Layman's attempt at gravity

[Q-reeus]

The shell theorem could only be proven in a Cavendish setup experiment using identical outer diameter and same weight source masses , one setup with high density material and largest possible spherical hole in source mass and second setup with low density solid source of same weight .( The same diameters and weights solely to "destabilize" calculation handicapped mainstream scientists .

No need. Celestial mechanics works remarkably well using Newtonian gravity. Including for orbiting Earth satellites residing in an r/R regime where your idea of how to add elemental contributions, predicts strong departure from strictly 1/r^2 gravity. Overwhelming evidence is 1/r^2 Newtonian gravity accounts very well for all such orbital motions. For all values of r/R > 1. In agreement with shell theorem.
Can you cite a single article where some appreciable discrepancy has ever been reported? Don't you think NASA or ESA etc. would have discovered any such many decades ago?

The "elliptic" shapes of celestial bodies do not concern me , their diameter and rotation absorb the "sun" given potential energy so orbit (speed and radi ) is diminished ( again in miniscule but calculable amount)
Here an rather old estimation of earth gravitation. Mass ruohgly estimated, disregarding the three body problem ) , next will include sun that after all have a 200 times stronger field on earth than the moon (6*10^-3 to 3*10^5 m/s^2)
Hope capping do not mean banning , just ignore me if the alternative theory is too alternative .

This has started to go in circles. Either you are prepared to accept the basic maths leading inevitably to the shell theorem and it's corroboration in every space program and more, or you will continue holding to a pov that never gains any traction.

 

[TIMO MOILANEN]

https://1drv.ms/x/s!ArSE2R4ReZrzbWTRGN2ztqP4zLY Here is one bulb on the circle . It was never my meaning to even critisze shell theory just ignore it , but seems I have to do one more paper to bury it for good . What comes to space programmes they have had nothing but problems with orbits and gravitation from day one . All satellites are launshed on experience (empiric data) . The Eagle orbiting moon never found a calculable orbit and since they have bounced around on Mars . So no surprise near planets flights are left to trial orbits before closer flight , there are always surprises eventhou they know the planets mass to the kg .
I am the only person (at least a year ago) calculating mathematically the integral F(x,y,z,1/r^2) and got F=MG/r^2 . But one must get out from the math. what is put in , and it turned out that for R=r only 2/3 of mass is accounted for and for r =infinit non of the mass is decreased but G do't apply .

 

[Q-reeus]

https://1drv.ms/x/s!ArSE2R4ReZrzbWTRGN2ztqP4zLY Here is one bulb on the circle . It was never my meaning to even critisze shell theory just ignore it , but seems I have to do one more paper to bury it for good . What comes to space programmes they have had nothing but problems with orbits and gravitation from day one . All satellites are launshed on experience (empiric data) . The Eagle orbiting moon never found a calculable orbit and since they have bounced around on Mars . So no surprise near planets flights are left to trial orbits before closer flight , there are always surprises eventhou they know the planets mass to the kg .
I am the only person (at least a year ago) calculating mathematically the integral F(x,y,z,1/r^2) and got F=MG/r^2 . But one must get out from the math. what is put in , and it turned out that for R=r only 2/3 of mass is accounted for and for r =infinit non of the mass is decreased but G do't apply .

Not that it would probably matter, but your link in #142 gives this message:

Couldn't Load This Workbook
We're sorry. We can't open the workbook in the browser because it uses these unsupported features:
• Charts or objects with external references (links to other workbooks)
You might want to contact the author for more information.
Learn more
Give Feedback

PS: You seriously believe every space launch has been based on hit-or-miss cludges?! And not once did any scientist or technician involved in such embarrassing episodes ever decide to publish the observation of such amazing discrepancies in any of many available journals?!

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Could a model that addresses the physical nature of gravity at some sort of particle level take us further.

string theory... spings to mind

I suppose the main question is how does attraction work and could what we see as masses being attracted really be them being pushed together.

"being pushed together"
would require equal force on all sides ?
.. if we assume we are expanding/moving through space from a push...
what is holding us to one central point adhering to a spherical/globe point of matter ?

is the "push" subject to entropy ?