A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass

[gravityblock]

GB, I smell the strong effervescent of horse shit in the air, if you really believe in this then you are welcome to roll around in it.

you will fail with your theory, completely.

I predict that in the future you will become a laughing stock among this forum.
they will have laughs about you for some time to come because you were so diligently wrong.

you offer no math to prove our predecessors wrong, nothing with taste, texture, or fulfillment nor color.

your quazen is quite distasteful.

Jerry

You have no scientific rebuttal. This speaks for itself.

GB

[onthecuttingedge2010]

You have no scientific rebuttal. This speaks for itself.

GB

Yes I do, all the founders of science and physics and the laws for which 'you' are bound. period!

[sm0ky2]

It is not certain that tidal motion is the result of gravity.
While this is a commonly accepted theory, all we are really certain of is the tidal connection to the moon.

I propose another theory:  The moon is magnetically polarized, which is why one side faces the earth at all times.

The iron content in the oceans is approx. 25% by mass.
which corresponds mathematically to the magnetic pull from the lunar motion, and the magnitude and rate of transfer of tidal motion.
I propose that the ocean tides may be magnetic in nature.

This is also a plausible explaination for the discrepancy in
gravitational-tidal theory, when applied to massive fresh-water lakes, as they do not experience tides, though the gravitational-tidal theory indicates that they "should".


-----------------------------------------------------------------

it has not been proven one way or the other whether "gravity" is a pushing or pulling force. Most people assume that it is a pulling force, because we cannot see what might be "pushing", we only see the mass that gravity is directed towards, which leads to an assumption of  a "pulling" force.

[gravityblock]

Yes I do, all the founders of science and physics and the laws for which 'you' are bound. period!

The above isn't a scientific rebuttal. Look at where they've been wrong in the past.  The earth at one time was thought to be flat.  The sun at one time was thought to rotate around the earth.  Airplanes will never fly.  The sound barrier could never be broken. The atomic bomb will never detonate.  Bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly.  Then there are so many discrepancies and contradictions in the established and currently accepted theories.  In addition to this, they can't explain 94% of the universe which appears to be missing.  If they can't get the 6% correct in which they can account for, then I'm sure the other 94% will throw a monkey wrench into their so called laws. Nature behaves as though she were ignorant of Hamilton's calculus and the importance to which people attach to formula. Nature disregards imaginary enclosures, and our desire that the Universe should conform to our particular points of view, as well as our carefully thought out ideas.  Good luck with putting your faith in the founders of science and physics when they have been proven to be wrong many times in the past.

GB

[onthecuttingedge2010]

It is not certain that tidal motion is the result of gravity.

tidal motion is the result of gravitational moments period, they are so predictable. how do you think we get the tide schedules.

While this is a commonly accepted theory, all we are really certain of is the tidal connection to the moon.

the moon and earth is still the best method to study gravity. at this time.

I propose another theory:  The moon is magnetically polarized, which is why one side faces the earth at all times.

the moon is revolving around the earth as it should, in a million years the same face of the moon will not be the same. it revolves its face very slowly.
you must read on why it is.

The iron content in the oceans is approx. 25% by mass.
which corresponds mathematically to the magnetic pull from the lunar motion, and the magnitude and rate of transfer of tidal motion.
I propose that the ocean tides may be magnetic in nature.

I might agree with you here in some nature but not entirely. there are other forms of magnetism in the ocean besides magnetism's.

This is also a plausible explaination for the discrepancy in
gravitational-tidal theory, when applied to massive fresh-water lakes, as they do not experience tides, though the gravitational-tidal theory indicates that they "should".

the tides among the great lakes are not large enough to experience to full effect of large oceans. especially the Pacific ocean where a greater density of water exists. it is density that brings about gravity. period.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

it has not been proven one way or the other whether "gravity" is a pushing or pulling force. Most people assume that it is a pulling force, because we cannot see what might be "pushing", we only see the mass that gravity is directed towards, which leads to an assumption of  a "pulling" force.

no, it has been proven that gravity is a pulling force and or an attractive force if you have read your current physics books. don't listen to those who have no proof of what they invent.

they are laughing stocks.

it is better to stand upon the shoulders of past geniuses than it is to stand upon the shoulders of modern idiots. my quote!

Jerry