Objectivism Online Forum

# My Anti Gravitational Theory

Rate this topic

## Recommended Posts

there is no gravitational force in this world if there any force exist then it would apply on the basis of their masses and weights.For example put a paper and a steel rod in front of a blower then switch on the blower you wil see the air will throw the paper many meter away from the blower on the other hand the steel rod will move some inches away from the blower.

But in case of gravitaional force the result is reverse it works more effectively for heavier objects rather than light objects.For example if you put down a stone from the top of a building it will comes down on the ground very rapidly on the other hand if want to throw down a ballon it will never comes down on the ground if the gravity exist then the ballon should comes down more rapidly due to its lighter weight as compared to stone but it never happens because there is no force of gravity in this universe.Accuately there are two factors that are controlling the entire process

1 density

2 pressure

Any object that is more dense than air will comes downward and the object less dense than air will go upward.The factor that controls the falling and upgoing speed of the object is the pressure of the air.

There are many examples to support and prove this concept .

Edited by brian0918

• Replies 58
• Created

#### Popular Days

How does this theory explain the moon orbiting the earth and affecting the tides?

##### Share on other sites

yes good point

Whole the universe is surrounded by different gases.It can be understand by the following example

If you put down a footbal or tenis ball on the surface of the water it will float on the surface of the water on the other hand if you put a steel ball on the surface of water it will sink down .

Same is the case with earth and the moon all these are suspended in the universe according to their density and will never fuse or strike with each other.Thats why all the planets are moving and rotating in their orbits from the thousands of years.

Edited by bukhari
##### Share on other sites

Gravitational theory is extremely well-supported by the evidence.

##### Share on other sites

yes good point

Whole the universe is surrounded by different gases.It can be understand by the following example

If you put down a footbal or tenis ball on the surface of the water it will float on the surface of the water on the other hand if you put a steel ball on the surface of water it will sink down .

Same is the case with earth and the moon all these are suspended in the universe according to their density and will never fuse or strike with each other.Thats why all the planets are moving and rotating in their orbits from the thousands of years.

Your saying that space isn't a vacuum, and has a bottom for these gases to rest on, right.

##### Share on other sites

Jupiters volume is over 1300 times greater than that of Earth, yet its only about 320 times as massive. Assuming Earth and Jupiter are suspended by buoyancy by the same "different gasses" "surrounding" them as you say, how do the "current" laws of motion explain their movement around the sun so precicely when their density is so vastly different?

You should try taking a more inductive approach.

##### Share on other sites

The idea of matter as a condensate of cosmic energy is not unwarranted per se (not certain that is a fair restatement of bukhari's conjecture, fwiw).

However, what would cause the condensation? Are purely electrical forces, as are involved in a balloon floating in the wind rather than homing in on the Earth's center, sufficient to explain such global condensation?

And, what would prevent the atmosphere from evaporating into the lower density of space if not gravity?

As I see it, there must be at minimum two distinct, complementary types of force in dynamic balance to create stable structures: a global, scalar potential, tensionally contiguous (although not continuous) envelopment tending to force things together (which would be observed locally as an omnidirectional attractive force, e.g. gravity); and a locally repulsive "strutting" force that acts explosively to keep the global envelopment from collapsing completely (e.g., the electrostatic repulsion between electrons).

I am not saying I can reduce the known physical forces to these two (yet). I am simply observing that to create volumetric (i.e. real) physical structures requires balancing globally integrated, omnidirectional tension (as in a shrink-net basketball sack) against locally isolated bi-directional compression (as in the strutting of a bicycle wheel).

Point is, you can't get away without the omnidirectional tensional aspect ... and this one's potential is by nature dependent only on the relative locations of entities, not their motion (which is why physicists will never isolate a graviton ...).

Cheers.

- David

##### Share on other sites

complete balderdash! your theory cannot explain the Cavendish experiment.

##### Share on other sites

Really? So the fact there is all this evidence for gravity does not seem to phase the original poster. Or the "math" guy leaping to his support ( at least I think that is what his arbitrary rambling is trying to achieve).

This should be ....well interesting. Floating and HIGHLY arbitrary mathematical abstractions used to possibly even more arbitrary assertions about the non-existence of gravity. Look, this is just nonsense and I suggest you drop it now : It contradicts hundreds of years of evidence , logic and so forth.

Edited by Prometheus98876
##### Share on other sites

^ I second that motion.

##### Share on other sites

Really? So the fact there is all this evidence for gravity does not seem to phase the original poster. Or the "math" guy leaping to his support ( at least I think that is what his arbitrary rambling is trying to achieve).

This should be ....well interesting. Floating and HIGHLY arbitrary mathematical abstractions used to possibly even more arbitrary assertions about the non-existence of gravity. Look, this is just nonsense and I suggest you drop it now : It contradicts hundreds of years of evidence , logic and so forth.

I wish it had never been raised; having said that, I am not about to let it stand unchallenged while speculators blather ... because I have time to spare at the moment.

And I can't quite tell if you were referring to my post as support for the half-baked pea-shooter, so just to be clear, it wasn't. I was making the point that without gravity or something awfully similar in principle, you can't make physical structures (they would explode or evaporate).

(I like that you refer to past experience for its evidential merit, rather than as a matter of tradition.)

Cheers,

- David

##### Share on other sites

I wish it had never been raised; having said that, I am not about to let it stand unchallenged while speculators blather ... because I have time to spare at the moment.

And I can't quite tell if you were referring to my post as support for the half-baked pea-shooter, so just to be clear, it wasn't. I was making the point that without gravity or something awfully similar in principle, you can't make physical structures (they would explode or evaporate).

(I like that you refer to past experience for its evidential merit, rather than as a matter of tradition.)

Cheers,

- David

My apologies, I guess I was way off the mark on this one. It was just that I was really not sure what you were trying to say.

But in any case, I withdraw my claim that you are probably trying to support the guy.

##### Share on other sites

There are many examples to support and prove this concept .

I do wonder. Perhaps this theory of yours is a result of your humors being out of balance?

##### Share on other sites

Your saying that space isn't a vacuum, and has a bottom for these gases to rest on, right.

No

Actually in the begning whole the universe was just like a big ball then this big ball exploded and scattered into many different pieces like earth and other planets.From that day all the planets start to revolve around their axis and the sun and the moon start moving around the earth on their specified way till the end of the universe according to the 1st law of motion.

By keeping in mind above basic theory every planet is surrounded by the envelop of different gases and in this envelop of gases these planets are suspended .Thats why when you go on the moon you can not walk on its surface because the moon is surrouded by gases are less dense than the earth.

##### Share on other sites

Jupiters volume is over 1300 times greater than that of Earth, yet its only about 320 times as massive. Assuming Earth and Jupiter are suspended by buoyancy by the same "different gasses" "surrounding" them as you say, how do the "current" laws of motion explain their movement around the sun so precicely when their density is so vastly different?

You should try taking a more inductive approach.

As i said before sun and moon is revolving around the earth not the earth.

##### Share on other sites

The idea of matter as a condensate of cosmic energy is not unwarranted per se (not certain that is a fair restatement of bukhari's conjecture, fwiw).

However, what would cause the condensation? Are purely electrical forces, as are involved in a balloon floating in the wind rather than homing in on the Earth's center,

A ballon that is filled with the hydrogen or methane gas go upward on the other hand a ballon filled with mouth air will always comes down .

How will ynu justify this phenomena by electrical forces.

##### Share on other sites

The idea of matter as a condensate of cosmic energy is not unwarranted per se (not certain that is a fair restatement of bukhari's conjecture, fwiw).

However, what would cause the condensation? Are purely electrical forces, as are involved in a balloon floating in the wind rather than homing in on the Earth's center,

A ballon that is filled with the hydrogen or methane gas go upward on the other hand a ballon filled with mouth air will always comes down .

How will ynu justify this phenomena by electrical forces.

##### Share on other sites

Really? So the fact there is all this evidence for gravity does not seem to phase the original poster. Or the "math" guy leaping to his support ( at least I think that is what his arbitrary rambling is trying to achieve).

This should be ....well interesting. Floating and HIGHLY arbitrary mathematical abstractions used to possibly even more arbitrary assertions about the non-existence of gravity. Look, this is just nonsense and I suggest you drop it now : It contradicts hundreds of years of evidence , logic and so forth.

I think first of all we should discuss the topic with open mind. when newton saw an apple fell from the tree he thaught there is some force that forced the apple to go down ward instead of going up he called this force gravity without giving any solid reason and logic because gravity was invisible and myesterious, people followed and started to worship the gravity and put this in all those matters that were unsolved.

##### Share on other sites

.....he called this force gravity without giving any solid reason and logic because gravity was invisible and myesterious, people followed and started to worship the gravity and put this in all those matters that were unsolved.

Ah yes, the Gravity of the gaps theory.

##### Share on other sites

As i said before sun and moon is revolving around the earth not the earth.

You have it half right.

##### Share on other sites

You have it half right.

##### Share on other sites

Bukhari, your idea does not appear to me to add value over and above existing physical theories. I urge you to check your premises and be more deliberate in your inductions. So far, your posts appear to express more or less whimsical connections to observable reality.

Now, if it is simply an issue with lack of familiarity with English, then maybe try writing your ideas in your native tongue and getting someone to help you translate them more faithfully. If English is your native tongue then this cannot explain your lack of coherence.

- David

##### Share on other sites

Are purely electrical forces, as are involved in a balloon floating in the wind rather than homing in on the Earth's center,

A ballon that is filled with the hydrogen or methane gas go upward on the other hand a ballon filled with mouth air will always comes down .

What force is acting on the less dense "mouth air" filled balloon causing it to fall towards the earth? What about a stone dropped in water? No gasses there (essentially). Why is the gas that supposedly causes the sun to revolve around the earth per your theory undetectable?

You do know that the existence of an ether was disproved in the 19th century and lead Einstein to develop relativity theory thereafter. And that Copernicus showed the earth revolves around the sun. There has been much experimental documentation that both of these things are true.

##### Share on other sites

I think first of all we should discuss the topic with open mind. when newton saw an apple fell from the tree he thaught there is some force that forced the apple to go down ward instead of going up he called this force gravity without giving any solid reason and logic because gravity was invisible and myesterious, people followed and started to worship the gravity and put this in all those matters that were unsolved.

You confuse "lets discuss this topic with an open mind" with "lets just ignore the evidence of the senses and not apply logic to them". Sorry, not going to do that.

##### Share on other sites

Bukhari, your idea does not appear to me to add value over and above existing physical theories. I urge you to check your premises and be more deliberate in your inductions. So far, your posts appear to express more or less whimsical connections to observable reality.

Now, if it is simply an issue with lack of familiarity with English, then maybe try writing your ideas in your native tongue and getting someone to help you translate them more faithfully. If English is your native tongue then this cannot explain your lack of coherence.

- David

Thanks david, english is not my native tounge.I will try to mange a translator

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

• ### Topics

• 366
• 10
• 0
• 22
• 55
• 0
• 84
• 5
• 0
• 38
×
• Create New...