EM is measurable and can replace gravity that is not measurable.
false. gravity is every bit as measurable as E or B fields are.
EM holds everything together including atoms and is the force to push and pull things.
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.
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.
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.
Density/buoyancy is easily shown in water, the more dense the object is the closer to the bottom
it goes.
it goes.
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?
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.
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.
Since gravity is not proven, and since we are talking about a FE where it is not needed anyway . . .
[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: