false. gravity is every bit as measurable as E or B fields are.
false. the weak and strong forces hold atoms together. EM only holds electrons in the valence shells. while electromagnetic force is able to 'push and pull' some things, there are many things it has zero effect on, and the effect is weak compared to other fundamental forces, so that it is impossible for some motions and cohesion to be explained by EM.
again, false. EM does not act on many things, such as substances with balanced charge. i don't care how large your magnetic or electric field is; it will not move a rubber ball even a millimeter, and as the ((unanswered)) questions i asked earlier indicate, EM does not account for holding things together and a theory based on EM being a replacement for gravity is seriously and irrevocably flawed and false.
false. the measured force of gravity changes smoothly ((in a mathematical sense: having continuous first derivative, no 'jumps' in distribution over all real numbers)) in a very regular, well-defined way.
you mean 'Faraday's law' not his 'experiment' right? one of Maxwell's equations?
sure. either ((or both)) the Faraday-Maxwell equation and/or the Faraday-Lenz law?
and if you can clarify that -- furthermore, so what?
that's well known and doesn't in any way whatsoever negate the existence of gravitational effects.
buoyancy is an induced force ((not even a real force)) from pressure of the immersing fluid acting on a body immersed in a fluid. guess what causes the pressure? the downward force. buoyancy is a resultant force opposite the downward force.
that downward force is due to gravity. you can't have any such thing as buoyancy without a downward force for buoyancy to resist.
density is not a force. density is a scalar property, mass divided by volume.
you're either misusing this word altogether, being ignorant of it, or you've redefined it to fit your paradigm. which is it?
false. the geometry of any surface in the universe does not negate the fact that bodies orbit each other, or that when you drop something, it falls down. there is still such a thing as 'down' -- being on the surface of a disc rather than a spheroid doesn't mean there is no such thing as down, or that your phone will fall to the ground if you let go of it, or that things don't all float around everywhere.
false. gravity is necessary to explain all kinds of observed motions. Galileo described how objects fall on the surface of the earth ((due to a force: gravity)) long before Newton, inspired by an object falling, formulated expressions that ((almost)) completely describe the observed motion of the planets in orbits governed by the universal law of gravitation.
gravity was not 'invented' or 'formulated' to explain heliocentricism. it was created by God, and it was described first to explain how things accelerate when you drop them. which has nothing to do with orbits. Newton already knew that the sun was the center of the solar system before he applied the force that Galileo had already described to explain the observed motions of the planets, minus the small corrections due to relativistic effects.
false. gravity is very well established & proven. you have not in the slightest bit given a shred of evidence or even reasoning to support he idea that it is not, and nothing but what is tantamount to 'because i said so' to support or explain the idea that it is 'not needed' or that electromagnetism & the resultant vector of pressure induced by gravity ((which is what buoyancy is)) can in any way whatsoever account for all gravitational effects -- or indeed even one single instance of a gravitational effect.
[HR][/HR]
so no, we can't move on. until you admit that this is all BS, or give some kind of actual substantive explanation.
and if this is all BS, there is no point in moving on -- if FE is already established to be built on a pack of lies, why should we keep entertaining it?
Last edited:
