Is it pretty clear why the reverse square law for gravity isn’t a law but a range limited emergent property? I think I’ve dealt with it elsewhere amongst a big meandering thread. But I may have to do a single thread going over that material because it may be a bit confusing to some people. In order to create a cult of personality over Einstein that had to have a parallel cult to do with Newton. And Maxwell for that matter. So they can kind of jump foot to foot.
We can skim over the basics. Gravity is a force. Its obviously a pull-force. And its instantaneous, this implies constant contact. We know that matter is all joined by an aether since light has wave-length. Wave requires a medium. That medium is called the aether. So we already knew that matter maintained constant contact, since matter is visible.
Mother nature is parsimonious with its mechanisms so that this same aether is responsible for gravity. This aether theory is very similar to Bill Gaedes rope theory. The thing is though, that the smallest unit of aether, has to be very tiny in comparison to an individual proton, electron, and neutron. Since no one strand of aether has any real effect on any of these. That is to say when it comes to the very small stuff the pull force of the connections is vanishingly tiny.
If this is new to you, take a breath and absorb all this, because we have to dive into the implications of how gravity would work nucleon to nucleon and what the implications are when we scale up.
Just in passing lets mention the electric universe guys. Their main insight is that electrical effects, deeply mysterious that they are, scale really well. They see the same things happening on the scale of light years, that they see on the scale of just a few centimetres in the lab. I think they have made their case really well. But gravity, that slight pull-force that the aether creates, almost by accident, DOESN’T scale real well.
I think aether scales real well. In that I think a Birkeland current is acting like a giant strand of aether, even though its travelling through all these tiny strands of aether. And when light travels through aether its as though the aether is “scaled up” to allow it to do so.
Electrical effects aren’t size dependents (or so the case is very well made) but gravitational effects are. Because a small insect barely feels the force of gravity as he climbs up a wall. But the fat man feels the force only too much as he walks up the stairs.
Now imagine that the nucleon to nucleon gravitational force drops off to the third power and not to the second. Like an inverse cube law. You are on a spherical earth but the surface is perfectly flat. Every molecule on the planet and in the air above you is exerting a pull force on you, but some of them at different angle.
As you ascend to the clouds like Jesus does in the story, think of how the force vectors from many of the molecules of earth are changing? The higher you go, the closer to straight down a lot of these force vectors are becoming. Now do you see what I’m saying about the end result being an emergent property? The force vectors are changing so the resultant force is becoming more effective. Thus compensating in such a way as to make the drop-off in force less pronounced.
Anywhere above the point where hydrogen weather balloons tap out, the only things subject to gravity are orbiting. That is to say moving roughly perpendicular to the earth. I’m saying that this movement reduces the gravitational pull “a little bit.” Some items will have an elliptical orbit. All circular motion involves acceleration. But elliptical orbits accelerate and decelerate a lot more than circular orbits. I’m saying acceleration, unless the movement (not the acceleration itself) is towards the earth (rather than perpendicular to it) breaks a lot of aether connections and therefore reduces the force of gravity “quite a bit.” So I’m saying that the inverse square law isn’t really true, only appears to be true, and only appears to be true in a fairly limited range, and that its an emergent property for the reasons mentioned.
Just wanted to clear that one up. Because the big thread on growing earth, gravity and mountain-building can be a bit hard to follow.
So if you were to plug this sort of thing into a computer model you are going to find out why orbits are so forgiving. Why gravity is not clumpy and crash-happy. Why mathematicians can barely solve a three-body problem but the galaxy solves a multi-billion body orbiting problem effortlessly. Why NASA finds that rockets pick up anomalous energy when they slingshot them around planets. Why spiral arm galaxies don’t act the way the mainstream wants them to, so they had to make up dark matter. All that stuff is explained by the above view of gravity. So I’ve really cracked it. These problems can be solved if you listen to dissident voices, stop putting down people as “crackpots’ and you dwell on these things long enough.