The proof of having done one's homework is presenting it, not showing us someone else's homework, and not simply saying you did it and then refusing to turn it in.
i'm asking someone who i can actually communicate with ((?)) to explain what she says she's spent years studying, and here plainly asserts she has acquired knowledge and understanding of. Pretty sure that means that i care to know what she has gleaned.
But if you insist i play your game, then here's a link to Newton's Principia: LOL read it and tell me in detail everything that's wrong with it, or 'it's fair to say you don't really care to know' ??
What I was expressing is that I'm not here to "teach full blown lessons". If I didn't understand a concept that was being talked about I would stop there and go learn, then come back to the conversion. I would not expect someone here to lead me by hand step by step. My short time here at CC I have learned that reasonable conversation is hard to come by and I was doing all the footwork while others just called "BS" without giving WHY they call "BS". Just look back through this thread alone.
This is where the "it's fair to say....." comment came in.
I did not give up on density/buoyancy.
I did side step for the moment to make way for EM Induction and then later tie them in.
I haven't quite figured out how to work "line upon line/precept on precept" forum style.
EM is measurable and can replace gravity that is not measurable.
EM holds everything together including atoms and is the force to push and pull things.
Gravity changes it's laws at will being STRONG sometimes and WEAK at others.
The experiment by Faraday show an e-current creates a magnetic field and later that a changing
magnetic field will create an e-current.
It's pretty cool to see how this can be used to levitate, heat up and even light up
(essentially creating a FE sun) with only EM conductors.
Density/buoyancy is easily shown in water, the more dense the object is the closer to the bottom
it goes. On a FE there is no reason to include "gravity" or any of it's offshoots that it needs to explain
"this to explain that" because there is nothing to "hold" to the Earth.
Gravity is a necessity for the globe and was "formulated" to uphold the Helio Theory.
Since gravity is not proven, and since we are talking about a FE where it is not needed anyway (unless you know of what it would be good for) are we able to move on to other things?