If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
Maybe I’m missing something here—but it doesn’t look like our member Kopfhoerer is trying to speculate about the shape of the earth. But rather, the comments appear to be more topic related—that being, “what is gravity?” That said, I truly got lost (or didn’t understand) the reference to “revolving in and out? Like a Wormhole?”
Thank you for clarification.
I do not stand by this thought. But for clarification:
- white circle: -> Earth
- red circles an arrows: -> magnetic field
- revolving in and out = turned inside out? (I dont know, how to put this better.)
Well, Gravity is Weight, nothing else - by definition.
Therefore the concept of Gravity rests only on weight and, ergo, Gravity violates Newtons first law of motion which postulates a necessary interaction of TWO forces acting on each other.
Newton knew that he violated his first law in respect to his theory on Gravity and accordingly made fun of himself and everyone else who to this day believes in Gravity as a law of Fundamental Interaction.
Here are Newtons thoughts:
"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it."
So far as I know, nobody to this day has successfully treated Gravity as Fundamental Interaction of two defined forces without abandoning alltogether the ONE supposed force of weight.
And those - like Einstein - who acknowledged weight being a force, did nothing else but rely on this singular force to bend the fabric of space and never defined any force whatsoever beyond that to adhere to Newtons first law of motion.
Classical physics always relies on an undefined force as placeholder/substitute for the neccessary interaction of two forces and therefore never proved Gravity a Fundamenntal Interaction.
So Gravity is no physical law yet, at least not beyond its meaning of being Weight and only Weight.
The title of this thread is misleading - tongue in cheek - as here, there are to be found a collection of thoughts pertaining to cause and effect which gravity alone cannot answer.
So what is Gravity if we stick to its singular definition?
Being in time - Istzustand - the path of least resistance - free fall.
Newton couldn't himself conceive of a one way force, something irrespective, regularly travelling in one indefinite direction without something else fundametally pushing It. He.. must have known, the absurdity of motion in space against the endlessnes of space
Anathema to Newton, he consistently went so far as to fight even any least notion of such a celestial atonomous one way moving force, waged war against it, devised, f u n d a mental physical laws against the mere idea, which, even to this day cannot mentaly be violated down to the fabric on which everything seems projected.
By his mere character of cognition Newton though finally succumbed and never actually got past naming only that one singular objective apparancy of weight/gravity as an autonomous force acting quite alone and so, to act against it, by marriage, pre-invented a general undefined subjectivity - an additional, F o r c e , as proof of doctrin.
And what this means In reality and by exaxctly such implication, is that we still stand, as such that gravity constitutes a singular force for harvest, yet not for generating.