The so-called "Law of Gravity" has become the cliche for what is absolutely unquestionable. When I was young, people would say, "What goes up, must come down." This folksy rendering of scientific law necessarily faded with the modern era of space flight. But still, it is in our sureness of gravity that we set the benchmark for what is unequivocally known. At the same time, gravity (not the fact of it, but the how of it) remains as one of the greatest mysteries of the Creation.
Our picture of the universe, how it has come to be, and how it works, derives much from the mathematical framework set, a priori, in one important formula. At the same time, our physical sciences are so riddled with bothersome anomalies, it seems that with each and every advancement in our grand explanation, there comes increasingly more discord. Would not these problems point to a glitch? Could there be a glitch, so basic in our understanding, so naturally accepted, that it could have avoided our scrutiny? I believe I have found a good suspect and I want you on this grand jury.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have just one small question about the Law of Gravity. Modeled on repeated experimentation, it stands like a fortress in science. But, as far as I know, it has not been tested as to one very basic assumption that we will hereby recognize and question.
In our act of questioning the rational foundations of this Law, we will endeavor to develop an hypothesis that unites the known forces, explaining their connections in the existence of the much maligned and roundly denied æther, and its motion. In this effort, we may dismiss such theoretical constructs as the strong and weak nuclear forces as merely the convenient theoretical inventions they are.
It is widely believed that Michelson and Morley's experiments over a century ago proved the non-existence of what was then called "the luminiferous æther." These tests proved only that this non-material, but quite likely, substantial stuff, was simply not as they then had imagined it to be, "stationary in space." If this æther is not stationary, it is also not likely to be moving as a single inflexible unit. Might it then be fairly reasonable to imagine it behaving as if it were a flowing fluid? If the æther around this planet were spinning along with it (as water stirred in a jar), it likely would have given precisely the experimental results Michelson and Morley obtained.
If some ubiquitous flowing substance of a non-material nature, pervading both matter and space does not exist, then I must ask science, what explains the transmission of the radiant forces? Magic? Newton knew much about gravity's effects, but even he admitted that he did not understand the nature of its functioning. Many of us are interested in gravity, so why can't we understand it? I think I can answer that in one word. Newton. Behold...
"Newton's Really Big Assumption"
Within the above formula is a monstrous assumption capable of (and perhaps culpable in) destroying our ability to rationally understand the natural universe. This assumption, though it sounds rather foolish at first, is that cannonballs are the motional and energetic models for stars and planets. This equation is so basic to the development of our modern sciences that most all are laid down upon it as prime foundation. It is fact that Newton's "laws" of motion and gravity were in good part derived from measured observations of cannonball trajectories.
More than just the fig bar, Newton gave us an in-depth science of how functioning archaic ammunition (and other solid bits of material) interact with the attractive force of our planet. That's about it!
From a base of experiment limited to the behaviors of solid materials in motion within conditions present, perhaps only on the terrestrial surface of this Earth, we are left with the illusion that planets and stars can behave only as if they were big dense cannonballs. And further, that all cannonballs and such must likewise be endowed with that mysterious attractive force known to exist at the surface of this here planet. Ultimately because of this we have derived the cosmologies and cosmogonies necessitated in order that Newton's blind assumption continue to work mathematically.
Over centuries we have come to believe, under scientific law, that the attractive force of this planet is somehow simply an inherent function of its mass. Gravity, ever the mono-poled enigma to science, goes tacitly understood as if a magical quality. Most scientists would probably not like to state it quite so, but that is really about how it is. Everything else we know in and of Creation seems the expression of a dualistic nature. Everything else but gravity and the One True God.
If the Earth, in its observable orbiting of the Sun, were truly following the physics inherent in the cannonball, it would be required (as is presently reckoned) to have a density 5.7 times that of water, and almost twice that of solid basalt (the heavier of the more extensively occurring crustal rocks). Serving this model, and compensating for a needed overall density far exceeding that of the Earth's crust, we have assumed a planetary core of nickel and iron. This is because these are quite dense and, like our planet Earth, are capable of supporting a magnetic field. The latter is only true when these metals are in the form of a solid.
To make this model work, we are directed to see a potentially liquid (and maybe even gaseously hot) imagined nickel and iron central core being condensed, via extreme gravitational pressures, into a solid, while it is actually far above its usual melting temperature. A temperature which, under normal conditions, would cause it to expand, lowering its density (its volumetric weight). Gravity is assigned the monumental task of pressing in upon the molten metals with enough force to solidify them. This, is in spite of the fact that temperatures naturally rise with pressure.
If it is mass that gravitationally attracts, then, at the center point of a solid sphere, all of that sphere's mass would be toward the outside. Should not this attracting mass then pull away from center in all directions? Could this situation really create the pressures needed to maintain the above fantasy, er-r-r, a-a-ah, theory? The farther a point is inside the Earth, the more of the Earth's mass is outward from that point. If gravity is an attribute of mass, then shouldn't the core be at a very low pressure? How can we have this both ways?
Could the Earth really be of a lesser density, and its gravity, a function of something other than its mass? Why not suspect attraction from a net electrostatic charge, for example? (This is yet another force we don't officially understand. One that can both attract and repel. More magic? Perhaps, but at least this force shows us a less magical dualistic nature.) Could it be that a cannonball really has no planet-style gravity at all? Would this be such a great and untenable leap? Under Newton's law, how much gravity was the danged ol' cannonball supposed to have, anyway? (We will see that the term, electrostatic, might be seen as oxymoronic. The attractive and repulsive motive forces resulting from electric fields belie any notion of an underlying stasis. When, at the cycling of a swtch, electric current stops flowing in a system, the unseen motive element we measure as volts remains active and available. It is only on this basis in function that we can even have our useful electronics.)
Hang a cannonball from a wire and charge it up to say, 250,000 volts of D.C. electrical potential and see if matter, of all kinds, is not attracted to it. Could this be gravity? What would using different polarities of electric charge do to the measure of our cannonball's weight (the measure of Earth's gravitational attraction to its mass)? How might this Earth have such a sustained planet wide electrostatic field? This question will be dealt with below. Gravity can and does act, generating motions over distances through massless vacuums. So do magnets. Just where, and/or, in what stuff, are these mysterious and invisible "actions at distance" of gravitic, magnetic, and electrostatic, attractions and/or repulsions taking place? (Ask Dr. Science?)
Any material thing that we can practically lift, throw, or launch, would have so small a relative mass, that we could not practically factor it's [assumed] attractive force, represented by "F," into Newton's equation;
"G" is a number known as the "Gravitational Constant." "d" is the distance between two masses or "m1" and "m2." (Don't worry here about "G" the "proportionality constant." It is used only to facilitate and mediate our two variant measuring systems, grams and meters, and is not important to our question.)
Simply stated, what this "law" maintains, is that the quantitative value of the force of gravity is proportional to the product of two masses, divided by the value of the distance between them, multiplied by itself.
Stated again, two inferences of this formula are:
(1.) Gravity's force is reckoned as directly proportional to the quantities of either of two masses, increasing or decreasing as either of the masses is increased or decreased.
(2.) The measure of force is inversely proportional to the distance between the masses, increasing four times as the distance is halved or divided by two, varying as the inverse of the square.
It is only in this first deduction, relating force equally to these two masses, where any question arises. Here we assume a mass for Earth predicated on what is known of the cannonball, and force for the cannonball established on what we know of the dynamic conditions on the surface of our whirling Earth. In the second inference, the affect of d-distance on F-force, where one of these masses is Earth, here it is empirically known, the inverse square rule holds true.
(The inverse square idea can become an absurdity if one follows the increasing mathematical projection geometrically into the Earth's center. We continue down, infinitely halving the distance to the imaginary center of mass, each time multiplying {F} times four. This results in an infinitely high force of gravity at an infinitely small point of center. Of course, this is impossible, as the same infinite outcome would hold mathematically for even the smallest grain of dust. Though sometimes, it seems this is exactly what science has done. Under the going story, we are still faced with projected central core pressures that are hard to account for as explained above. Quite the reverse of current planetary and stellar core models should be demanded if all mass attracts.
Newton's equation breaks down when there is only an m1, because if m2 is gone, the distance becomes infinite, zero, or otherwise moot. F becomes G times zero/infinity. It's a very Zen situation. Is there any force of gravity if no tree falls, or only one hand claps? With only an m1 {Earth} to consider, we handily see every tree, rock, or subatomic particle of Earth, attracting every other. Each individual bit of mass within the Earth adds to the sum of all these masses. Taking away Earth and leaving only an m2 cannonball present, we might bust it in half, but even in a relatively weightless environment, the dividend forces of its 2 masses will not pull it back together again. That would be, unless we melted both halves down and whirled the fluid into a single spin, thus developing centripetal force {the real F of gravity}.
So, just where does the downward accelerating force of gravity reach its maximum on or in Earth? Not likely at the center of mass. In the mass=gravity model, the area of maximum F should form a spherical shell at the terrestrial surface where all the mass is in one direction from any point on this shell. F's value must be null, or a point of low pressure and weightlessness at the Earth-center.
Could not the true planetary model be maximum F in the region of highest axial velocity and subsequent fluid-motor/electro-static generation within the flowing molten core's spinning vortex? And, would not such a planetary vortex have within its center, the same elements of fluid æther space as it does without? Gravity is more about motion than mass. Micro-vortex motion is the cause of mass developing in an area of space on the micro scale. This mass is showing us the effect of that motion. On the macro scale, similar motions locate and spin the celestial spheres.)
The rational point to understand here is this; where mass-1 is of a planetary immensity, in proportion to a mass-2 of cannonball (or even a freight train's) dimension, mass-2's "F" is virtually nil, quantitatively. Proportional to Earth's gravity, its share of the force would be represented by some very small number, parked behind a decimal point and a boxcar load of zeros. So, it would effectively appear as if all of the attracting force resides in mass 1 (as it probably does in reality--m2 is attracted, but in no real way does it attract. The m2 cannonball is really gravitationally neutral and not a dynamically attracting body resembling in any dynamic or motional manner, the m1 planet Earth).
It's true that based on Newton's observations, we can place all sorts of things into orbit, facilitated merely by the fact that they conform to the motions described by flying cannonballs. On this basis, we have performed many feats that make us believe that we have long understood quite enough about gravity. We know just how a gravitationally neutral body, such as our cannonball, or a satellite, would be affected in a fly-by of Jupiter. This yet is limited knowledge for we do not know how the dynamic, mostly fluid, whirling, and probably hollow, sphere of a gravity generating planet would perform in a similar situation.
Gravity, or centripetal force, arises in the dynamic vortexial motions of maelstroms, in and of fluids. Planets and stars, electrons and quarks, are all co-whirling within the flowing fluids of the æthers. Æthers, in which, and from which, everything has formed. From the motional precursors of quarks and electrons, and building up, scaling up, vortex by flowing vortex, through galaxies and beyond, all matter and its associations are thus formed. The dynamic of motion, fluid æther motion, is primary to the physical creation, acting in character, harmonizing across infinite orders of scale. As a droplet forms from vapors, a quark forms from æthers. Both occur in the condensing motive power of the centripetal vortex.
We can, within fluid environments, orbit one vortex about another, though we can scarcely control for long, the dynamics of such a system if left to its own momentum here on terra firma (a motionally polarized and biased fluid environment). The chaos theorists can map tendencies but cannot predict "particulars" in such a system. But, these are the kinds of motional relationships Newton should have been modeling if he wanted to get to the how of gravity. He would have found this more difficult than the mechanics of his m1 and m2. Just as when we try to model and predict orbital systems that might include another solely attractive m3 mass! We can run our vortexes around and see that their tendancies are to not readily collide or wander off if established in orbital relationships. As well, these motional relationships repeat up and down scales of viscosity, density, size, rotational frequencies, and time.
We don't know, under our present paradigm, how much force would be required to place the Moon (as it is) into an orbit around the Earth (as it is). This is because we have calculated the mass of the Moon (and all celestial spheres) under the assumption that they can only conform to the model of Newton's cannonball. Without a doubt, we know how we would design a moon-sized cannonball if it were our only intention to place a cannonball of such diameter and weight into an Earth orbit. (And yes, given adequate materials, work space, and propulsive force, I'm sure we could do this, and we very well might, should the Pentagon desire such a program.) But this, in no way, would prove anything about the structure or dynamics of the Moon, as it is.
As well, we have no indisputable concept as to the true structure, or, of the gravitational, magnetic, motional, and/or possible other forces, of the Earth, Sun, or of any star or planet. We are immersed in these forces to the degree that the very idea of their more than local measurement should be absurd. The electrostatic field force of Earth cannot be measured from within this selfsame planetary field, and so, is believed by some to be nonexistent. This idea is like Henry Cavendish "weighing" the Earth by observing the activity of suspended masses within the stronger portions of this field of admittedly mysterious gravity force. We would make no less of an assumption to say that his masses affected the flowing patterns and forces within the æthers.