Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

# My Anti Gravitational Theory

Rate this topic

## Recommended Posts

Galileo demonstrated this fact at the leaning tower of Pisa. Commander David Scott also demonstrated it on the moon with a hammer and feather, which have very different densities.

Galileo was the first man who told us about the behavior of falling objects having different weight.

Galileo dropped a cannon ball and wooden ball from the top of the Tower of Pisa.

This story is apocryphal, while some of his earlier predecessors actually performed this experiment, and found in fact a slight difference in the time the two balls struck the ground.

Although the Leaning Tower of Pisa is there but no one successes to do it again. There is only one possibility available for both balls fall down at the same time when both have the same densities, otherwise there should always a difference in the time.

• Replies 58
• Created
• Last Reply

#### Popular Days

Both of your statements are incorrect. Increasing density does not increase gravitational pull. The gravitational pull between two objects is proportional to the mass of each object, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Nowhere in that statement does density enter into the equation.

Calculated value of force between Earth and Moon is 2.1233E20 N approx

and between Sun and Moon is 4.351E20 N approx. which is much higher than the force between Earth and Moon. Then how is the solar system working and existing in the light of Gravitational force? It is quite illogical and false to explain the Solar system through Gravitational force.

By keeping in mind how can you justify and balance the force between Earth, Sun and the Moon when there is a total eclipse of Sun or in normal conditions.

My point of view is about the possesion of moon when it is in between Sun and Earth.

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

There is only one possibility available for both balls fall down at the same time when both have the same densities, otherwise there should always a difference in the time.

This is absolutely wrong. It is convenient that you ignore my reference to the Apollo 15 demonstration on the moon, which you can view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk.

Calculated value of force between Earth and Moon is 2.1233E20 N approx

and between Sun and Moon is 4.351E20 N approx. which is much higher than the force between Earth and Moon. Then how is the solar system working and existing in the light of Gravitational force?

Because the Earth, Moon, and Sun did not start out *motionless*.

The planetary nebula was in motion, rotating around the Sun. As the material coalesced into planets, those planets continued rotating around the Sun. When a meteor struck the Earth and broke off material, some of that material fell back to the Earth, while the material that was in a stable orbit around the Earth formed the moon, which maintained the solar-orbital-trajectory of the Earth. This is all due to the conservation of angular momentum.

Orbital mechanics is well understood - there is absolutely no room for debate.

Edited by brian0918
##### Share on other sites

This is absolutely wrong. It is convenient that you ignore my reference to the Apollo 15 demonstration on the moon, which you can view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk.

I have seen many pic. and videos of different NASA missions for MOON. I have noted some similarities in these photos and videos,

Size of the shadow remains the same in every video

In day time the back ground remains always black and few stars appear shining in the background, which is quite against to the day time on the earth, as we see every thing bright on the earth in the presence of sun light.

In the above link video we can see a man is struggling to walk on the surface of the moon and this causes the dust to lift above the ground. After lifting from the surface it settles down very quickly as it does on the earth surface.

I think if a massive man is struggling to walk on the surface then the dust should also travel some distance or take some time to settle down on the surface because the weightlessness behavior should be valid for both if there is any such behavior.

In a free fall of feather and hammer both fall at the same rate on the ground if we consider this correct then what causes the hammer to slow down its speed in free fall on the moon?

Please correct me may be i am wrong and fails to understand the basic concept

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

Oh no, an anti gravitational theory. Hold on to your hats, kids.

##### Share on other sites

• 9 months later...

Ok...where to start?

As a short introduction, I am going to try to give the most simple, easy to understand argument towards why your theory is not possible. I have only read your first few posts (I could not continue without comment. Too much is already bothering me.), so if the issues I address have already been raised, I apologize.

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 .

The first error you make is here: You give the postulate that gravity does not exist. Then you mention weights. Weight is a product of a force, specifically gravity in a non-accelerated frame of referance on Earth. You cannot mention "weight" if you deny the existence of a force.

Mistake number two: Actually, the force that acts on the steel rod and the paper is the same, and the distance has nothing to do with air pressure or density, it has to do with the objects' moment of inertia. This is easily observed by noting that the exact same experiment will yield the same % difference in velocity when conducted in any non-accelerated environment. If you applied a force to the steel and paper in a vaccum, the steel would move less simply because the amount of force required to move the steel is greater than the amount required to move the paper.

Mistake three: You say that gravity "works more effectively on heavy objects." and is not, therefore, a force. This is untrue. What you're seeing is an entirely different situation than what you described earlier. In your situation, the force applied is the same between the two objects. The blower applies the same force to the steel rod and the paper. Gravity, however (under Newton and Einstein's posulates instead of yours) is dependant on the mass of the object. That is, the larger the mass, the larger the force. This means that the force of gravity is greater when applied to the second object, so one would expect the acceleration to be larger. One sees similar forces when dealing with electromagnetic forces. The larger the object (whether it be a magnet or an amount of electrons), the greater the force.

Mistake 4: You deny the existence of a force, then you mention pressure. Again, force creates pressure. Without any force acting on a gas, it will infinitely expand until the pressure is zero. What creates pressure on Earth is gravity (among many other factors.), so you may not referance atmospheric pressure if you deny the existence of gravity.

Mistake 5: You use the terms "upward" and "downward" as absolute directions. I ask you this: with respect to what? For those values to be absolute directions, one must have an absolute reference point. Things on earth fall towards the center of the Earth. However, things on the moon do not fall towards the center of the Earth, they fall towards the center of the moon. Gravity explains this. Your theory does not. If densities and pressures (pressure already being irrelevant as I stated before, but I will go with it for this point.) are the only determining factors of what we observe as gravity, then your theory does not hold water. Here is why: You claim that objects more dense than the surrounding gas fall "downward." This is true, given that your reference frame is a sufficiently large object and "downward" is the center of that object. Drop an object in space and it does not fall. Drop an object in the ISS (relatively no gravity, but with existing pressure) and it does not fall. Therefore, the objects are not falling due to pressures. If they were, objects in space would "fall."

Mistake 6: Your experiment with the balloon and the stone. Repeat it in a vacuum. (google demonstrations if you cannot personally do this) You will see that the balloon and the stone accelerate at the same rate. This happens regardless of what the balloon is filled with. Also, when you let go of a baloon filled with helium, one may still observe the effect of gravity. A baloon filled with helium will rise very slowly in our atomosphere. However, if one were to fill a balloon with helium in the ISS (at 1 atm pressure), it would rise MUCH faster due to the lack of a relative force of gravity.

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.

I believe you misunderstand the concept of "the universe." The universe, by definition, is all encompassing. Literally. The literal meaning of the universe is everything. Everywhere. Therefore, the universe cannot be "surrounded" by a gas. Any gas is part of the definition of the universe and therefore, cannot be outside of the universe.

If the universe is arranged according to densities, why is it that the planets are NOT arranged in this fashion? Pluto is more dense than neptune. Why is it not near the other planets of similar density? Also, This does not explain the planets' motions and orbits. Put a basketball in the water. Now put a tennis ball next to it. Did they start orbiting each other?

And finally, if the entire universe is arranged accoring to density, and gravity does not exist, why may I drop a weather baloon filled with hydrogen (the least dense balloon one could possible fashion.) and watch it cease its upward motion in our upper atmosphere? If space is filled with gas, (any gas in fact, since I released the least dense element in existence) why does it not continue floating upward? Want to know a simple answer? Gravity is acting downward on the balloon.

And, if space is not filled with gas (which it is not, relatively at least), what keeps our atmosphere intact? Again, for there to be a pressure, a force must exist. This force is gravity.

Finally, I suggest you brush up on your basic math and science skills, along with practicing logic problems. You made a few incredible leaps in logic which were not correct that would not have been made if you had simply drawn a force diagram or derived simple equations of your own as you went from step to step. Those derivations and diagrams would show that you are missing a force, and the logic portion would help you see why there is no universal "up" or "down" and that there is no evidence for your claims, while there is a huge amount of evidence (and no evidence against) the current theories. I do not mean to insult you, but you have some serious work to do before you start trying to theorize on such broad, overarching areas such as the existence of gravity.

##### Share on other sites

I have seen many pic. and videos of different NASA missions for MOON. I have noted some similarities in these photos and videos,

Size of the shadow remains the same in every video

In day time the back ground remains always black and few stars appear shining in the background, which is quite against to the day time on the earth, as we see every thing bright on the earth in the presence of sun light.

In the above link video we can see a man is struggling to walk on the surface of the moon and this causes the dust to lift above the ground. After lifting from the surface it settles down very quickly as it does on the earth surface.

I think if a massive man is struggling to walk on the surface then the dust should also travel some distance or take some time to settle down on the surface because the weightlessness behavior should be valid for both if there is any such behavior.

In a free fall of feather and hammer both fall at the same rate on the ground if we consider this correct then what causes the hammer to slow down its speed in free fall on the moon?

Please correct me may be i am wrong and fails to understand the basic concept

The force of gravity on the Earth and the moon are different because of the different masses of the to planteary objects. He is struggling to walk because he has very little control over his movements in an area less effected by gravity. Imagine trying to walk at the bottom of a pool in diving equipment. It's not easy. Also, his gear weighs hundreds of pounds on Earth. Even on the moon we're still talking in the range of 80lbs.

##### Share on other sites

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.

Changing direction is a form of acceleration. When a planet is orbiting the sun it is changing direction and therefore, accelerating. In order to accelerate an object must have a net force applied to it. Where is this net force coming from if it is not coming from gravity?
##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

Hello

Sorry i have left this forum but i wants to respond. Please first visit http://www.gravitycontrol.org/forum/index.php?topic=394.0

then i will respond to your arguments and suggestions. I hope you wil find many things very clear and positive.

## Join the conversation

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

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
• ### Recently Browsing   0 members

• No registered users viewing this page.

• ### Topics

• 67
• 367
• 11
• 0
• 0
• 22
• 0
• 84
• 5
• 0
×
• Create New...