Xxxxxxxxxx Moon's orbit - Scaling - Orbits and Gravitation

[Sorensen731]

Very interesting subject, I'm much more radical.
Attractive gravity is one of many theories to explain the planets, there are others, and it has never been proven that masses attracts each others, it's a theory about foreign stellar orbits, not a fact on the ground we can see and measure here, it's an interpretation, an explanation, a possibility I consider wrong.
We should go towards experiments and original sources, current schoolbooks are dogmatic intermediaries, hiding the ugly parts of their theories.
Other options would be to uncover censored scientists of the past, those whose ideas didn't have approval or support of the reigning media. Working with their assumptions, like attractive gravity, earth orbiting rotating solar system and others may be accepting this ideas too soon. I don't trust them, I need time to verify every theory they try so hard to convince me. From orbiting atoms with electrons to poor moon, as a rock with no importance.
I won't play their games and accept 95% of their arguments and then criticize one, I don't believe any, well, wrong, I'm sure I have a lot of programming and unquestioned ideas, but I will slowly analyze as many as I can without giving a quarter or letting anyone pass. More than a criticism it can be a nice path to learning, to discover how telescopes work, to learn about theories of light and of enjoying experiments yourself, talking about the moon without having worked the light issue for example, or the layers of the atmosphere, or the possible aether in other upper layers, is building castles on the sky

[FirstClassSkeptic]

and it has never been proven that masses attracts each others, it's a theory about foreign stellar orbits, not a fact on the ground we can see and measure here,

Prove that's it's not been proven

[Sorensen731]

FirstClassSkeptic ----- that is the Cavendish experiment, in which not only has the attraction of two masses been verified, but the universal gravitational constant has been measured. This is stated in almost any physics textbook, with a detailed diagram of the apparatus.

About Cavendish experiment I recommend reading this https://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Mases don't attract, it has never been proven and it shouldn't even be necessary, it's absurd on it's face, contrary to all evidence and created out of nothing by Newton's associates/followers with no backing or chain of researches pointing to it, nothing.

I don't want to sound harsh, but the amount of out of thin air speculation passed as "science" is too much for me, I find it hard to maintain respect for Science, like Jews, sorry for the honest ones.
Go to any Wikipedia page or any encyclopedia, in Science, they hide or "forget" to explain how they "know" and "calculate" the things they force us to digest.
Because we would laugh at them, at their "experiments". Science should be step-step explanations, not a novel. I don't imply maths either, just logical careful reasoning, not a bible service.

Gravity is pressure from above.

And this so called "scientists" are an insult to science, scientific experiment demands the ability to repeat and verify the experiment and measurements by others independently.
Newton, Kepler and other's speculation about the "attraction of planets" is completely worthless as it can not me measured, we can't go there and verify it.

"According to the law of universal gravitation, the attractive force (F) between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (r) between them:"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... l_constant

No comments...

"by Henry Cavendish with his Cavendish experiment, performed in 1798 (Philosophical Transactions 1798). Cavendish measured G implicitly, using a torsion balance invented by the geologist Rev. John Michell. He used a horizontal torsion beam with lead balls whose inertia (in relation to the torsion constant) he could tell"

He could tell?

"Their faint attraction to other balls"

FAINT, and to other balls of LEAD. By the way, was it in vacuum, in a protected isolated environment? In several times and locations of Earth? In other planets? Then how can they claim it's universal?

"Cavendish's aim was not actually to measure the gravitational constant, but rather to measure the Earth's density relative to water, through the precise knowledge of the gravitational interaction"

What can I say, we have idiots telling us they have "weighted" the Earth, and the Sun.

Heck, even in Inquisitorial Wikipedia they are humiliated! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Caven ... asure_G.3F

"The gravitational constant appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation, but it was not measured until 71 years after Newton's death"

So, how the fuck did he came with it? Not through experiments! And Cavendish didn't discover or talk about it, read the Wikipedia discussion links.

The fact this mambo jambo appears on textbooks support my case, obviously they are not going to tell you how matter, gravity and energy works, you need to pay them, buy oil and "electricty" and be afraid of their powers, like "Nuukes" and forget to research or read on your own, because (government) "scientists" are already on it, and working for you!

Read the link of Miles Mathis, he has very interesting articles about science;
https://milesmathis.com/updates.html
https://milesmathis.com/1920.html

And his other sites
https://mileswmathis.com/updates.html
https://mileswmathis.com/zuck.pdf
https://milesmathis.com/1920.html

My point is that;

1) Of course there is gravity, but Newton explanation of it is wrong, gravity is pressure from above
2) Objects, masses don't attract to each other, BUT both "live", exist close and variations in one can affect the other, with electricity, rotation. A good example;
A cyclist riding behind another is not attracted to him, but he is protected from the wind. The same principle with aether instead of wind could be applied here.

3) Why not detect gravity with big masses, like Himalayas? Because it has been done, with null resort, no attraction. The little ball game is all they can show, and wrongly interpreted.

[rerevisionist]

Hm... I do hope you're not some variety of spammer, Sorensen!

The reason Newton impressed his colleagues was that he found an explanation for the universe - straight line motion, then its alteration by gravity. He managed to devise math (or maths!) to trap changes. By mathematically trapping acceleration, he derived estimates for orbits, showed they would be (slightly) elliptical, and showed the results applied to the moon and earth, and the earth and all other planets and the sun. And comets - witness Halley. And Jupiter's satellites.

Thanks for the links to Miles Mathis' comments on Cavendish and G. If the conventional view is right, and if Mathis's comments are right, all it proves is that Cavendish's experimental design was poor. I'd thought his experiment was a before-and-after one - i.e. measure one lead body's position, then add another lead body and see the difference, which should be derivable from the inverse square law. And I thought an experiment was carried out with a mountain, the apparatus being carried from where there wasn't a mountain.

[NUKELIES]

Regardless of whether the moon orbits the earth or not, nuclear bombs do not exist.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I read at the link about the Cavendish experiments. The stuff about the walls and such didn't interest me as much as the one comment, the quote from someone, that electrostatics wasn't properly discounted. This is interesting because any spherical conductor is liable to become charged. As an example: Note a van de Graff generator, how it's made at the top where the charges build up. It's a ball, A metal ball could be thought of as a single plate capacitor. And Cavendish was using round lead balls.

Another thing; The experiment where they used an apple!!! That's very suspect.