Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: anti-gravity? [OT]
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 01:02:46 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <v05u6n$10nag$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v01ii2$3tno2$1@dont-email.me>
 <1qsepmy.1igbph81ebujn0N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
 <v05d63$bj7d$1@solani.org>
 <1qsfabm.graxv01yk06x8N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:02:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c9cc20431de9dcd31990bf2a191dd6a3";
	logging-data="1072464"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18w6GqLBkvoPbroh6YDQao/MP821RoRdRU="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7/82dOzwrHAf60Uwwv+xxO8q9u4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1qsfabm.graxv01yk06x8N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
Bytes: 3828

On 23/04/2024 12:50 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:27:32 +0100) it happened
>> liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote in
>> <1qsepmy.1igbph81ebujn0N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I still go with this:
>>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#
> 
> It was an interesting explanation in the light of the way things were
> thought of at the time: physical particles and elastic collisions.
> Voight's explanation makes sense if you simply conside "a force" without
> trying to evoke an explanation for that force.  We can be fairly certain
> it isn't caused by physical particles or electromagnetic waves, but who
> is to say there isn't another 'thing' in space that we haven't
> identified yet.
> 
> I agree with you: rather than saying this theory is impossible because
> we don't know anything that could cause it, why don't we say this theory
> could point to something we don't know about yet.

But it isn't backed up by any experimental observations that point to 
anything we haven't known about for centuries now, as is pointed out by 
Jan Panteltje's wikipedia link, which he doesn't seem to understand.

The basic idea came from "Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690" He was a 
friend of Newton, but rather less clever.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney