, they complained of , (as far as appears from their relations of them) might very well be accounted for, and the whole of their experiments coincide with the Squares of the distances inversely.”


Pressure gravity = a pushing force

Attractive gravity = a pulling force

Diametrically opposed.


Newton describes terrestrial gravity as a PUSHING FORCE, a pressure gravity.

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A

How does body A pressurize the obstacle? Do you understand the meaning of the word pressure? The obstacle, according to Newton, is being pressurized from the left side by body A.

Do you understand the meaning of pressure gravity as opposed to attractive gravity?

If the obstacle moves due to a pressure force applied to it, then it is not attraction at all.


the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B

Therefore, the obstacle is acted upon by a PRESSURE FORCE exerted by body A. The obstacle moves because of an outside pressure being applied to it. Just like the bodies A and B.

What Newton omitted are the following facts: the rarified aether explanation (used in the letter to Boyle), that he arrived at a inverse square law using magnetism, and that he only used the radial component of the acceleration equation, not including the other three rotational terms.

What Newton omitted are the following facts: the rarified aether explanation (used in the letter to Boyle), that he arrived at a inverse square law using magnetism, and that he only used the radial component of the acceleration equation, not including the other three rotational terms.

How could Newton "arrived at an inverse square law using magnetism"?
The inverse square of magnetism was not discovered until long after Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was published.

"Magnetism." DISCovering Science. Gale Research, 1996
Quantitative studies of magnetic phenomena initiated in the eighteenth century by Frenchman Charles Coulomb (1736-1806), who established the inverse square law of force, which states that the attractive force between two magnetized objects is directly proportional to the product of their individual fields and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

The paper you quoted from had this:

In Corollary V he explained this result as follows:
“The power of gravity is of a different nature from the power of magnetism; for the magnetic attraction is not as the matter attracted. Some bodies are attracted more by the magnet; others less; most bodies not at all.
The power of magnetism in one and the same body may be increased and diminished; and is sometimes far stronger for the quantity of matter, than the power of gravity; and in receding from the magnet decreases not as the square but almost as the
cube of the distance, as nearly as I could judge from some rude observations.”

And Robert Hooke had already discovered the almost inverse cube decrease in force for lodestones.
See: Early Measurements of Magnetic Force, Robert Palter and James Hynd Isis Vol. 63, No. 4 (Dec., 1972), pp. 544-558

You have to do your homework on the subject.

The proper formulation of the question is as follows:

How could Newton "arrived at an inverse cube law using magnetism"?

Because he had NOTHING at all, no experiments, on which to draw any kind of a conclusion.

Birch’s History of the Royal Society records that Robert Hooke was the first to perform
measurements to determine the law of magnetic force. This may have been motivated by his desire to test if the inverse square law applied. Hooke had proposed this law would apply for gravitation in a letter to Isaac Newton the previous year. The record shows:

“March 28, 1666. He [Hooke] produced a pair of scales in a box, to make experiments with upon a good loadstone for the finding out of the decrease of its attractive force upon a body, according as it is placed at greater and greater distances, in order to find out, whether gravitation be somewhat magnetical; which he said might be done by comparing the distances of the bodies made use of in the experiments from the superficies of the earth and loadstone with the diameters; it being probable, that if they hold the same proportion, they have the same cause.”

On April 4, the results were reported, and measurements were performed before the society. The apparatus consisted of a balance with one pan attracted by a loadstone, with the force measured by placing weights in the opposite pan. The results were unable to demonstrate the inverse square or any other law of force versus distance. This was probably a fortunate result, because a confirmation of the inverse square law would have established that planetary motion was governed by the magnetic force. Hence demonstrating that gravity was magnetic. Fifteen years later, January 19, 1680/81, Hooke repeated the experiments, but the records of the results were lost.


Therefore, there was NO confirmation at all for any inverse cube law of magnetism.


When Musschenbroek measured the force between two spherical loadstones, an experiment he performed Christmas eve 1724, he suspended one magnet above the other and used a counterbalance to measure the force. Changing the distance between the loadstones, he derived a table of force versus separation distance. But this table revealed no simple force law. This was certainly a puzzle to Musschenbroek. Newton had obtained a force law which found that magnetic attraction varied as the cube of the separation distance.

“Would that the experiments from which Newton gathered this result had been recorded! For perhaps that man of stupendous subtlety in mathematics found a way to segregate attractions and repulsions, the proportion of which he found to decrease as the third power of the distance.”


Why would Newton be so adamant to eliminate magnetism as the cause of the terrestrial gravity?

Since he obviously based his entire concept of gravity on magnetism.


Not only the physicists on the continent complained about his work, but also his British peers were not convinced at all of the approach taken by Newton to describe gravity.

'In asserting that he was not making an hypothesis regarding the nature of the gravitational force, Newton was inviting trouble. The Courtesans correctly saw his gravitational force as an hypothesis. That Newton denied this by adhering to a restricted concept of hypothesis deepened the confusion. For Newton believed that his philosophical system gave certain truth, hence the term hypothesis had no place within it since an hypothesis was a mere assumption used to establish a probable truth. In explaining why he rejects the use of hypothesis Newton says

“...and the reason of my making exception to the word, was to prevent the prevalence of a term, which might be prejudicial to true philosophy.”

Huygens rejected this notion of a “true philosophy” interpreted as the philosophy leading to an absolute certain truth. For Huygens an hypothesis demonstrated by induction and deduction was a probable truth, but for Newton, an hypothesis was an absurd notion. He dealt only in truth itself, so an hypothesis was a notion he rejected.

Newton’s method of philosophy is usually either not clearly stated, or when clearly stated,
inconsistent with his practice. It purports to derive principles from experiments rendered general by induction, but we never explicitly find this procedure in his work. The method was to perform experiments and then formulate hypothesis or preliminary causes from the experiments. After a suitable mathematical proof was obtained with its apparent certainty, the theory was restructured and all references to the specific details of the experiments were removed. This accounts for the ambiguous references to magnetic experiments which we find in the Principia. The method had the major flaw that with the experiments removed and the physical model suppressed the resulting theory lost its intelligibility as a physical explanation. Hence it became merely a set of geometrical propositions.

Others who employ the use of the term hypothesis properly face the absurd situation that they are labeling their own system false by doing so, because Newton claims all hypotheses are feigned or pretended truths. The result is insulting, since Newton characterizes all systems other than his own as false, and merely pretending to seek the truth, while being fundamentally incapable of ever achieving it.

His bullheaded response has been debated as to its meaning for many years. Yet, it is difficult to see how it can be construed otherwise than as an insult. Newton seems to be saying that all of his hypotheses are true, because he does not present false ones. Further, because he only deals in truth, he has no need of the concept of an hypothesis, which is a false assumption. Thus for Newton all hypotheses in his system are true, because he never presents a false one."


In the official chronology of history, Newton had to do something about this.

That is why in the second edition of the Principia, he inserted this explanation (virtually the only one ever published in this work) for the mechanism of gravity:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A

This is practically the same explanation offered to R. Boyle, the only difference is that Newton intentionally omits the "rarefied aether" description:

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.


According to Newton, the forces acting on the obstacle are PUSHING FORCES, due to a pressure gravitational force. In fact body A is applying this pressure to the obstacle.

Therefore, just like he explicitly stated in the letter to Boyle, attraction is a PUSH/PRESSURE on the object which will move toward another body.

For Newton attraction = a pressure gravitational force being applied which causes objects to move toward each other

 
How could Newton "arrived at an inverse square law using magnetism"?

Certainly Newton could not state that magnetism was due to an inverse cube law: he had no experimental work performed to confirm this hypothesis.

And he obviously based his entire theory on gravitation on magnetism.

That is, he had NO experimental measures to state that these experiments do not support an inverse square law for magnetism.

You have to do your homework on the subject.

The proper formulation of the question is as follows:

How could Newton "arrived at an inverse cube law using magnetism"?

Because he had NOTHING at all, no experiments, on which to draw any kind of a conclusion.

Birch’s History of the Royal Society records that Robert Hooke was the first to perform
measurements to determine the law of magnetic force. This may have been motivated by his desire to test if the inverse square law applied. Hooke had proposed this law would apply for gravitation in a letter to Isaac Newton the previous year. The record shows:

“March 28, 1666. He [Hooke] produced a pair of scales in a box, to make experiments with upon a good loadstone for the finding out of the decrease of its attractive force upon a body, according as it is placed at greater and greater distances, in order to find out, whether gravitation be somewhat magnetical; which he said might be done by comparing the distances of the bodies made use of in the experiments from the superficies of the earth and loadstone with the diameters; it being probable, that if they hold the same proportion, they have the same cause.”

On April 4, the results were reported, and measurements were performed before the society. The apparatus consisted of a balance with one pan attracted by a loadstone, with the force measured by placing weights in the opposite pan. The results were unable to demonstrate the inverse square or any other law of force versus distance. This was probably a fortunate result, because a confirmation of the inverse square law would have established that planetary motion was governed by the magnetic force. Hence demonstrating that gravity was magnetic. Fifteen years later, January 19, 1680/81, Hooke repeated the experiments, but the records of the results were lost.


Therefore, there was NO confirmation at all for any inverse cube law of magnetism.

No time to go into detail now but I suggest that you read this:


Early Measurements of Magnetic Force by Robert Palter and James Hynd page 544
It is true that they do not give any definite inverse power law so they provide no evidence that Newton knew of an inverse square law.

When Musschenbroek measured the force between two spherical loadstones, an experiment he performed Christmas eve 1724, he suspended one magnet above the other and used a counterbalance to measure the force. Changing the distance between the loadstones, he derived a table of force versus separation distance. But this table revealed no simple force law. This was certainly a puzzle to Musschenbroek. Newton had obtained a force law which found that magnetic attraction varied as the cube of the separation distance.

“Would that the experiments from which Newton gathered this result had been recorded! For perhaps that man of stupendous subtlety in mathematics found a way to segregate attractions and repulsions, the proportion of which he found to decrease as the third power of the distance.”

Why would Newton be so adamant to eliminate magnetism as the cause of the terrestrial gravity?

For the obvious reason that Newton saw numerous reasons why magnetism could not be cause of the terrestrial gravitation.

Since he obviously based his entire concept of gravity on magnetism.

Why would you claim that "he obviously based his entire concept of gravity on magnetism"? There seems to be no evidence of that and he was at pains to claim that gravitation applies equally to all matter but magnetism varies widely from one material to another and has no effect on most.

<< No time for more >>

How could Newton "arrived at an inverse square law using magnetism"?

Certainly Newton could not state that magnetism was due to an inverse cube law: he had no experimental work performed to confirm this hypothesis.

And he obviously based his entire theory on gravitation on magnetism.

That is, he had NO experimental measures to state that these experiments do not support an inverse square law for magnetism.

Again, why would you claim that "he obviously based his entire theory on gravitation on magnetism" when the only thing that Newton knew thay had in common was action at a distance.

Maybe Newton "had NO experimental measures to state that these experiments do not support an inverse square law for magnetism" but
neither did Newton know of any experiments supporting "an inverse square law for magnetism". That came years later with Coulomb's work.

Must go, maybe more later.

Potential theory is a branch of mathematical physics which deals with the fact that both gravity (gravitational potential) and the electrostatic force (electrostatic potential) satisfy Poisson's equation (or Laplace's equation).

In 1903 and 1904, E.T. Whittaker (a mathematician and physicist on the same level with Einstein, Lorentz and Poincare) showed that for any force varying as the inverse square of the distance, the potential of such a force satisfies both Laplace's equation and the wave equation.

The achievements of the 1903 and 1904 papers published by Whittaker:

A scalar potential is comprised of a lattice of bidirectional longitudinal waves (ether/Tesla strings).

Electromagnetic or gravitational fields and waves can be decomposed into two scalar potential functions.

The unification of quantum mechanics, general relativity, ether theory into one single subject: ELECTROGRAVITY.

How to construct a scalar interferometer: a standing scalar wave structure.

An extended version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

The discovery of the fact that internal EM is generally completely inside the scalar potential, existing as “infolded” harmonic sets of EM antiparallel wave/antiwave pairs.   This internal EM was in Maxwell’s original quaternion equations.

The superluminal speed of gravitational waves.

E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 (W-1903)

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

E.T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372 (W-1904)

http://hemingway.softwarelivre.org/ttsoares/books_papers_patents/books%20papers%20patents%20(scientis/whittaker/whittaker%20et%20-%20on%20an%20expre.pdf

"In his 1903 paper Whittaker showed that a standing scalar potential wave can be decomposed into a special set of bidirectional EM waves that convolute into a standing scalar potential wave.

The very next year, Whittaker's second paper (cited above) showed how to turn such G potential wave energy back into EM energy, even at a distance, by scalar potential interferometry, anticipating and greatly expanding the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Indeed, Whittaker's second paper shows that the entire present force-field electromagnetics can be directly replaced with scalar potential interferometry. In other words, scalar EM includes and extends the present restricted vector subset of Maxwell's original theory."


Basically, Whittaker's 1904 paper proves that all EM fields and waves can be decomposed into differential functions of two scalar potentials.

Each of these two base scalar potentials can be decomposed by Whittaker's earlier 1903 paper into a set of longitudinal EM waves. All EM fields, potentials, and waves are comprised of longitudinal EM waves and their internal dynamics.

These bidirectional waves have a different spin: laevorotatory (left-handed) and dextrorotatory (right-handed).

Both sets of waves obey an inverse square of the distance law.

One wave is the electromagnetic wave (laevorotatory), and the other wave is the gravitational wave (dextrorotatory).

Both sets of waves satisfy the same equation.

You cannot invoke "space-time" at all.

I can and did.

There is no such thing as general relativity, or spacetime continuum.

They may or may not be "things" in the literal sense, but they definitely exist as concepts.

Please explain to your readers how attractive gravitation functions. If you cannot, then what you are telling yourself and to your readers is that gravity on a spherical earth is governed by pure magic.

Understanding the mechanism of gravity isn't necessary in order to understand its effects.

Take a look at how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 data for general relativity:

What about rest of the data collected since 1922 that confirms GR?  You do know that GR is one of the most thoroughly tested theories in physics, don't you?

Potential theory is a branch of mathematical physics which deals with the fact that both gravity (gravitational potential) and the electrostatic force (electrostatic potential) satisfy Poisson's equation (or Laplace's equation).
In 1903 and 1904, E.T. Whittaker (a mathematician and physicist on the same level with Einstein, Lorentz and Poincare) showed that for any force varying as the inverse square of the distance, the potential of such a force satisfies both Laplace's equation and the wave equation.
The achievements of the 1903 and 1904 papers published by Whittaker:
A scalar potential is comprised of a lattice of bidirectional longitudinal waves (ether/Tesla strings).
Electromagnetic or gravitational fields and waves can be decomposed into two scalar potential functions.
The unification of quantum mechanics, general relativity, ether theory into one single subject: ELECTROGRAVITY.
How to construct a scalar interferometer: a standing scalar wave structure.
An extended version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.
The discovery of the fact that internal EM is generally completely inside the scalar potential, existing as “infolded” harmonic sets of EM antiparallel wave/antiwave pairs.   This internal EM was in Maxwell’s original quaternion equations.
The superluminal speed of gravitational waves.
E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 (W-1903)
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf
E.T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372 (W-1904)
http://hemingway.softwarelivre.org/ttsoares/books_papers_patents/books%20papers%20patents%20(scientis/whittaker/whittaker%20et%20-%20on%20an%20expre.pdf
"In his 1903 paper Whittaker showed that a standing scalar potential wave can be decomposed into a special set of bidirectional EM waves that convolute into a standing scalar potential wave.
The very next year, Whittaker's second paper (cited above) showed how to turn such G potential wave energy back into EM energy, even at a distance, by scalar potential interferometry, anticipating and greatly expanding the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Indeed, Whittaker's second paper shows that the entire present force-field electromagnetics can be directly replaced with scalar potential interferometry. In other words, scalar EM includes and extends the present restricted vector subset of Maxwell's original theory."

Basically, Whittaker's 1904 paper proves that all EM fields and waves can be decomposed into differential functions of two scalar potentials.
Each of these two base scalar potentials can be decomposed by Whittaker's earlier 1903 paper into a set of longitudinal EM waves. All EM fields, potentials, and waves are comprised of longitudinal EM waves and their internal dynamics.
These bidirectional waves have a different spin: laevorotatory (left-handed) and dextrorotatory (right-handed).
Both sets of waves obey an inverse square of the distance law.
One wave is the electromagnetic wave (laevorotatory), and the other wave is the gravitational wave (dextrorotatory).
Both sets of waves satisfy the same equation.

I fail to see any relevance in this to the discussion on "Is Isaac Newton's (Work), Newton and Hawking relevant in our society?"

The only issue seems to be the variation of force on a small test piece of soft iron as the distance from a large piece of lodestone is varied.
That force can vary inversely as the first, second or third power depending on the placement of poles, the pole surface area and the distance from the magnet.

Plot out Hooke's values in "Early Measurements of Magnetic Force by Robert Palter and James Hynd page 544" and you'll find that they vary from roughly inverse power to roughly inverse square.

The pressure on the obstacle is caused by the force exerted on one of the bodies by the other due to gravitation and resisted by the obstacle.

<Gratuitous repetition of earlier.>

How does body A pressurize pressure the obstacle? Do you understand the meaning of the word pressure?

Yes, but it seems you don't.

In modern usage pressure is force per unit area. I suspect in this context it means "exerts a force", as in "body A is pressing on the obstacle".

The obstacle, according to Newton, is being pressurized pressured from the left side by body A.

Do you understand the meaning of pressure gravity as opposed to attractive gravity?

I understand the difference. One is real and the other is made up. "Pressure gravity" doesn't exist. "Attractive gravity" (i.e. what we call "gravity") does exist.

If the obstacle moves due to a pressure force applied to it, then it is not attraction at all.

It moves because an object is applying force on it. Why is the object it's obstructing applying a force to it? Because that object is attracted to the another object on the other side of the obstacle.

But you've gotten so lost down the rabbit hole that you overlook the fact that the obstacle will also be attracted to both of the objects unless it has no mass; which exerts the greater force on the obstacle depends on the masses of the two objects and the distances between the obstacle and each object. Also, ignoring the obstacle for the moment, the force on both objects due to the mass of the other is the same. If one has less mass than the other, that mass will have greater acceleration toward the other, since f = ma so a = f/m.

You are reaching the point where you want BOTH attractive and pressure gravities at the same time. That cannot be. Attractive gravity and pressure gravity are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED concepts.

Nope. I have no use for "pressure gravity" at all, since it is a figment of your imagination.

<needless repetition>

You are assuming it is attractive, yet Newton describes a diametrically opposed concept: pressure gravity.

Actually, you only imagine he does.

Let's see... he just describes an obstacle being crushed or moved by the force between bodies attracted toward each other by gravity.

For Newton, two bodies are attracted to each other because of the pressure exerted on them.

Nope. The pressure was exerted on the obstacle, remember?

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.

Do you understand? Can you understand?

Yes! You have made it absolutely clear that you have no idea what you're talking about!

The rest of your overlong post appears to continue to belabor, with much tiresome repetition, your spurious idea.

"Pressure gravity" doesn't exist.

Let's put your word to the test.

LAMOREAUX EFFECT



Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University): proof of the existence of negative energy (zero point vacuum energy - that is, pressure gravity):

(starts at 7:50 - Dr. Lamoreaux explains the pushing gravity experiment)


Steve reasoned that if he created a narrow-enough region of empty space like the area between the two ships, then some of the shimmering zero-point energy would not fit inside it.
The energy of empty space outside the narrow region would be stronger and force it to shrink.
That force would be the signature of negative energy, and Steve set out to create it in his lab.
It was an idea that would consume him for more than a decade.


Inside this vacuum chamber are two small metal plates sitting less than the width of a human hair apart from one another.
To get them that close and not touch, the metal has to be perfectly flat, down almost to the atomic level.
The zero-point fluctuations of free space won't fit between those plates, as well, so when you bring these two plates together, there are fewer fluctuations between the plates than there are outside the plates.

The force builds up, and it actually gets stronger and stronger as the plates get closer together, and that force we refer to as arising from negative energy.
The zero-point energy fluctuations outside the plates are stronger than those between, so pressure from the outside pushes them together.

Or think of it another way.
The negative energy between the plates expands space around it.
Steve's years of meticulous labor have made him the first person on Earth to have measured a force produced by negative energy.

Negative energy = effect of telluric waves/strings upon matter (see http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9803/9803039.pdf )


You have just been proven wrong.

You suffer from a terrible case of cognitive dissonance.


One of the greatest physicists in the world today, Dr. Steve Lamoreaux has proven your false belief to be absolutely wrong.

An experiment carefully performed in full vacuum proves exactly what Newton described: the existence of pressure gravity.


"Attractive gravity" (i.e. what we call "gravity") does exist.

Here is your seventh chance to explain the attractive mechanism.

You blew up your other six opportunities.


Can you explain to your readers how two objects attract each other?

You cannot, since attractive gravity does not exist at all.


It moves because an object is applying force on it.

Let's see how Newton describes this force in the Principia:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A

Your cognitive dissonance does not allow you to understand very simple words.

Newton says: the obstacle will be moved by the PRESSURE from body A.

What is the physical agent of this pressure?

It is exactly the same as in Dr. Lamoreaux's experiment.

PRESSURE = PUSHING FORCE

ATTRACTION = PULLING FORCE

Read Newton's clear description again:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail

How does body A strongy urge the obstacle to move to the right? If it is pulling the obstacle, it should be moving to the left, not to the right.

How is the pressure from body B exerted on the obstacle?

Newton says that the obstacle will move due to the pressure exerted by bodies A and B. Please look up in a dictionary the word pressure, a pushing force.

Can you even read English?


The pressure was exerted on the obstacle, remember?

The pressure is applied ON ALL THREE BODIES.

Newton again:

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.

It takes a SINGLE COUNTEREXAMPLE to demolish your erroneous belief in attractive gravity: Dr. Steve Lamoreaux experiment proves you wrong.

"Pressure gravity" doesn't exist.

Let's put your word to the test.

LAMOREAUX EFFECT



Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University): proof of the existence of negative energy (zero point vacuum energy - that is, pressure gravity):

(starts at 7:50 - Dr. Lamoreaux explains the pushing gravity experiment)

"Pushing gravity" is simply your interpretation of the effect.

Steve reasoned that if he created a narrow-enough region of empty space like the area between the two ships, then some of the shimmering zero-point energy would not fit inside it.
The energy of empty space outside the narrow region would be stronger and force it to shrink.
That force would be the signature of negative energy, and Steve set out to create it in his lab.
It was an idea that would consume him for more than a decade.

Inside this vacuum chamber are two small metal plates sitting less than the width of a human hair apart from one another.
To get them that close and not touch, the metal has to be perfectly flat, down almost to the atomic level.
The zero-point fluctuations of free space won't fit between those plates, as well, so when you bring these two plates together, there are fewer fluctuations between the plates than there are outside the plates.

The force builds up, and it actually gets stronger and stronger as the plates get closer together, and that force we refer to as arising from negative energy.
The zero-point energy fluctuations outside the plates are stronger than those between, so pressure from the outside pushes them together.

Or think of it another way.
The negative energy between the plates expands space around it.
Steve's years of meticulous labor have made him the first person on Earth to have measured a force produced by negative energy.

Even calling it "negative energy" is just an interpretation of the effect though not yours this time.

The rest is simply your conjecture. What Steven Lamoreaux is describing is the Casimir Force and he calls it that, see:

Casimir Force Measurements at Yale - Steven Lamoreaux

That has a long history and some might be interested in: Modelling and Measuring the Casimir Effect

And the Casimir Force is effective over sub-micron distances and not the millions of light years that gravitation covers.

But in the end, none of this is relevant to "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation".
"Newton's Law" simply describes how gravitation behaves and does not purport to be a theory of why gravitation behaves in that way.

Until you address that issue your walls of text will fall on many deaf ears!

"Pushing gravity" is simply your interpretation of the effect.

Let's put your word to the test.



Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University): proof of the existence of negative energy (zero point vacuum energy - that is, pressure gravity):

(starts at 7:50 - Dr. Lamoreaux explains the pushing gravity experiment)

The force builds up, and it actually gets stronger and stronger as the plates get closer together, and that force we refer to as arising from negative energy.
The zero-point energy fluctuations outside the plates are stronger than those between, so pressure from the outside pushes them together.

SO PRESSURE FROM THE OUTSIDE PUSHES THEM TOGETHER!!!

You cannot even read simple English.


You haven't done your homework on the Casimir force at all.

On the real causes of the Casimir effect:

"Each of the plates in the Casimir effect displace the aether. The displaced aether which exists between the plates is pushing back toward each of the plates which causes the force associated with the aether displaced by each of the plates which exists between the plates to offset. This aether is more at rest than the aether which is displaced by the plates which encompasses the plates. The reduced force associated with the aether which exists between the plates along with the displaced aether which encompasses the plates which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the plates causes the plates to be forced together.

In zero-point energy theory, it is now believed that the Casimir force works in exactly the same way. This force is created when the distance between the plates becomes so narrow that no "virtual particles" or aetheric energies are able to fit between them.

So, there is no "sucking" going on at all; in fact it is a complete absence of energy that exists between the plates, aetheric or otherwise. And so, a form of "aether vacuum" is formed between the two plates, where no aether can flow inside the crack. Then, the surrounding "virtual particle flux" or aether pressure pushes the plates together from the outside!

In Dr. Puthoff‘s model, this pressure is believed to be caused by the “virtual particles ” themselves, as they will continually emerge from the zero-point energy long enough to exert a constant force upon the plates, thus pushing them together. Either way, it all comes back to a fundamentally aetheric design, and no other model seems to adequately explain why this incredibly powerful Casimir effect would occur.

Bearing this in mind, we are continuing to see how the background aetheric energy plays a role in the world that we can observe. The Casimir effect reveals to us exactly how much pressure the aether is truly exerting on us. And yet, since Dr. Puthoff and most other theorists believe that it always "cancels out" to zero, we can never detect any major changes in the world around us."


not the millions of light years that gravitation covers.

You must be dreaming.

THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE DOES NOT OBEY NEWTON'S GRAVITATION.


DARK FLOW

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995

‘Because the dark flow already extends so far, it likely extends across the visible universe,’ Kashlinsky says.

According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old; yet the gravitational attractor, tugging only on galaxy clusters, is some 32-34 billion light years away. Additionally, this gravitational force is unique and selective in its action; only affecting galaxy clusters, but not everything else. Gravity undoubtedly must affect the motion of all massive bodies and, therefore, since it is pulling the galaxy clusters, it should be pulling everything else to it, not just galaxy clusters, based on Newtonian Law.

In terms of Einstein, the identical problem exists. A massive object outside the Universe has warped space to cause galaxy clusters to move toward or away from it; that warping of space should do the same for all matter in the Universe.


HERE IS A SECOND COUNTEREXAMPLE TO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY: THE NIPHER EXPERIMENTS.

“Dr. Francis Nipher, Professor of physics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, did some of the pioneering electrogravitics work at Washington University in St. Louis back around the turn of the last century. He applied high voltage to lead balls, lead spheres and hollow metal boxes and compared the repulsive effect induced in small test spheres hung vertically near them, similar to the original Cavendish experiments but with high voltage. Dr. Nipher went to great lengths to insert protective, grounded screens of glass between the solid lead spheres and the suspended balls to rule out electrostatic effects.”

Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof.  Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects. His apparatus briefly consists of two large lead spheres ten inches in diameter, resting upon heavy sheets of hard rubber. Two small lead balls, each one inch in diameter, were now suspended from two silk threads, stationed at the sides of the two large lead spheres, from which they were separated by a little distance. Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres. The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational force upon the suspended small lead balls … and the small lead balls were slightly moved over towards the large spheres.

In further experiments Prof.  Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.


The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)

"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."

Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction."

Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm

"Pushing gravity" is simply your interpretation of the effect.

Let's put your word to the test.



Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University): proof of the existence of negative energy (zero point vacuum energy - that is, pressure gravity):

(starts at 7:50 - Dr. Lamoreaux explains the pushing gravity experiment)

The force builds up, and it actually gets stronger and stronger as the plates get closer together, and that force we refer to as arising from negative energy.
The zero-point energy fluctuations outside the plates are stronger than those between, so pressure from the outside pushes them together.

SO PRESSURE FROM THE OUTSIDE PUSHES THEM TOGETHER!!!

You cannot even read simple English.

Where did I deny that "PRESSURE FROM THE OUTSIDE PUSHES THEM TOGETHER"? I was querying why you claim that is gravitation.

Would you care to show exactly where Prof. Steven Lamoreaux "explains the pushing gravity experiment" all I see is his description of the Casimir Effect, so far observable only for sub-micron spacings.

I'm not denying that a quantum gravitation theory might be developed but I'm certain that on a macro scale the results won't differ significantly from GR.

Remember this?

The Casimir Force is effective over sub-micron distances and not the millions of light years that gravitation covers.

But in the end, none of this is relevant to "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation".
"Newton's Law" simply describes how gravitation behaves and does not purport to be a theory of why gravitation behaves in that way.

Until you address that issue your walls of text will fall on many deaf ears!

I was querying why you claim that is gravitation.

No wonder, since you intentionally failed to remark my previous message which describes the potential, the longitudinal waves which comprise a vector field.

Steve Lamoreaux states that the NEGATIVE ENERGY pushed the two plates together.

This negative energy has several names: zero point energy, vacuum energy, ether, potential.

What you have is a pressure of the external LONGITUDINAL WAVES which causes the two plates to be pushed against one another.


Potential theory is a branch of mathematical physics which deals with the fact that both gravity (gravitational potential) and the electrostatic force (electrostatic potential) satisfy Poisson's equation (or Laplace's equation).

In 1903 and 1904, E.T. Whittaker (a mathematician and physicist on the same level with Einstein, Lorentz and Poincare) showed that for any force varying as the inverse square of the distance, the potential of such a force satisfies both Laplace's equation and the wave equation.

The achievements of the 1903 and 1904 papers published by Whittaker:

A scalar potential is comprised of a lattice of bidirectional longitudinal waves (ether/Tesla strings).

Electromagnetic or gravitational fields and waves can be decomposed into two scalar potential functions.

The unification of quantum mechanics, general relativity, ether theory into one single subject: ELECTROGRAVITY.

How to construct a scalar interferometer: a standing scalar wave structure.

An extended version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

The discovery of the fact that internal EM is generally completely inside the scalar potential, existing as “infolded” harmonic sets of EM antiparallel wave/antiwave pairs.   This internal EM was in Maxwell’s original quaternion equations.

The superluminal speed of gravitational waves.

E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 (W-1903)

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

E.T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372 (W-1904)

http://hemingway.softwarelivre.org/ttsoares/books_papers_patents/books%20papers%20patents%20(scientis/whittaker/whittaker%20et%20-%20on%20an%20expre.pdf

"In his 1903 paper Whittaker showed that a standing scalar potential wave can be decomposed into a special set of bidirectional EM waves that convolute into a standing scalar potential wave.

The very next year, Whittaker's second paper (cited above) showed how to turn such G potential wave energy back into EM energy, even at a distance, by scalar potential interferometry, anticipating and greatly expanding the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Indeed, Whittaker's second paper shows that the entire present force-field electromagnetics can be directly replaced with scalar potential interferometry. In other words, scalar EM includes and extends the present restricted vector subset of Maxwell's original theory."


Basically, Whittaker's 1904 paper proves that all EM fields and waves can be decomposed into differential functions of two scalar potentials.

Each of these two base scalar potentials can be decomposed by Whittaker's earlier 1903 paper into a set of longitudinal EM waves. All EM fields, potentials, and waves are comprised of longitudinal EM waves and their internal dynamics.

These bidirectional waves have a different spin: laevorotatory (left-handed) and dextrorotatory (right-handed).

Both sets of waves obey an inverse square of the distance law.

One wave is the electromagnetic wave (laevorotatory), and the other wave is the gravitational wave (dextrorotatory).

Both sets of waves satisfy the same equation.


Dr. Harold Puthoff

PhD, Stanford University
Author of Fundamentals of Quantum Electronics. New York: Wiley, 1969
Served with the NSA at Fort Meade, Maryland
Principal scientist on NSA's Project Light ( fiber optics, lasers, and high-speed computers)
Inventor of the tunable infra-red laser
Stanford Research Institute, Microwave Laboratory, specialist in laser physics, 1963-1971
DoD Certificate of Commendation for Outstanding Performance for high speed opto-electronic computers


GRAVITY AND THE CASIMIR FORCE

Classical physics tells us that if we think of an atom as a miniature solar system with electronic planets orbiting a nuclear sun, then it should not exist. The circling electrons SHOULD RADIATE AWAY their energy like microscopic radio antennas and spiral into the nucleus. To resolve this problem, physicists had to introduce a set of mathematical rules, called quantum mechanics, to describe what happens. Quantum theory endows matter and energy with both wave and particle-like characteristics. It also restrains electrons to particular orbits, or energy levels, so they cannot radiate energy unless they jump from one orbit to another.
Measuring the spectral lines of atoms verifies that quantum theory is correct. Atoms appear to emit or absorb packets of light, or photons, with a wavelength that exactly coincides with the difference between its energy levels as predicted by quantum theory. As a result, the majority of physicists are content simply to use quantum rules that describe so accurately what happens in their experiments.

Nevertheless, when we repeat the question: "But why doesn't the electron radiate away its energy?", the answer is: "Well, in quantum theory it JUST DOESN'T". It is at this point that not only the layman but also some physicists begin to feel that someone is not playing fair. Indeed, much of modern physics is based on theories couched in a form that works but they do not answer the fundamental questions of what gravity is, why the Universe is the way it is, or how it got started anyway. Surprisingly, there may be answers to these seemingly unanswerable questions. Perhaps even more surprising, the answers seem to be emerging from empty space, the vacuum, the void.

In fact, according to quantum theory, the vacuum, the space between particles of matter as well as between the stars, is not empty, it is filled with vast amounts of fluctuating energy.

Gravity as a Long-Range Casimir Force

As well as providing new insights into quantum theory, zero-point fluctuations also give us some insight into gravity.

attempts to unify gravity with the other forces (electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces) or to develop a quantum theory of gravity have foundered again and again on difficulties that can be traced back to a lack of understanding at a fundamental level. To rectify these difficulties, theorists have resorted to ever-increasing levels of mathematical sophistication and abstraction, as in the recent development of supergravity and superstring theories.

The well-known Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov took a completely different tack to explain such difficulties. He suggested that gravity might not be a fundamental interaction at all, but rather a secondary or RESIDUAL effect associated with other, non- gravitational fields. Gravity might be an effect brought about by changes in the zero-point energy of the vacuum, due to the presence of matter ("A key to understanding gravity", NEW SCIENTIST, April 1981). If correct, you could then consider gravity as a variation on the Casimir theme, in which the pressures of background zero- point energy were again responsible. Although Sakharov did not develop the concept much further, he did outline certain criteria such a theory would have to meet - for example, predicting the value of the gravitational constant G in terms of the parameters given by zero-point energy theory.

A particle sitting in the sea of electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations develops a "jitter" motion, or ZITTERBEWEGUNG as German physicists have named it. When there are two or more particles, they are each influenced not only by the fluctuating background field, but also by the fields generated by the other particles, all similarly undergoing Zitterbewegung motion. Gravity can, therefore, be understood as a sort of LONG-RANGE Casimir force.

Whether  there is anything in all of that I'll leave it to others to decide.

You still do not address the fact that none of this is relevant to "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation".
"Newton's Law" simply describes how gravitation behaves and does not purport to be a theory of why gravitation behaves in that way.

Until you address that issue your walls of text will fall on many deaf ears!

Please describe how two objects (gravitons) attract each other.

If you cannot provide a clear explanation, you are relying on pure magic to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.


GRAVITATIONAL CASIMIR-POLDER EFFECT

Published in the one of the best and most prestigious scientific journals, Physics Letters B

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269317300564

This effect can be greatly amplified by employing double torsion (DePalma effect), a high electric field (Biefeld-Brown effect) or sound (cymatics).

For Newton, gravity = long range Casimir effect

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.

Please describe how two objects (gravitons) attract each other.

Who claims that "two gravitons attract each other"? I've never seen anyone but you claim that.

If you cannot provide a clear explanation, you are relying on pure magic to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

No I'm not!

• No-one claims that "four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere."
  Water is obviously NOT glued to the surface of the earth! Haven't you ever seen waves or wind-blown water.
  You describe it as "water glued next to the outer surface of a sphere" yet mere moving air can dislodge it.
  
  
• It would be better to say that each litre of this "four trillion billion liters of water" is held to the earth by a force of about 1.027 kg.force.
  
  Just as a person is held on the the earth by a force of roughly 80 kg.force.
  

Now I do not need to be able to explain the cause of that force any more than
        Coulomb needed to explain the cause of the force of electrostatic attraction being , that being determined experimentally.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, , was determined experimentally and that is why it is a "Law" and not a "Theory".

Everything you have posted seems to have been an attempt to present a "Theory of Gravitation" and is quite irrelevant.

What you have to do is prove that gravitation does not cause a force that varies as: .
And just showing a few unexplained counter examples is not enough. We already know that there are conditions where Newtonian Gravitation becomes inaccurate.

GRAVITATIONAL CASIMIR-POLDER EFFECT

Published in the one of the best and most prestigious scientific journals, Physics Letters B
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269317300564

You did read it?

Gravitational Casimir–Polder effect
Abstract
The interaction due to quantum gravitational vacuum fluctuations between a gravitationally polarizable object modelled as a two-level system and a gravitational boundary is investigated. This quantum gravitational interaction is found to be position-dependent, which induces a force in close analogy to the Casimir–Polder force in the electromagnetic case.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction
Gravitational waves, which are ripples of spacetime, are natural consequences of the theory of general relativity established by Einstein one hundred years ago . Since their amplitudes are extraordinarily small, gravitational waves have never been detected directly until the recent breakthrough made by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) and Virgo collaborations  in the culmination of a decades-long quest. What LIGO detected are actually the classical effects of gravitational waves on the length differences between the arms which were revealed by the laser interferometry. Naturally, one may wonder what effects are if gravitational waves are quantized and whether they can be detectable.

Thanks for that reference. It certainly seems that Jiawei Hua and Hongwei Yu are very much in agreement with Einstein's GR and are try to determine if gravitational waves are quantised as electromagnetic waves are.

This might throw some light on the existence of the graviton.

This effect can be greatly amplified by employing double torsion (DePalma effect), a high electric field (Biefeld-Brown effect) or sound (cymatics).

If these effects are as you interpret them why have they not been verified by others?

For Newton, gravity = long range Casimir effect

In your opinion but where is there any basis for any "long range Casimir effect".
Once objects are a significant distance apart there is so little energy in the long wavelengths excluded that the Casimir effect drops rapidly to zero, being an inverse fourth power relationship.
There is no "long range Casimir effect".

In reality the following is no more that Newton's hypothesising as to the cause of gravitation and that is not relevant to the validity of his gravitation law.

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.

So where have  you questioned the validity of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation?

It would be better to say that each litre of this "four trillion billion liters of water" is held to the earth by a force of about 1.027 kg.force.

You must go back to kindergarten to learn physics, even junior high school is too much for you.

http://see-the-sea.org/facts/facts-body.htm

The ocean accounts for 0.022 percent of the total weight of earth, weighing an estimated 1,450,000,000,000,000,000 short tons (1 short ton = 2,000lbs).

The entire weight counts.

On top of this we have the water belonging to lakes and rivers.

A total of four trillion billion liters of water.

Explain to your readers how this humongous amount of water stays in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, , was determined experimentally

It has NEVER been determined that a mass can attract another mass. EVER!

That is why mainstream physics has to deal with dark matter and dark flow to explain the huge defiances of this supposedly universal law of gravitation.


Now, please explain to your readers HOW an object can attract another one.

How do two gravitons attract each other?

What is the attractive mechanism?

If you cannot provide an explanation, you are telling everyone here that four trillion billion liters of water stay in place in next to the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.


What you have to do is prove that gravitation does not cause a force that varies as: .
And just showing a few unexplained counter examples is not enough.

A single counterexample is quite enough.

ALLAIS EFFECT

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

REFERENCE #1

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.


REFERENCE #2

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf

The title of the article is as follows:

A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum


"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


REFERENCE #4

The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


REFERENCE #5

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].


REFERENCE #6

Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045


Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.

REFERENCE #7

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1629054#msg1629054

Published in the Physical Review Journal

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.

Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).

The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."



"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"

HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:




Dr. Maurice Allais:

In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.

Thanks for that reference.

That mainstream reference shows that scientists are researching the relationship between the Casimir force and terrestrial gravity.

It was only an introduction.

NOW, FOR THE HEAVY ARTILLERY.

There is no "long range Casimir effect".

But there is!

LONG RANGE CASIMIR FORCE PODKLETNOV EFFECT

Dr. Giovanni Modanese

PhD, Theoretical Physics, University of Pisa
Post-doctoral research at MIT
Post-doctoral research at the Max Planck Institute

Author of papers published in the best journals in the world:

Modanese, G., Ultra-light and strong: The massless harmonic oscillator and its singular path integral (2017) International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, 14 (1), art. no. 1750010
Modanese, G., Oscillating dipole with fractional quantum source in Aharonov-Bohm electrodynamics (2017) Results in Physics, 7, pp. 480-481.
G. Modanese, Electromagnetic coupling of strongly non-local quantum mechanics, Physica B 524C (2017) pp. 81-84
Modanese, G., Generalized Maxwell equations and charge conservation censorship (2017) Modern Physics Letters B, 31 (6), art. no. 1750052

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1408/1408.1636.pdf

The reality of vacuum fluctuations is demonstrated by the Casimir effect in quantum
electrodynamics, yet vacuum forces are usually very small, and the principles of
thermodynamics limit the use of the Casimir effect for energy extraction from the vacuum [20].

The vacuum fluctuations that appear in our model, however, are of a novel kind, are peculiar of gravity and act on a far larger scale. This is why we think they can lead to macroscopic effect when coupled to macroscopic quantum objects like superconductors.

Podkletnov Effect

One of the best experimental physicists of the 20th century and beyond, Dr. Eugene Podkletnov, performed a series of celebrated experiments which prove the existence of the Casimir force extended for 200 KILOMETERS


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2031798#msg2031798

Dr. Podkletnov published his paper in the highest rated journal of physics, Physica C.

"In 1995, the Max Planck Institute of Physics did a follow up study, and was able to confirm the results."



"Dr. Podkletnov also describes his “force beam generator” experiment in detail, and provides insights into improvements that he’s made over the last decade to increase the force produced by this experimental gravity-beam. The force beam is generated by passing a high-voltage discharge from a Marx-generator through a YBCO emitter suspended in a magnetic field, and Podkletnov has described it as being powerful enough to knock over objects in the lab, as well as capable of being tuned by even punch holes in solid materials.

Podkletnov maintains that a laboratory installation in Russia has already demonstrated the 4in (10cm) wide beam’s ability to repel objects a kilometre away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200km."


You don't stand a chance with me here.


HERE IS THE THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR A FULL BLOWN CASIMIR FORCE:

http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:214280/FULLTEXT01.pdf


Next time we meet, I will prove to you the GLOBAL AHARONOV-BOHM EFFECT, effects seen and observed at a distance of 10,000 km from the source of the beams: the Tunguska event.

Note, that there is also A GRAVITATIONAL AHARONOV-BOHM EFFECT.

"Pressure gravity" doesn't exist.

Let's put your word to the test.

LAMOREAUX EFFECT

<link to youtube video>

Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University): proof of the existence of negative energy (zero point vacuum energy - that is, pressure gravity):

(starts at 7:50 - Dr. Lamoreaux explains the pushing gravity experiment)

Videos alone are a terrible way to convey complex highly esoteric information. They can be an invaluable accompaniment if used as a supplement for written material to illustrate a point, but it's much easier to study writing carefully than it is to watch, replay, and cross-reference things only spoken or shown visually. Do you have a transcription of that video or a paper that covers the topic being shown?

Steve reasoned that if he created a narrow-enough region of empty space like the area between the two ships, then some of the shimmering zero-point energy would not fit inside it.
The energy of empty space outside the narrow region would be stronger and force it to shrink.
That force would be the signature of negative energy, and Steve set out to create it in his lab.
It was an idea that would consume him for more than a decade.

Inside this vacuum chamber are two small metal plates sitting less than the width of a human hair apart from one another.

To get them that close and not touch, the metal has to be perfectly flat, down almost to the atomic level.
The zero-point fluctuations of free space won't fit between those plates, as well, so when you bring these two plates together, there are fewer fluctuations between the plates than there are outside the plates.

Things that seem strange to us used to the macro world start to happen when you approach the quantum realm.

Can you show anything similar that operates over longer distances?

Negative energy = effect of telluric waves/strings upon matter (see http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9803/9803039.pdf )

You have just been proven wrong.

Cutting to the chase in that paper:

CONCLUSIONS
 The ether, if it exists....

Not much that could pass for proof there.

Any follow-up to that? Publishing an article what appears to be a remarkable new phenomenon seldom turns out to be as remarkable as initially thought. Remember cold fusion?

You suffer from a terrible case of cognitive dissonance.

It's been a blessed while since we've heard that trite platitude. That was apparently too good to last.

One of the greatest physicists in the world today, Dr. Steve Lamoreaux has proven your false belief to be absolutely wrong.

No proof has been given. None are possible.

An experiment carefully performed in full vacuum proves exactly what Newton described: the existence of pressure gravity.

"Attractive gravity" (i.e. what we call "gravity") does exist.

Here is your seventh chance to explain the attractive mechanism.

You blew up your other six opportunities.

That's already been addressed by me and others. But keep repeating the same thing expecting a different result - most of us know what that means.

Can you explain to your readers how two objects attract each other?

You cannot, since attractive gravity does not exist at all.

And yet, a rock falls when you drop it, and water is held to the surface of the spherical earth. How interesting.

It moves because an object is applying force on it.

Let's see how Newton describes this force in the Principia:

<more repetition>

Can you even read English?

Yes. Do you get tired of repeating statements shown to be wrong?

The pressure was exerted on the obstacle, remember?

The pressure is applied ON ALL THREE BODIES.

OK. When two objects are pressing on another object between them, pressure is exerted on all of them. No news here. But the pressure the obstacle exerts on the bodies is opposing the attractive gravity they exert on each other. Standing on a platform elevated above the ground doesn't disprove gravity or suggest that there's a different type of gravity that's holding you away from the center of the earth; it shows that the platform and its supporting structure are strong enough to resist your weight. That's all.

Newton again:

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.

He was wrong. Do you remember this from a few days ago?

Newton hasn't been widely considered infallible since the early twentieth century when relativistic physics solved problems in celestial mechanics that classical physics couldn't explain. He wasn't considered infallible before that, either.

Like I said, he wasn't considered infallible even before the limitations of his theories because they omit relativistic effects became known.

I takes a SINGLE COUNTEREXAMPLE to demolish your erroneous belief in attractive gravity:

Only if it's unambiguous and has been replicated and verified sufficiently to be considered reliable.

Dr. Steve Lamoreaux experiment proves you wrong.

Nope. Your believing that doesn't make it true. Even if you repeat it ad nauseum.

It would be better to say that each litre of this "four trillion billion liters of water" is held to the earth by a force of about 1.027 kg.force.

You must go back to kindergarten to learn physics, even junior high school is too much for you.

No I don't! Please read what I wrote! I said that each "that each litre of this "four trillion billion liters of water" is held to the earth by a force of about 1.027 kg.force.".
And if you can do simple sums that 1.027 kg.force for each litre works out at 4.11 trillion billion kg.force so what is your problem?

Explain to your readers how this humongous amount of water stays in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.

As I said before, by exactly the same force that holds YOU on the earth, gravity!

But your figure looks a little sus so let's look up someone who might know:

How much water is there on, in, and above the Earth?

All Earth's water in a bubble This drawing shows blue spheres representing relative amounts of Earth's water in comparison to the size of the Earth. Are you surprised that these water spheres look so small? They are only small in relation to the size of the Earth. This image attempts to show three dimensions, so each sphere represents "volume." The volume of the largest sphere, representing all water on, in, and above the Earth, would be about 332,500,000 cubic miles (mi3) (1,386,000,000 km3), and be about 860 miles (about 1,385 kilometers) in diameter. The smaller sphere over Kentucky represents Earth's liquid fresh water in groundwater, swamp water, rivers, and lakes. The volume of this sphere would be about 2,551,000 mi3 (10,633,450 km3) and form a sphere about 169.5 miles (272.8 kilometers) in diameter. Yes, all of this water is fresh water, which we all need every day, but much of it is deep in the ground, unavailable to humans. For the diagram on the right:                                           Spheres showing: (1) All water (sphere over western U.S., 860 miles in diameter) (2) Fresh liquid water in the ground, lakes, swamps, and rivers (sphere over Kentucky, 169.5 miles in diameter), and (3) Fresh-water lakes and rivers (sphere over Georgia, 34.9 miles in diameter).

When spread over the area of the oceans and rivers that water on the far more massive earth is no more than a little dampness - an 0.12 mm smear on a bowling ball!
But the amount is quite unimportant because that on the surface is held in its proper place by gravitation and that in the atmosphere by buoyancy (water vapour is lighter that air) or very small thermal updrafts.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, was determined experimentally

It has NEVER been determined that a mass can attract another mass. EVER!
Explain to your readers how this humongous amount of water stays in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.

When did I equate the CAUSE of Newtonian Gravitation with mass attracting mass?
Possibly it is mass attracts mass, though more likely some more indirect effect as in GR which seems to fit in perfectly with your own reference Gravitational Casimir–Polder effect by Jiawei Hua and Hongwei Yu.

Did you bother to read:

Newton never put his Law of Universal Gravitation as an explanation as to why gravitation behaves as an attractive force of .
That describes the experimental results not the theory behind gravitation so is not a theory or a hypothesis or a theory.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation describes the way gravitation behaves NOT why it behaves that way!

As for experimental evidence take a look at the dozens of time variations of the Cavendish experiment have been performed using different materials and different techniques.
See some links in: Flat Earth Debate / Re: 100% PROOF GRAVITY ISN'T REALITY « Message by rabinoz on February 27, 2018, 09:01:33 AM »
Then the hundreds of simple demonstrations of mass appearing to attract mass. A few are shown in the above linked post.

That is why mainstream physics has to deal with dark matter and dark flow to explain the huge defiances of this supposedly universal law of gravitation.

Dark matter and dark flow are not necessarily caused by deficiencies in gravitation but can easily be caused by some of the numerous things not yet understood in regions inaccessible to direct measurement.

Now, please explain to your readers HOW an object can attract another one.

Why should I? "HOW an object can attract another one" is irrelevant to the fact that gravitation behaves as if "an object can attract another one".

How do two gravitons attract each other?
What is the attractive mechanism?

Again that's irrelevant and not my problem!

• Gravitons are still hypothetical and part of an as yet developed quantum gravitation theory. As yet it has not even been determined that gravitational radiation is quantised.
  This is what the "Gravitational Casimir–Polder effect" experiment by Jiawei Hua and Hongwei Yu is intended to test for.
  
  You might read:
  Quote

  Physics for the 21st Century, Unit 2: The Fundamental Interactions, SECTION 9: Gravity: So Weak, Yet So Pervasive
  In the full quantum theory, one would expect the existence of a particle associated with the field—the graviton—to be the force carrier. Nobody has yet detected an individual graviton. Nor is anyone likely to, owing to the extremely small likelihood that gravitons will interact with matter. However, astrophysicists have mounted several experiments to detect gravitational waves, which represent clusters of many gravitons. The most prominent, as we shall see in Unit 3, involve the use of lasers to measure how gravitational waves stretch space.
  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  Second, like the gluon, the graviton itself carries a (gravitational) charge, in the form of energy (mass). Thus, gravitons attract each other. However, this does not lead to a constant force at arbitrarily long distances.

  
  
• So since gravitons are not part of any accepted theory of gravitation "How do two gravitons attract" and "What is the attractive mechanism?" is totally irrelevant.

If you cannot provide an explanation, you are telling everyone here that four trillion billion liters of water stay in place in next to the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.

No, I'm not telling anyone that "four trillion billion liters of water stay in place in next to the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC" that's YOUR claim!
And you only express your numbers in that way to make it sound a humungous amount. Why not be a little scientific and say 4 x 10⁹ cubic kilometres?

Was the law of electrostatic attraction, , that Coulomb found experimentally also PURE MAGIC? Was magnetic attraction also PURE MAGIC? They were all called "occult forces".

What you have to do is prove that gravitation does not cause a force that varies as.
And just showing a few unexplained counterexamples is not enough.

A single counterexample is quite enough.

No it's not!

The satellites, moon and the planets seem quite content to stay in their orbits and things on earth fall at very predictable rates so a few unproven counterexamples might be evidence of some other effects but do not disprove that general validity of the Law of Universal Gravitation.

You still totally fail to grasp the significance of a Scientific Law as opposed to a Scientific Theory.
A Scientific Law can have exceptions and a limited range of validity and in fact most do.

And at least one exception to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation turned up long before you arrived on the scene and made some astronomers suggest slight changes.
126 years ago the French astronomer Le Verrier observed that the perihelion of the planet Mercury precessed a little faster than expected from Newtonian mechanics.
He observed an excess of about 38 arcsec/century, you and I might ignore that but not a competent astronomer.
This was later re-estimated at 43  arcsec/century by Simon Newcomb in 1882 and I guess you know that rest.

But this did not invalidate Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
It just limited the range of applicability but almost all scientific laws are valid only over a limited range of the variables. Just look at almost all the other laws!

And if you can do simple sums that 1.027 kg.force for each litre works out at 4.11 trillion billion kg.force so what is your problem?

In your original statement you did not sum anything at all, you implied that each liter of water is being handled separately.

Your total sum is now 4.11 trillion billion kg. force.

Please explain to your readers the SOURCE and mechanism of this attractive gravity, which, according to your belief, is able to hold four trillion billion liters of water next to the outer surface of a sphere.

You don't want to use gravitons?

Eventually, you'll need some kind of a particle which comprises the gravitational wave, and which forms the strings connecting the core to the outer bodies on the surface.

Is it your contention that mass attracts mass?

Then explain the mechanism, how are two objects being attracted one to another?


The volume of the largest sphere, representing all water on, in, and above the Earth, would be about 332,500,000 cubic miles (mi3) (1,386,000,000 km3), and be about 860 miles (about 1,385 kilometers) in diameter.

Explain to your readers how this humongous volume of water is being held in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

How does attractive gravity work?

Possibly it is mass attracts mass, though more likely some more indirect effect as in GR

126 years ago the French astronomer Le Verrier observed that the perihelion of the planet Mercury precessed a little faster than expected from Newtonian mechanics.
He observed an excess of about 38 arcsec/century, you and I might ignore that but not a competent astronomer.
This was later re-estimated at 43  arcsec/century by Simon Newcomb in 1882 and I guess you know that rest.

There is no GR.

There is no "rest".

To this very day there is no explanation for the Mercury perihelion anomaly.

Take a look at how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 data for general relativity:

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.


Moreover, Einstein made a terrible blunder.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

We can infer immediately that Einstein had no knowledge whatsoever of the original ether equations derived by Maxwell, and based his false/erroneous conclusions on the MODIFIED/CENSORED Heaviside-Lorentz equations.


"Einstein claims that “The principle of the constancy of the velocityof light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”.

If the Lorentz force had still been included as one of Maxwell’s equations, they could
have been written in total time derivative format (see Appendix A in ‘The Double
Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field’) and Einstein would not have been able to make
this claim. A total time derivative electromagnetic wave equation would allow the
electromagnetic wave speed to alter from the perspective of a moving observer."


Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erroneous claim regarding the speed of light:



Here is the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations, which prove that the speed of light is variable and not constant:



There is no such thing as general relativity.


Each and every other test for GR (including the Pound-Rebka experiment) assumes a constant speed of light. However, Maxwell's original equations prove that the speed of light is variable.


Was the law of electrostatic attraction, , that Coulomb found experimentally also PURE MAGIC? Was magnetic attraction also PURE MAGIC?

Electrostatic attraction does not claim that four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.

And we now know very well how magnetism works:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332


As for experimental evidence take a look at the dozens of time variations of the Cavendish experiment

You cannot invoke the Cavendish experiment: it is much better explained by ether theory.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg805751#msg805751

Here is the Lamoreaux experiment, two plates are being pushed against one another BY A PUSHING FORCE:

LAMOREAUX EFFECT



Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University): proof of the existence of negative energy (zero point vacuum energy - that is, pressure gravity):

(starts at 7:50 - Dr. Lamoreaux explains the pushing gravity experiment)


Steve reasoned that if he created a narrow-enough region of empty space like the area between the two ships, then some of the shimmering zero-point energy would not fit inside it.
The energy of empty space outside the narrow region would be stronger and force it to shrink.
That force would be the signature of negative energy, and Steve set out to create it in his lab.
It was an idea that would consume him for more than a decade.


Inside this vacuum chamber are two small metal plates sitting less than the width of a human hair apart from one another.
To get them that close and not touch, the metal has to be perfectly flat, down almost to the atomic level.
The zero-point fluctuations of free space won't fit between those plates, as well, so when you bring these two plates together, there are fewer fluctuations between the plates than there are outside the plates.

The force builds up, and it actually gets stronger and stronger as the plates get closer together, and that force we refer to as arising from negative energy.
The zero-point energy fluctuations outside the plates are stronger than those between, so pressure from the outside pushes them together.

Or think of it another way.
The negative energy between the plates expands space around it.
Steve's years of meticulous labor have made him the first person on Earth to have measured a force produced by negative energy.


Did you know that there is a CASIMIR-AHARONOV-BOHM effect?

I can immediately prove a LONG RANGE CASIMIR A/B effect using the Tunguska event, for a range of 10,000 km.


"What is the attractive mechanism?" is totally irrelevant.

THEN, YOU ARE A FLAT EARTH BELIEVER.

How can it be irrelevant wnen the RE make the claim that ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY holds in  place four trillion billion liters of water on the outer surface of a sphere?

If it is not attractive, please do explain the nature of the RE gravitational force.


HERE IS A SECOND COUNTEREXAMPLE TO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY: THE NIPHER EXPERIMENTS.

“Dr. Francis Nipher, Professor of physics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, did some of the pioneering electrogravitics work at Washington University in St. Louis back around the turn of the last century. He applied high voltage to lead balls, lead spheres and hollow metal boxes and compared the repulsive effect induced in small test spheres hung vertically near them, similar to the original Cavendish experiments but with high voltage. Dr. Nipher went to great lengths to insert protective, grounded screens of glass between the solid lead spheres and the suspended balls to rule out electrostatic effects.”

Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof.  Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects. His apparatus briefly consists of two large lead spheres ten inches in diameter, resting upon heavy sheets of hard rubber. Two small lead balls, each one inch in diameter, were now suspended from two silk threads, stationed at the sides of the two large lead spheres, from which they were separated by a little distance. Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres. The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational force upon the suspended small lead balls … and the small lead balls were slightly moved over towards the large spheres.

In further experiments Prof.  Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.


The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)

"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."

Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction."

Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm

And if you can do simple sums that 1.027 kg.force for each litre works out at 4.11 trillion billion kg.force so what is your problem?

In your original statement you did not sum anything at all, you implied that each liter of water is being handled separately.

And why not? Each litre of water is more or less free to move separately.

Should I likewise treat the total world population of about 7.7 billion people as a single mass of around 477 million million grams?
Or can I treat each of the 7.7 billion people as individuals with an average mass of around 62.0 kg?

Your total sum is now 4.11 trillion billion kg. force.

As I showed before your 4 trillion billion litres looks wrong!

The total volume of water on Earth is estimated at 1.386 billion km³ (333 million cubic miles), with 97.5% being salt water and 2.5% being fresh water.

And that 1.386 billion km³ is 1.386 trillion billion litres.

Please explain to your readers the SOURCE and mechanism of this attractive gravity, which, according to your belief, is able to hold four trillion billion liters of water next to the outer surface of a sphere.

I have not been and am not trying to "explain to your readers the SOURCE and mechanism of this attractive gravity" all I have said is that:
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, ,  describes that way gravitation behaves and does not attempt to explain WHY. That is why it is a "Law" and not a "Theory".

Posting your walls and walls of copy-pasta will not change that one little bit! Get used to it.

Puzzling Measurement of "Big G" Gravitational Constant Ignites Debate
Despite dozens of measurements over more than 200 years, we still don’t know how strong gravity is


Gravity, one of the constants of life, not to mention physics, is less than constant when it comes to being measured. Various experiments over the years have come up with perplexingly different values for the strength of the force of gravity, and the latest calculation just adds to the confusion.

The results of a painstaking 10-year experiment to calculate the value of “big G,” the universal gravitational constant, were published this month—and they’re incompatible with the official value of G, which itself comes from a weighted average of various other measurements that are mostly mutually incompatible and diverge by more than 10 times their estimated uncertainties.

The gravitational constant “is one of these things we should know,” says Terry Quinn at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Sévres, France, who led the team behind the latest calculation. “It’s embarrassing to have a fundamental constant that we cannot measure how strong it is.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This inherent difficulty has caused big G to become the only fundamental constant of physics for which the uncertainty of the standard value has risen over time as more and more measurements are made. “Though the measurements are very tough, because G is so much weaker than other laboratory forces, we still, as a community, ought to do better,” says University of Colorado at Boulder physicist James Faller, who conducted a 2010 experiment to calculate big G using pendulums.

The first big G measurement was made in 1798 by British physicist Henry Cavendish using an apparatus called a torsion balance. In this setup, a bar with lead balls at either end was suspended from its middle by a wire. When other lead balls were placed alongside this bar, it rotated according to the strength of the gravitational attraction between the balls, allowing Cavendish to measure the gravitational constant.

Quinn and his colleagues’ experiment was essentially a rehash of Cavendish’s setup using more advanced methods, such as replacing the wire with a wide, thin strip of copper beryllium, which allowed their torsion balance to hold more weight. The team also took the further step of adding a second, independent way of measuring the gravitational attraction: In addition to observing how much the bar twisted, the researchers also conducted experiments with electrodes placed inside the torsion balance that prevented it from twisting. The strength of the voltage needed to prevent the rotation was directly related to the pull of gravity. “A strong point of Quinn’s experiment is the fact that they use two different methods to measure G,” says Stephan Schlamminger of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md., who led a separate attempt in 2006 to calculate big G using a beam balance setup. “It is difficult to see how the two methods can produce two numbers that are wrong, but yet agree with each other.”

Here go try some of these yourself:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gravitation has been measured quite accurately numerous times and demonstrated in ways that can be easily seen many many times.
Here's a few:

The Cavendish experiment and G, Genevieve Roeder-Hensley

Cavendish Experiment Revisited, Andrew Bennett

Cavendish experiment, proving mass derived gravity, flat earth debunker

The Cavendish Experiment at Bishop O'Connell High School, Inside Science

DeHaan Cavendish Balance, James DeHaan

Universal Gravitation Demonstration, Nick Merrill

Plenty more where they came from.

Many of these can easily be repeated in any very sheltered location, free from breezes and stray electrostatic and magnetic fields - a basement is ideal.

And why not? Each litre of water is more or less free to move separately.

Should I likewise treat the total world population of about 7.7 billion people as a single mass of around 477 million million grams?
Or can I treat each of the 7.7 billion people as individuals with an average mass of around 62.0 kg?

Why is this kind of drivel allowed to be posted in the upper forums?


http://see-the-sea.org/facts/facts-body.htm

The ocean accounts for 0.022 percent of the total weight of earth, weighing an estimated 1,450,000,000,000,000,000 short tons (1 short ton = 2,000lbs).

The entire weight counts.

On top of this we have the water belonging to lakes and rivers.

A total of four trillion billion liters of water.

Explain to your readers how this humongous amount of water stays in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.

I have not been and am not trying to "explain to your readers the SOURCE and mechanism of this attractive gravity" all I have said is that:
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, ,  describes that way gravitation behaves and does not attempt to explain WHY. That is why it is a "Law" and not a "Theory".

It takes a single counterexample to pulverize your erroneous belief that Newton's gravitational formula is a law.

ALLAIS EFFECT

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

REFERENCE #1

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.


REFERENCE #2

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf

The title of the article is as follows:

A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum


"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


REFERENCE #4

The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


REFERENCE #5

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].


REFERENCE #6

Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045


Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.

REFERENCE #7

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1629054#msg1629054

Published in the Physical Review Journal

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.

Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).

The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."



"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"

HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:




Dr. Maurice Allais:

In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


"What is the attractive mechanism?" is totally irrelevant.

Then, if it is irrelevant, you might as well accept it is pressure gravity which causes terrestrial gravitation.

If it is irrelevant, you are a flat earth believer, no doubt about it.


You cannot invoke the Cavendish experiment: it is much better explained by ether theory.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg805751#msg805751

Here is the Lamoreaux experiment, two plates are being pushed against one another BY A PUSHING FORCE:

LAMOREAUX EFFECT



Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University): proof of the existence of negative energy (zero point vacuum energy - that is, pressure gravity):

(starts at 7:50 - Dr. Lamoreaux explains the pushing gravity experiment)


Steve reasoned that if he created a narrow-enough region of empty space like the area between the two ships, then some of the shimmering zero-point energy would not fit inside it.
The energy of empty space outside the narrow region would be stronger and force it to shrink.
That force would be the signature of negative energy, and Steve set out to create it in his lab.
It was an idea that would consume him for more than a decade.


Inside this vacuum chamber are two small metal plates sitting less than the width of a human hair apart from one another.
To get them that close and not touch, the metal has to be perfectly flat, down almost to the atomic level.
The zero-point fluctuations of free space won't fit between those plates, as well, so when you bring these two plates together, there are fewer fluctuations between the plates than there are outside the plates.

The force builds up, and it actually gets stronger and stronger as the plates get closer together, and that force we refer to as arising from negative energy.
The zero-point energy fluctuations outside the plates are stronger than those between, so pressure from the outside pushes them together.

Or think of it another way.
The negative energy between the plates expands space around it.
Steve's years of meticulous labor have made him the first person on Earth to have measured a force produced by negative energy.


A SINGLE COUNTEREXAMPLE WHICH PROVES THAT THE CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT IS DUE TO THE OUTSIDE PRESSURE EXERTED BY THIS NEGATIVE ENERGY.


HERE IS A SECOND COUNTEREXAMPLE TO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY: THE NIPHER EXPERIMENTS.

“Dr. Francis Nipher, Professor of physics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, did some of the pioneering electrogravitics work at Washington University in St. Louis back around the turn of the last century. He applied high voltage to lead balls, lead spheres and hollow metal boxes and compared the repulsive effect induced in small test spheres hung vertically near them, similar to the original Cavendish experiments but with high voltage. Dr. Nipher went to great lengths to insert protective, grounded screens of glass between the solid lead spheres and the suspended balls to rule out electrostatic effects.”

Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof.  Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects. His apparatus briefly consists of two large lead spheres ten inches in diameter, resting upon heavy sheets of hard rubber. Two small lead balls, each one inch in diameter, were now suspended from two silk threads, stationed at the sides of the two large lead spheres, from which they were separated by a little distance. Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres. The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational force upon the suspended small lead balls … and the small lead balls were slightly moved over towards the large spheres.

In further experiments Prof.  Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.


The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)

"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."

Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction."

Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm



Just take a look at the unenviable and precarious situation you find yourself in.

You are unable to explain the attractive mechanism.

You are unable to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Ask any physics professor to define gravity: they will say it is attractive, yet they cannot explain the attraction mechanism either.

A charade meant to hide one thing: those trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC!

And why not? Each litre of water is more or less free to move separately.

Should I likewise treat the total world population of about 7.7 billion people as a single mass of around 477 million million grams?
Or can I treat each of the 7.7 billion people as individuals with an average mass of around 62.0 kg?

Why is this kind of drivel allowed to be posted in the upper forums?

http://see-the-sea.org/facts/facts-body.htm

It is "kind of drivel" YOU should have taken notice of!

• Your "four trillion billion liters" is wrong. It should be about 1,390,000,000 cubic kilometers or 1.39 trillion billion liters of water if you must write it that way .
• You would not suggest that all  7.7 billion people be considered a  single mass of around 477 million million grams,
  yet you insist that for all the water on the earth (the oceans and lakes, rivers) "The entire weight counts"

The ocean accounts for 0.022 percent of the total weight of earth, weighing an estimated 1,450,000,000,000,000,000 short tons (1 short ton = 2,000lbs).
The entire weight counts.

Why? The oceans are not one rigid piece or matter. Water is a liquid and each kilogram of water experiences a downward force of 1 kilogram.force.

On top of this we have the water belonging to lakes and rivers.
A total of four trillion billion liters of water.

Rubbish! Your own reference claims that the oceans contain 97% of the total water and have a mass of about "1,450,000,000,000,000,000 short tons" or 1.32 x 10¹⁸ tonnes.
This makes the total mass of all water about 1.36 x 10¹⁸ tonnes nothing like your "four trillion billion liters" from YOUR OWN REFERENCE.

Every reference I find consistently gives similar vakues:

How much water is there on, in, and above the Earth?
The volume of . . . . all water on, in, and above the Earth, would be about 332,500,000 cubic miles (mi³) (1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers (km³)).

So scrap you silly "four trillion billion liters"!

Explain to your readers how this humongous amount of water stays in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.
I have not been and am not trying to "explain to your readers the SOURCE and mechanism of this attractive gravity" all I have said is that:
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, ,  describes that way gravitation behaves and does not attempt to explain WHY. That is why it is a "Law" and not a "Theory".

Why should I say more?
Obviously, something holds you and me on the earth, that "something" we call gravity. Exactly the same "something" holds each kilogram of water in its place.

It takes a single counterexample to pulverize your erroneous belief that Newton's gravitational formula is a law.

No, it does not. You obviously do not yet know the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory. Run off and learn the difference.

Boyle's law
experimental gas law
Boyle's law (also called Mariotte's law and the Boyle-Mariotte law) is a law about ideal gases.

The law can be stated as follows:
         For a fixed amount of an ideal gas kept at a fixed temperature, P (pressure) and V (volume) are inversely proportional.
In other words, the volume of a constant mass of ideal gas at a constant temperature is inversely proportional to the pressure applied on it.

Is Boyle's Law always true? Definitely NOT!

Charles's law
Charles's law (also known as the law of volumes) is an experimental gas law that describes how gases tend to expand when heated.
A modern statement of Charles's law is:
When the pressure on a sample of a dry gas is held constant, the Kelvin temperature and the volume will be in direct proportion.

Is Charles's Law always true? Definitely NOT!

And likewise Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is an experimental law and is not necessarily true so "a single counterexample" DOES NOT "pulverize your erroneous belief that Newton's gravitational formula is a law"!

Especially as Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation has long ago quite successfully predicted the path of planets to sufficient accuracy that Neptune could be found or, in the case of Pluto, at least the approximate location shown.

Not only that that, but the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit could be shown to differ from that calculated from Newtonian mechanics by 43 arcseconds per century.
The precessions of the perihelion of the other known planets matched that calculated from Newtonian mechanics to within experimental error.
Yes, it was a failure of Newtonian Mechanics but look how small that failure was, an average of 0.43 arcseconds per year!
You couldn't dream of any measurement that close, let alone the calculation of the expected precession caused by the other planets to better that 4.5 milliarcseconds/year.

Obviously, something holds you and me on the earth, that "something" we call gravity.

It can't be attractive gravity.

Explain the attractive mechanism.

Use any particles you want.

If you cannot explain how two objects are being attracted to one another, you are telling yourself and to your readers, that one trillion billion gallons of water stays in place next to the outer surface of a sphere by PURE MAGIC.


The Lamoreaux experiment, conducted in full vacuum, proves precisely that the two plates will be pushed together by an external pressure, the same explanation applies also to any type of Cavendish experiment.


Explain how lake Ontario is being attracted by the iron/nickel core.

It should be simple.

How does a molecule of iron attract a molecule of water? By the means of what physical agent?

Unless you can do so, you are a full believer in pure magic, cause that's what is takes to have anyone believe that a lake will stay in place on the outer surface of a sphere.


Is Boyle's Law always true? Definitely NOT!

The error in Newton's law of gravitation is on the order OF 100 MILLION!

Here are the calculations:



Dr. Maurice Allais:

In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


Not only that that, but the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit could be shown to differ from that calculated from Newtonian mechanics by 43 arcseconds per century.

Completely wrong.

The actual sizes of Mercury and its orbit WERE MODIFIED substantially in order to fit the supposed law of universal gravitation.

Replace now the RE diameter of Mercury, 4.880 km, with the FE diameter which is about 30 meters or 0.03 km.

Put those numbers in Newton's formula and see what that will get you.

You are resorting to a fantasy world created especially for gullible people like yourself.

The distance to Mercury, RE number, is 77 million km. The FE distance is some 15 km. Put 15 km instead of 77 million km in Newton's formula and see the enormous error will you get.

Here is a direct proof that the dimensions of the solar system are completely wrong: THE THREE BODY PROBLEM PARADOX.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581