A modified version of Fatio's model explains gravity

John-Erik Persson

Newton made an error

Dear John-Erik Persson ,

The Gravity problem is resolved: here is the article abstract:

Research Proposal Physico-metaphysical proof of the existence of graviton (Fiz...

Both explanation are wrong... because the phenomenon of gravity is solved... Eauler was close to the reasolution ... The principle about space-matter of Decart would have been indispensable for the solution...

I don't have a chance to write, so I'm making progress with difficulty...

Regards,

Laszlo

László

László Attila Horváth

You do not prove anything

John-Erik

Dear John-Erick,

John-Erik Persson ,

The Fatio model easy to prove that is wrong on to base of this introduction test (attached file):

First please explain what is M an m in it?

There is an evidence for my model :

'Here is an video on you tube where is demonstarted experimentaly my concept of gravity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhpl50HRvw8 at 48, 00- 51 00, more preciselly: 48 30 - 50 30) there is mentioned that they demonstrated Einstein GTR ... But the GRT is not compatible with Gravity of Newton... Einstein did not given natural explanation of the gravity! '

Same time it proves my daughter responce what she responded when was under around two years:

'Dad, that's why the ping pong ball falls because there's nothing there'

the question in the summer of 1993 was in the next form:

Why does the ping pong ball fall when we let free?

If you have somewhat the original English video, please share it I want like it as reference...

Regards,

Laszlo

László Attila Horváth

Interaction is by matter absorbing ether particles - not collisions. So, no attraction between m and M. Instead ether is pushing on both. Read it again.

John-Erik

The force of gravity between to bodies (with masses m and M) is said to be proportional to the product mxM. The 2 bodies cannot define that product, since the 2 bodies dpo not know about each other. They cannot attract each other.

Continued

Since m and M cannot attract each other we must find the cause of gravity in a concept with knowledge about both bodies (m and M). The only concept with that property is the ether. This means that the ether is causing gravity to emerge inside m and M. This explains no aberration in gravity.

Although m is the primary cause of the force in M it is the ether that is delivering the needed energy to M.

Best __________________________ John-Erik

So few people subscribe to the idea of pushgravity, yet it is the only plausible explanation for how gravity works.

I only found out recently that Newton himself imagined the 'heavens as pushing around the heavenly bodies', but let it go becaue he could not improve on that. So even Fatio's idea was not entirely his own.

Yes, you are right. M cannot know about m, except through a messenger or medium. Unfortunately for this messenger you can use graviton, photon, curved space, aether or (insert your own favourite) so there is no consensus.

Curved space is a failed explanation because it requires space to be 'nothing' but it also requires space to be bendable.

Graviton is a fail because a messenger at the speed of light to cause an attraction at the other end results in aberration.

Aether is still avoided by all and sundry but is a plausible solution.

Pushgravity needs an aether, which for me means the aether exists, and the next science revolution will come from there. For me knowing that the aether exists is even more profound than understanding the mechanics of gravity.

Dear John-Erik Persson , Francois Zinserling ,

I think you have been made good points... The only problem with you is that you are too influenced and limited by the ideas imposed on us by official science.

The released m body falls down on the grownd of M... In time of free falls m wants to rest with its weight on the space of M, but since this space is increasingly incomplete (there is 'nothing') and that is why differs from the appearance of m will fall as we can observe this phenomenon... until it reaches M's surface if is similar with m... other case we will have other case..

If this process is on the elementary level, only then we can introduce the particle graviton, I have a very simple idea... That concept use ether (the space phase of apriorie entity), us you observe that it not separate form M is part of M... The gravity field of M is an 'ether' which is part of M. From this point of view... The M has information about the m. But same it is true that m does not know about M. The m will only know about M if they are in direct contact... In this case, the third law of dynamics occurs. (Newron).

I just found this sentence:

'Inertia and the first law

The modern concept of inertia is credited to Galileo. Based on his experiments, Galileo concluded that the "natural" behavior of a moving body was to keep moving, until something else interfered with it. Galileo recognized that in projectile motion, the Earth's gravity affects vertical but not horizontal motion.[93] However, Galileo's idea of inertia was not exactly the one that would be codified into Newton's first law. Galileo thought that a body moving a long distance inertially would follow the curve of the Earth. This idea was corrected by Isaac Beeckman, René Descartes, and Pierre Gassendi, who recognized that inertial motion should be motion in a straight line.[94]'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

The Galleoi has right, How interesting that an obvious truth was replaced with untruth: 'This idea was corrected by Isaac Beeckman, René Descartes, and Pierre Gassendi, who recognized that inertial motion should be motion in a straight line'.[94].

Regards,

Laszlo

László Attila Horváth

Francois Zinserling

Explaining gravity demands an existing ether. So, I regard both as profound.

John-Erik

Francois Zinserling ,

Maxwell had very interesting ideas about gravitation but it seems nobody followed...

from THE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OFJAMES CLERK MAXWELL

https://ia800908.us.archive.org/24/items/scientificpapers01maxw/scientificpapers01maxw.pdf

"The intrinsic energy of the field of gravitation must therefore be less where ever there is a resultant gravitating force.

As energy is essentially positive, it is impossible for any part of space to have negative intrinsic energy. Hence those parts of space in which there is no resultant force, such as the points of equilibrium in the space between the different bodies of a system, and within the substance of each body, must have an intrinsic energy per unit of volume greater than

1/8pi *R2

where R is the greatest possible value of the intensity of gravitating force in any part of the universe.

The assumption, therefore, that gravitation arises from the action of the surrounding medium in the way pointed out, leads to the conclusion that every part of this medium possesses, when undisturbed, an enormous intrinsic energy, and that the presence of dense bodies influences the medium so as to diminish this energy wherever there is a resultant attraction.

As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any further in this direction in searching for the cause of gravitation."

Gravity is explained here

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

There are good thoughts in the quote: 'The intrinsic energy of the field of gravitation must therefore be less where ever there is a resultant gravitating force...'

We can't do anything with Maxwell's idea, because he wants to use force to solve the problem of gravity... and his reasoning is erroneous

There are many You Tube's videos showing simple experiments with the free wall..

There is clearly proven that there is no force during free fall!

Maxwell misinterpreted the gravitátion phenomenon but his opening sentence is quite good.

One thing I don't understand is, if he saw things right, then why did he argue wrongly?...

Regards,

Laszlo

In free fall the force of gravity is compensated by acceleration.

Dear John-Erik Persson ,

This is just an explanation which should be physically proven.

and with it you are contradicting yourself.

At first glance, I think I can detect a contradiction between your idea of the ether and your current statement.

My ideas were born with a thought solution:

So far there is minimum one evidence about it.

Planetary erosion is clear evidence of it, too,

http://planeterosion.blogspot.com/

Planetary erosion can be verified mineralogically (The minerals of the Inner Asteroid Belts' asteroids are clear evidence that they formed from the mantle or crust of a rocky planet: example Ceres!)

Don't forget one thing, a theory is good if it is in harmony with the phenomena of nature!

Regards,

Laszlo

László Attila Horváth

It is the principle of equivalence.

You have not demonstrated any conflict.

Regards

Dear John-Erik Persson .

There are several equivalence principles, which one do you think..,?

Explain to me why your theory does not apply in the Inner Asteroid Belt.....?

I only see short statements in your answers... I don't see your arguments.

Why do you think so?

Regards,

Laszlo

John-Erik Persson ,

the difference stays in the nature of the interaction.

It is well known that gravitation is not shieldable and affects all the points in the same way, the difference in intensity is most of the time undetectable.

Although no acceleration can be measured with an accelerometer, neverthelss there is a body that changes its velocity referred to a fixed frame of reference.

On the other hand Electromagnetic interactions (mostly electrostatics) which involves a change of a state of motion, involves only a very tiny part of a body, since the EM is easily shieldable and most of the time neutral. So the pulling is never homogeneous.

The result eventually is the same, there is a force which works acting on the barycenter of an object to change its speed, that is what counts, everything else is some kind of local phenomenology.

Stefano Quattrini

"The intrinsic energy of the field of gravitation must therefore be less where ever there is a resultant gravitating force."

One cannot argue that Maxwell had a brilliant mind.

This seems logical and plausible, and also in line with Fatio's thinking.

Less energy alone is not enough though; it also needs to have a vector component(so that we don't fall up sometimes :) )

Here too, Fatio's hypotheses (modernised, of course) works quite well.

If we get away from thinking the aether is this foam, or gel, or gas or some static entity that can bend or curve a little bit, but rather envisage the aether as Fatio's flux, let's then call it a dynamic aether, then a whole lot of things become sensical.

Francois Zinserling ,

to my knowledge Fatio's idea was further developed by Darwin and Poincare' who were able to derive Newton's laws of gravitation...

Stefano Quattrini Francois Zinserling

Newton's law is more like an approximation of Fatio's model. A more correct unification can be found by using the model on small volume elements and integrate.

There cannot be an attraction directly between two bodies.

Instead A can attract an ether and this ether can push B in direction towards A.