Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: anti-gravity? [OT]
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:30:39 +0100
Organization: Poppy Records
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <1qsff0p.1yn91wsteto8wN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
References: <v01ii2$3tno2$1@dont-email.me> <1qsepmy.1igbph81ebujn0N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> <v05u24$10qfa$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net DqE9GzOFGJaZAeI2HRinMwToDmf/OZgBtQklkra6H8/sY+duCD
X-Orig-Path: liz
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vgM7pcFJnE6VsiooiMUDcoZBLxE= sha256:oG2RF5xMfJBpnthc5WRSurJEwmlxQr3fAXx/D60ek8M=
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.4.6
Bytes: 2755

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
> >> 
> >> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
> >> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
> >> earths-gravity/>
> > 
> > Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
> > heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
> > 
> > It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
> > we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
> > pressure.  It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
> > we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
> > 
> > The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
> > When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
> > from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
> > towards each other.
> > 
> > I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
> > how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
> > from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
> > observed effects.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
> mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
> fit easily into such a picture.  

If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
volume, that is easily explained.

Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
equally well be a push based on mass?


-- 
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk