Jerry Wayne Decker wrote:
>
> Hi Folks!
>
> Re-read this and it struck me there might be a novel argument showing
> why PULL gravity has been chosen over PUSH gravity.
>
> Now, I don't know if I can explain this cogently or if I'm just more
> confused than usual but here goes.
>
> Take a flashlight and point it at a wall to produce a circle of
> intense light. Move the flashlight away from the wall, the circle
> gets weaker and dimmer because the same amount of energy is being
> spread out over a wider area.
>
> Now, the inverse square law applies to light and gravity and energy
> fields in general.
>
> If gravity were a PULL whose source was matter and whose intensity was
> dependent on the density of matter, then its range of influence would
> attenuate with density, precisely as predicted by the inverse square
> law. IMO, this is the thinking that has us at such an impasse with
> understanding gravity today.
>
> However, if you consider gravity as being caused solely by a PUSH of
> aether/zpe flowing from space into mass, then aether would be
> strongest out in space, away from matter, meaning matter would be the
> weakest concentration of aether and the inflow into mass would produce
> the 'wind' we perceive as gravity that produces 'weight'.
>
> Like fish in water we can't sense this pressure but we feel its motion
> past us as it moves into the earth.
>
> Block this 'wind' flowing with greatest force into the planet, holding
> us like flies against a wire screen and we reduce or cancel our
> 'weight'.
> -----------------
> JPL comments about inverse square law saying there is no 'zero
> gravity' in the universe;
>
> http://bang.lanl.gov/solarsys/span/edu/invsquar.htm
> ---------------
> Exploratorium explanation and experiment of inverse square law;
>
> http://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/inverse_square_law.html
> ----------------
> Bright lights and faded stars as inverse square;
>
> http://scruffy.phast.umass.edu/a114/math1/node7.html
> ---------------
> ---Jerry Wayne Decker wrote:
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Your following message has been delivered to the 171 members of
> > the list KeelyNet@DallasTexas.net at 15:38:22 on 18 Sep 1998.
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Hi Steve, Matthew, Stephen, et al!
> >
> > Steve posted this comment in regard to Matthews post about a kind of
> > spiralling aether theory;
> > ============================
> > Here is my own 'thing to ponder' along these same lines.
> >
> > I read in an National Geographic article, about two years ago, that
> > with new 'ultra-sensitive' testing equipment, Galileo’s experiment
> > with small masses and large masses falling at the same velocity, has
> > been proven false!
> >
> > Not only that; but, the smaller mass actually falls faster!
> >
> > That's right! In a vacuum, a feather actually falls 'faster', than a
> > lead weight! Not by much I will grant you; but, across enough
> > distance, it could eventually be seen visually.
> >
> > My question then is; how does this knowledge alter your view of the
> > universe?
> >
> > I am still digesting this little bit of knowledge! It has certainly
> > brought me to a place, where I am considering things, which I never
> > even thought about before!
> >
> > In order for the larger mass to slow down, relative to the smaller
> > mass, it must be encountering ‘something’, in the Eather.
> >
> > What is that ‘something’? Perhaps the very subspace grid, upon which
> > God hung the universe?
> >
> > Stephen Brummitt
> > ========================
> > Quite intriguing.
> >
> > I have always considered gravity to be a gradient simply because the
> > higher you go above the earth the weaker it gets, therefore, it has a
> > gradient.
> >
> > Since this has 'something' to do with proximity to other masses,
> > particularly LARGE masses like the earth, then we CAN indeed control
> > or influence gravity as indicated, though not yet proven byt the
> > Tampere stimulated superconductor experiment (I think that is just
> > diagmagnetism, but that's another story)...
> >
> > Anyway, I had not seen this comment about the ultrasensitive measuring
> > finding that larger and smaller masses fall at different
> > rates...FINALLY, proof.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________
> > DO YOU YAHOO!?
> > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > To leave this list, email <listserver@dallastexas.net>
> > with the body text: leave keelynet
> > WWW based join and leave forms and KeelyNet list archives
> > are at http://dallastexas.net/keelynet/
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> To leave this list, email <listserver@dallastexas.net>
> with the body text: leave keelynet
> WWW based join and leave forms and KeelyNet list archives
> are at http://dallastexas.net/keelynet/
> -------------------------------------------------------------