Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity  (Read 4023 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tradman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 801
  • Reputation: +580/-206
  • Gender: Male
Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2022, 03:22:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0212033.pdf
    :laugh1:  Do you really think flat earthers haven't seen the theory? That we somehow haven't suffered the tedium of indoctrination for years in high school and college?  That a paper written by some nobody or by some government scientist is going to bring us back to the idea that earth is a sphere?    

    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1867
    • Reputation: +758/-1134
    • Gender: Male
    • sedem ablata
    Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
    « Reply #16 on: February 01, 2022, 04:02:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • He is clearly using the term because it facilitates the discussion, especially when speaking with children.

    As he stated, "
    Gravity is a myth that mass per se can create a force between two objects ... at a distance.  There's something else causing this, whether it's electromagnetism or some other real force that has been measured."

    He is talking about the cause of the force of attraction/repulsion between objects, something people like you call gravity -- which he clearly called a myth.

    His comment is crystal clear and could only be misread by an idiot of bad will.



    Please see the context, which is my comment quoted and commented on by Ladislaus.
    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 32377
    • Reputation: +19214/-5066
    • Gender: Male
    Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
    « Reply #17 on: February 01, 2022, 04:53:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You're talking about how gravity works, thus implicity admitting that gravity exists. If it didn't exist, your comment were completely idiotic.

    As gladius indicated, I use the term loosely to describe the "phenomenon" that is observed and has been called gravity.  I posted a video from a top physicist who made the exact same distinction, calling it "gravity" in terms of the phenomenon but indicating that he doesn't believe it exists with mass being a cause.  His theory is that it has to do with the laws of thermodynamics somehow.

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6863
    • Reputation: +3889/-720
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
    « Reply #18 on: February 01, 2022, 05:37:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Gravity is God's love holding His creation together, per St. Augustine :popcorn:
    "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Tim. 4:3]

    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth." [2 Cor. 3:6]

    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1867
    • Reputation: +758/-1134
    • Gender: Male
    • sedem ablata
    Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
    « Reply #19 on: February 01, 2022, 06:07:53 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • As gladius indicated, I use the term loosely to describe the "phenomenon" that is observed and has been called gravity.  I posted a video from a top physicist who made the exact same distinction, calling it "gravity" in terms of the phenomenon but indicating that he doesn't believe it exists with mass being a cause.  His theory is that it has to do with the laws of thermodynamics somehow.

    What about commenting on what I said instead of deviating from the topic?
    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 32377
    • Reputation: +19214/-5066
    • Gender: Male
    Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
    « Reply #20 on: February 01, 2022, 08:07:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What about commenting on what I said instead of deviating from the topic?

    We did respond to your comment.  Evidently you're too much of a dolt to understand what we're talking about, to the answer went over your head because you didn't get it.

    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1867
    • Reputation: +758/-1134
    • Gender: Male
    • sedem ablata
    Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
    « Reply #21 on: February 01, 2022, 08:12:04 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • We did respond to your comment.  Evidently you're too much of a dolt to understand what we're talking about, to the answer went over your head because you didn't get it.

    You didn't.

    The reason for the denser apple to fall in less dense air is commonly called gravity. So talking about density doesn't refute gravity. It's just FE nonsense talk.
    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)

    Offline Dankward

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 435
    • Reputation: +237/-264
    • Gender: Male
    • Deo confidimus!
    Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
    « Reply #22 on: February 02, 2022, 02:53:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There are some experiments which support the theory of gravity and are not explainable with buoyancy or any of these other "explanations".

    1. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka-Experiment
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

    Also, a scientific theory that holds any value has been repeatedly tested and verified in numerous ways according to the scientific method, it's not a made up fairytale that holds no water.


    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2574
    • Reputation: +1517/-211
    • Gender: Male
    Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
    « Reply #23 on: February 04, 2022, 02:59:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Understanding Gravity: From the Latin gravitás, meaning heavy   

    For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hidden. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived man, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” (Ecclus 3:21-26).

    To say Newton solved the mystery of ‘gravity’ is ignorant or deceitful for no one other than God ‘understands’ what we call ‘gravity.’ We know the need for and effects of ‘gravity’ on Earth, but can mere human reason really comprehend the mystery of gravity? A stone will fall to the ground out of our hand. What causes this is called gravity. A vacuum can be created in a chamber. different objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum. So 'gravity' exists, whatever causes it.
       
    There are, of course, many other known functions served by ‘gravity.’ Experience has shown us that without Earth’s 'gravity' men could not/cannot survive for very long. The ability of our bodily parts to function properly, for example, is totally dependent on the Earth’s perfectly created gravity, and it is this dependency that will make long-term space travel for humans almost impossible, without even considering the effects of radiation. Forget all that hype and nonsense written about men ‘conquering space.’ The truth is that in apparently gravity-absent (weightless) space the human body will eventually break down. First muscle tissue would start to degenerate for want of proper gravity-resisting exercise. Then the bones weaken, start to lose calcium and become brittle. The heart, no longer having to pump blood against the effect of gravity, loses strength and vigour. In time other physical defects would begin to show, such as bodily fluids shifting around causing swelling in various parts of our anatomy. Thereafter physical and mental stress as well as exhaustion would set in. Back on Earth no such problems exist, thanks to the Earth’s ‘gravity.’ All living creatures can exist on its surface where they belong with perfect health and mobility, and the weight of a glass of wine and cigar just perfect.


    As we look out at the sky from our immobile Earth, we see that all celestial bodies have proper daily, monthly, annual and multi-yearly movements, that is, a daily rotation around the Earth, a monthly orbit for the moon, an annual orbit for the sun, and a multi-year cycle for the precession of the stars. Man has called the cause of these movements 'gravity.' The Earth’s motionless centrality was considered by Aristotle to be its gravitational ‘natural place.’ St Ambrose of Milan (†397), however, and other Fathers of the Church, like St Gregory of nαzιanzus (†390) and St Basil the Great (†379), attributed a geocentric Earth to divine Providence alone.

    ‘On the nature and position of the Earth there should be no need to enter into discussion… It is sufficient for our information to state the text of Holy Scriptures, namely, that “He hangeth the Earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7). There are many, too, who have maintained that the Earth, placed in the midst of the air, remains motionless there by its own weight, because it extends itself equally on all sides. [Obviously St Ambrose referred to a global Earth] As to this subject, let us reflect on what was said by the Lord to His servant Job…. Does not God clearly show that all things are established by His majesty, not by number, weight, and measure? For the creature has not given the law, rather he accepts it or abides by that which has been accepted. The Earth is therefore not suspended in the middle of the universe like a balance hung in equilibrium, but the majesty of God holds it together by the law of His own will, so that what is steadfast should prevail over the void and unstable…. By the will of God, therefore, the Earth is immovable. “The Earth standeth forever,” according to Ecclesiastes (91:4).’ – St Ambrose.

    In addition to the Earth’s immobility, we could ask how are the movements of the cosmos caused and sustained. Aristotle proposed that the celestial bodies that have proper movement are maintained in motion by fifty-five ‘independent intelligences,’ immaterial substances or souls. St Thomas of course, taught that inanimate things have no soul, life or intelligence and thus have no means of producing or sustaining movement by themselves. But God, using His will alone, or with the assistance of His angels or secondary causes, moves celestial bodies. The simple fact that the sun, moon, planets and stars move with such unwavering regularity showed St Thomas a conscious and intellectual Being involved. How else could there be maintained a rhythm of perpetual motion and constant un-decaying order if not with the assistance of divine power or by His direct preservation of the laws of nature. Such metaphysical considerations however, came to an abrupt end with the Copernican and Newtonian revolution, when mankind was offered conjured-up rational natural causes for a heliocentric system, a way of thinking accepted eventually by Catholic churchmen and laymen alike.

        As to why the sun, moon and stars, which include the planets, do not fall to Earth, Aristotle held that they must be made of something other than the matter of the Earth, maybe of gas, thus remaining aloof in the sky.(Today’s cosmologists tell us that Jupiter and Saturn are actually gas giants). Galileo for one looked through a telescope and saw that the moon had hills, valleys and craters; indicating the moon, at least, was indeed made of rock and not something else as Aristotle speculated. 


    Offline Bonaventure

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1041
    • Reputation: +653/-266
    • Gender: Male
    Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
    « Reply #24 on: February 04, 2022, 03:29:23 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Isaac Newton was a freemason with a very impressive looking nose.

    Why should we care what any of these guys say?

    Newton is generally credited with his theory of gravity beginning around 1679, but Fr. Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598 - 1671) accurately measured the acceleration of falling bodies (i.e., gravity) nearly 50 years earlier.

    Quote
    Riccioli is credited with being the first person to precisely measure the acceleration due to gravity of falling bodies.[10] Books 2 and 9 of the New Almagest Riccioli included a significant discussion of and extensive experimental reports on the motions of falling bodies and pendulums.

    He was interested in the pendulum as a device for precisely measuring time. By counting the number of pendulum swings that elapsed between transits of certain stars, Riccioli was able to experimentally verify that the period of a pendulum swinging with small amplitude is constant to within two swings out of 3212 (0.062%). He also reported that a pendulum's period increases if the amplitude of its swing is increased to 40 degrees. He sought to develop a pendulum whose period was precisely one second – such a pendulum would complete 86,400 swings in a 24-hour period. This he directly tested, twice, by using stars to mark time and recruiting a team of nine fellow Jesuits to count swings and maintain the amplitude of swing for 24 hours. The results were pendulums with periods within 1.85%, and then 0.69%, of the desired value; and Riccioli even sought to improve on the latter value. The seconds pendulum was then used as a standard for calibrating pendulums with different periods. Riccioli said that for measuring time a pendulum was not a perfectly reliable tool, but in comparison with other methods it was an exceedingly reliable tool.[11]

    With pendulums to keep time (sometimes augmented by a chorus of Jesuits chanting in time with a pendulum to provide an audible timer) and a tall structure in the form of Bologna's Torre de Asinelli from which to drop objects, Riccioli was able to engage in precise experiments with falling bodies. He verified that falling bodies followed Galileo's "odd-number" rule so that the distance travelled by a falling body increases in proportion to the square of the time of fall, indicative of constant acceleration.[12] According to Riccioli, a falling body released from rest travels 15 Roman feet (4.44 m) in one second, 60 feet (17.76 m) in two seconds, 135 feet (39.96 m) in three seconds, etc.[13] Other Jesuits such as the above-mentioned Cabeo had argued that this rule had not been rigorously demonstrated.[14] His results showed that, while falling bodies generally showed constant acceleration, there were differences determined by weight and size and density. Riccioli said that if two heavy objects of differing weight are dropped simultaneously from the same height, the heavier one descends more quickly so long as it is of equal or greater density; if both objects are of equal weight the denser one descends more quickly.

    For example, in dropping balls of wood and lead that both weighed 2.5 ounces, Riccioli found that upon the leaden ball having traversed 280 Roman feet the wooden ball had traversed only 240 feet (a table in the New Almagest contains data on twenty one such paired drops). He attributed such differences to the air, and noted that air density had to be considered when dealing with falling bodies.[15] He illustrated the reliability of his experiments by providing detailed descriptions of how they were carried out, so that anyone could reproduce them,[16] complete with diagrams of the Torre de Asinelli that showed heights, drop locations, etc.[17]

    Riccioli noted that while these differences did contradict Galileo's claim that balls of differing weight would fall at the same rate, it was possible Galileo observed the fall of bodies made of the same material but of differing sizes, for in that case the difference in fall time between the two balls is much smaller than if the balls are of same size but differing materials, or of the same weight but differing sizes, etc., and that difference is not apparent unless the balls are released from a very great height.[18] At the time, various people had expressed concern with Galileo's ideas about falling bodies, arguing that it would be impossible to discern the small differences in time and distance needed to adequately test Galileo's ideas, or reporting that experiments had not agreed with Galileo's predictions, or complaining that suitably tall buildings with clear paths of fall were not available to thoroughly test Galileo's ideas. By contrast, Riccioli was able to show that he had carried out repeated, consistent, precise experiments in an ideal location.

    From: Giovanni Battista Riccioli

    Offline Dankward

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 435
    • Reputation: +237/-264
    • Gender: Male
    • Deo confidimus!
    Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
    « Reply #25 on: February 05, 2022, 01:33:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • All the so-called "evidence" such as apples falling on your head while lost in thought under and apple tree, could be explained by density, a Flat Earth, etc.
    How does density explain that objects fall down? Can you or someone else explain that or link to sources?

    Saying that instead of gravity, it is FE that makes object fall down, just like that, is circular reasoning.

    Quote
    It's not as though we've BEEN to any other planets where "Gosh! We're 1.5X heavier, due to the increased mass of the planet relative to Earth!"
    Yes, I've heard thousands of times talk about different planet densities, how much you'd weigh on this or that exo-planet, etc. That's all over the Discovery channel, the mouths of lying scientists like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye, NASA, etc. -- but THEY ARE ALL PROVEN LIARS so everything they say has to be thrown out. But more importantly, it's just their say-so, the argument of authority, the bandwagon fallacy, etc. They can't point to any experiments! You know, SCIENCE.
    The good thing is that you don't have to believe these figureheads, but can test most things yourself, or see how others verified what has previously been theorized, over and over again.

    Quote
    Gravity (defined as "large massive objects attracting smaller, less dense objects towards it) has not been observed in any experiments. You could take a 1-ton hunk of LEAD or other super-dense metal, and it wouldn't deflect the path of a speck of dust floating in the air -- or give the slightest tug on a helium/CO2 balloon, made to float statically in the air (neither sinking, nor rising). Obviously the Earth would dwarf the 1 ton block's gravity -- in the vertical direction. So OK, don't fight the Earth. How about try to move the speck of dust or balloon the slightest amount LEFT or RIGHT. Surely the Earth doesn't "tug" an object left or right? That's why wheels work so well. I can push a car forward with my own power, as long as it's on wheels.
    Except that what you intuitevly and correctly described does in fact work: Schiehallion experiment
    This was more accurately verified later with lead balls by Henry Cavendish: Cavendish experiment
    There's also a more modern experiment which show how even photons undergo gravitational redshift: Rebka experiment
    And then lastly, there's a space probe which measures gravity very precisely: Gravity Probe A

    Quote
    For that matter, why does gravity pull some things down towards it (like humans and every other object, on a Globe Earth model) but other times gravity just causes things to "orbit" the large object instead?
    Escape velocity. When the the centrifugal speed (centrifugal means "fleeing the center") of your mass is equal than the gravitational pull (centripetal force), it will stay at a precise orbit around the other mass. When you then increase the speed you escape the gravity well of the other mass.

    I'm afraid you're demonstrating a great deal of ignorance here - have you looked up beforehand any of the assertions and assumptions you make?


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 32377
    • Reputation: +19214/-5066
    • Gender: Male
    Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
    « Reply #26 on: February 05, 2022, 04:33:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How does density explain that objects fall down? Can you or someone else explain that or link to sources?

    The good thing is that you don't have to believe these figureheads, but can test most things yourself, or see how others verified what has previously been theorized, over and over again.

    Density works as an explanation other than for what imparts the directionality to it.  That's a missing ingredient.  But then mainstream science can't explain "gravity" either.

    Strangely, while density is acknolwedge as active in liquid, it's ignored by modern science with regard to objects moving through the air (which also acts like a liquid in many ways ... a much less dense liquid.  In liquid/water it's density, but in air it's gravity.  Density trumps "gravity", as we see massive ocean liners that float on top of the water and are not pulled to the bottom of the ocean.  Density can just as easily explain the dynamics of objects falling through the air, or of helium balloons that defy gravity and drift higher.  But you rarely hear talk of this because evidently density only exists in water and then when you get into air it's suddenly gravity.

    Gravity is not strong enough to keep a helium or hot-air balloon on the ground, and yet it can hold onto it as if it were attached by an iron rod as it drags it around the planet at upwards of 1000 MPH.  None of this adds up.

    Separate issue from flat earth per se, but it's clear that the earth is not rotating and not moving through space.

    Offline Dankward

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 435
    • Reputation: +237/-264
    • Gender: Male
    • Deo confidimus!
    Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
    « Reply #27 on: February 06, 2022, 03:50:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Density works as an explanation other than for what imparts the directionality to it.  That's a missing ingredient.  But then mainstream science can't explain "gravity" either.
    So you are aware of this huge problem in the "density replaces gravity" talking point of FE? Because if it wasn't for gravity, it would stop giving direction to density (or buoyancy rather). Total mess ensues:

    Quote
    Strangely, while density is acknolwedge as active in liquid, it's ignored by modern science with regard to objects moving through the air (which also acts like a liquid in many ways ... a much less dense liquid.  In liquid/water it's density, but in air it's gravity.  Density trumps "gravity", as we see massive ocean liners that float on top of the water and are not pulled to the bottom of the ocean.  Density can just as easily explain the dynamics of objects falling through the air, or of helium balloons that defy gravity and drift higher.  But you rarely hear talk of this because evidently density only exists in water and then when you get into air it's suddenly gravity.
    It isn't ignored by modern science - a helium balloon will rise up because the force of buoyancy trumps the force of gravity (the sum of the forces will result in an upward vector).

    Same goes for water, it pushes up against anything in the water with a force equal to the weight of water displaced by the volume of the object.
    The greater the displacement, the greater the force.
    A ship's hull can displace more water than the weight of the ship, therefore the buoyancy force pushing up is greater than gravity pulling down.

    Quote
    Gravity is not strong enough to keep a helium or hot-air balloon on the ground, and yet it can hold onto it as if it were attached by an iron rod as it drags it around the planet at upwards of 1000 MPH.  None of this adds up.

    Separate issue from flat earth per se, but it's clear that the earth is not rotating and not moving through space.
    It is clear from your previous sentence? That's just wrong. Actually we can measure that centrifugal force of the rotating earth at the equator, it's called the Eötvös effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect.


    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2574
    • Reputation: +1517/-211
    • Gender: Male
    Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
    « Reply #28 on: February 07, 2022, 04:22:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How does density explain that objects fall down? Can you or someone else explain that or link to sources?

    Pondering on the mysteries of gravity while looking at an apple on the ground, Newton said to himself: ‘according to my thinking that apple must have fallen to the ground because of a force pulling on it.’ The fact that it could have been pushed to the ground escaped him. Fine, Newton had a theory; he is allowed that, no harm done so far. And then it happened, eureka, that flash of genius that supposedly occurs in this field of science all the time. Newton then asked himself, ‘what if that attractive force I believe pulled on the apple reached to the moon; wouldn’t it pull the moon to Earth? So why doesn’t it?’ Trying to find an answer to this proposal he had thought up, Newton continued his pondering. ‘What happens when I throw an apple to the bottom of the garden? How does it move? It would remain in the air until it lost its motion or speed and was pulled to the ground by ‘gravity,’ just like Galileo found with his marbles. Now what if I threw it so hard that it never ran out of speed, what then? It would circle the Earth forever, wouldn’t it?’ Looking up at the moon, he asked: ‘what if the moon is just a big apple doing what my little imaginary apple with perpetual motion would do? Wouldn’t that explain the moon’s continuous orbit around the Earth?’ And that is how Newton used Earth’s gravity as an attracting force that reached the moon, by talking to himself and by agreeing with himself. As we know, Newton later proposed that the ‘gravity pull’ that got that apple to the ground, and the moon to orbit the Earth just at the right distance, and the planets to orbit around the sun, exists in the mass of content of each body, be they apples or planets, all working away like magnets, with the biggest one, the sun, holding all the other bodies under its spell, sorry, pull, as they orbited around it. Now given one cannot prove or disprove such an invisible ‘pull’ of universal ‘gravity,’ how did his theory become a Law, believed by most? Well, by describing what motion is in scientific terms, and he got most to believe these laws applied to his theory.

    Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the squares of the distance between their centres of mass.

    In other words, matter moves itself. This incredible theory was indeed one of the most diabolical ‘ideas’ in history, for it offered man a way in which the cosmos might operate independently under its own natural power, supposedly explaining why apples fall to the ground, why the moon stays orbiting the Earth, why planets orbit the sun, and why cosmic bodies act as they do around the universe, providing an equilibrium to the omnipotence of God Himself.

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2574
    • Reputation: +1517/-211
    • Gender: Male
    Re: There is no Proof of theory of Gravity
    « Reply #29 on: February 07, 2022, 04:28:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Any Other Theories for Universal Movement:

    Now if Newton's theory was/is the only theory that could account for the phenomenon of apples falling to the ground (or planets orbiting the sun), that would indeed have to elevate it into a ‘possible’ class. So, was his the only theory that could do so? Is the only way for an apple to fall to the ground if it is pulled down? We have put this simple question to many but rarely, if ever, did we receive the correct answer. The hard fact is, of course, apples falling to the ground might well be pushed to the ground. In other words, ‘gravity’ could well be a pushing effect rather than a pulling effect. And so we come to a pushing means for gravity instead of a pulling force. We introduce this section only as a way to further undermine the claim that Newton established the true and only possible cause for a falling apple and therefore his solar-system. The theories we shall now consider are almost certainly as big a load of moonshine as Newton’s and are not offered as a true alternative or falsification but only to show that scientific ideas for ‘gravity’ can be invented at will.

    By 1781, the physicist George Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) had also completed an alternative thesis to the very same advanced level as Newton’s - a pushing force theory for moving celestial bodies. He proposed space is filled with countless infinitesimal particles termed ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ and these push planets in their orbits. These corpuscles, he posed, are in extremely rapid motion, analogous to molecules in a gas, and which tr¬averse in a criss-cross action in straight lines throughout the universe. The corpuscles move with tremendous speed in all directions, penetrating matter, but meeting some resistance in doing so. The consequences of this would mean the corpuscles are acting as a pushing force by colliding against all physical, material objects in the universe. The crucial factor in this theory is one of non-equilibrium, the positioning of cosmic bodies in the system relative to each other. If the pressure is the same on all the surface of a sphere, it goes nowhere. If, however, something shields the pressure of the ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ on any part of that sphere it would of course now move due to ‘non-equilibrium.’   

    ‘Non-equilibrium is a pre-requisite for movement in all its forms, and therefore a state of equilibrium is impossible in Nature.’ (Callum Coats: Living Energies, Gateway Books, UK, 1996, pp.65, 66.)


    There then was René Descartes’s ‘vortex theory.’ This formulator of analytic geometry explained that planetary motion is the result of vortices or whirlpools sweeping the planets around the sun, not unlike Einstein’s surface curled space whirlpool theory we will see in due time. Indeed, Newton was at first attracted to this idea to serve his purpose but later dismissed the idea stating that: ‘Descartes’s vortex theory is in complete conflict with the astronomical observations, and instead of explaining celestial motions, merely confuses our ideas about them.’ So, what happened to these alternative theories? Well, there are two answers to this question, one at the ‘scientific’ level, and the other is ideological. One eliminates a scientific theory by falsifying it. In Le Sage’s case, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), who, like other eminent scientists, could find nothing wrong with the dynamics or the mathematics of Le Sage’s theory, postulated that the collisions between the hypothetical particles and solid matter would, over long periods of time, involve a heat transfer sufficient to melt plan¬etary objects. This was enough, and coming as it did from a Fellow and President of the Royal Society, the theory was treated as falsified. Later however, as is prone to happen in theoretical knowledge, Le Sage’s theory, they decided, is not untenable according to modern physics. The science now holds that such particle collisions can be ‘elastic’ on contact and thus avoid any degradations of flux energy to heat. So why wasn’t it readmitted then?
       
    ‘A rather wild theory was put forward by Le Sage… Professor de Sitter has tested the idea by examining whether there is any weakening in the Sun’s attraction on the Moon at a time when the Moon is in the Earth’s shadow. He does actually find some evidence of such a weakening, but it is too minute to be certain about. The fantastic nature of Le Sage’s theory is evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem. It is curious to reflect that we are still as ignorant of the nature of the force that draws a stone to the Earth as men were in the dawn of history.’(Dr. A.C.D. Crommelin: Diamonds in the Sky, Collins, London, 1940, p.49.)

    As for Descartes vortex theory, well, that too was set aside so as to give Newton’s theory a free ride in anti-geocentric cosmology, but, as we shall see, Einstein later plagiarised that one for his theory of gravitation. What it all boils down to is that Newton’s theory sufficed to eliminate geocentrism as falsified.


    ‘This method, of which the germ was contained in the scientific revolution initiated at the turn of the seventeenth century by Francis Bacon and which has since been adopted by every branch of science and by countless pseudosciences such as politics, economics, the social sciences, and even art, religion, ethics and psychology, is as follows. Take a phenomenon that can be observed, produce a mathematical measurement for it that fits, concoct a hypothesis which, however far-fetched, could possibly account for the phenomenon, and finally call the hypothesis and the mathematical formula that supports it a law and regardless of whether or not there is any theoretical justification for it whatever, apply it throughout the universe. And that is all that the famous Law of Gravitation consists of.’ (N. M. Gwynne, Sir Isaac Newton & Modern Astronomy, p.16.)

    Finally, there was Kepler, who once thought magnetism might account for the movements of celestial objects, but decided against exploiting the idea. Newton however, while taking advantage of its effects of attraction, was unable to show any connection at all between his theory and electromagnetism.