The Law of the astral inertia

[Asexperia]

THE LAW OF THE ASTRAL INERTIA

Let's see these statements:

1- Gravity is not a force in itself.
2- No depends on particles such as gravitons.
3- Gravity is the weakest "force" of the four known forces.
4- Gravity has no charge, so it is impossible to shield it.

These four statements led me to assume that gravity is a fictitious force that depends on the Law of the astral inertia.

The postulates of this law are:

1- Objects on the ground or near the surface of the earth, or any other star, follow the movement of this.

2- Originally planets follow a straight trajectory, but It's converted into elliptical by the gravity of the star they orbit.

3- The movement of the stars was originated since the Big Bang.

Elvis Sibilia

 

[quantum_wave]

I don't want to get the thread started off track right at the beginning, so let me ask a few questions. You say #1- Gravity is not a force in itself. Is that a statement that you assert, like an axiom, upon which you are basing the Law of the Astral Inertia?

You say #2- "No depends on particles such as gravitons". Do you mean gravity does not depend on particles such as gravitons, or does? Should there be a comma after the word "No", i.e. should it say, "No, it depends on particles such as gravitons? Or what?

In #3 you include gravity as one of the four known forces, and yet in #1 you say it is not a force in itself. Is it a force, or isn't it a force; which way do you mean it?

And in #4 you say - Gravity has no charge, so it is impossible to shield it. I do understand what you mean, but the lack of a charge doesn't mean that there is no way to shield from it. For example, a magnetic field can suspend an object in space; isn't that a sort of a shield? Just asking.

 

[Daecon]

2- Originally planets follow a straight trajectory, but It's converted into elliptical by the gravity of the star they orbit.

You just said gravity was fictitious. Make up your mind.

 

[Asexperia]

1- Gravity is a fictitious force. It is not a real force.

2- Gravity does not depend on particles such as gravitons or any other one.

3- Equal 1

4- I understand that there is no material barrier for the gravity.

 

[quantum_wave]

Ok, then we start from there.

 

[Asexperia]

You just said gravity was fictitious. Make up your mind.

Yes, you're correct. It must say astral inertia.

 

[Daecon]

Then your own "postulate 2" is wrong.

 

[Asexperia]

Then your own "postulate 2" is wrong.

Why? If the sun suddenly cease to exist planets would escape with rectilinear trajectory.

 

[Daecon]

2- Originally planets follow a straight trajectory, but It's converted into elliptical by the gravity of the star they orbit.

You're saying gravity is fictitious and you ALSO mention gravity being a force but also not a force.

You're contradicting yourself.

 

[James R]

1- Gravity is not a force in itself.
3- Gravity is the weakest "force" of the four known forces.

Aren't these two statements contradictory?

 

[Asexperia]

You're saying gravity is fictitious and you ALSO mention gravity being a force but also not a force.

You're contradicting yourself.

Aren't these two statements contradictory?

I have always been aware of that.
The fundamental forces are just three. I will review the first post.

Thanks a lot.

 

[Asexperia]

THE LAW OF THE ASTRAL INERTIA (Edited)

Let's see these statements:

1- Gravity is not a force.
2- It does not depends on particles such as gravitons.
3- Gravity has no charge, so it is impossible to shield it.

These three statements led me to assume that gravity is a fictitious force that depends on the Law of the astral inertia.

The postulates of this law are:

1- Objects on the ground or near the surface of the earth, or any other star, follow the movement of this.

2- Originally planets follow a straight trajectory, but It's converted into elliptical by the astral inertia of the star they orbit.

3- The movement of the stars was originated since the Big Bang.

 

[AlexG]

Sibilia make up a lot of crap.

 

[Asexperia]

Sibilia make up a lot of crap.

You should have a little respect.

 

[quantum_wave]

The postulates of this law are:

1- Objects on the ground or near the surface of the earth, or any other star, follow the movement of this.

We understand that this is the case, but it is explained as the result of gravity, with the center of gravity in the center of the mass. That way, things on the surface "fall" toward the center mass, and therefore stay near the surface all the way around the sphere. If you abandon that concept, things in the leading side of the Earth's motion would stay on the ground, but wouldn't things on the trailing side fall behind?

 

[AlexG]

You should have a little respect.

Why do you think you're due any?

 

[Daecon]

You should have a little respect.

Yes, but your ideas don't deserve any.

 

[James R]

THE LAW OF THE ASTRAL INERTIA (Edited)

Let's see these statements:

1- Gravity is not a force.

That led Einstein to his theory of general relativity.

2- It does not depends on particles such as gravitons.

How do you know? What evidence are you relying on?

3- Gravity has no charge, so it is impossible to shield it.

You speak as if gravity is a kind of particle. Is that what you're thinking?

These three statements led me to assume that gravity is a fictitious force that depends on the Law of the astral inertia.

The postulates of this law are:

1- Objects on the ground or near the surface of the earth, or any other star, follow the movement of this.

Follow the movement of what? What is "this"?

Do you mean that objects on the Earth's surface rotate with the Earth? That has nothing to do with gravity.

2- Originally planets follow a straight trajectory, but It's converted into elliptical by the astral inertia of the star they orbit.

What do you mean by "originally"? When did the Earth, for example, follow a straight trajectory?

How did the Earth's orbit "convert" to elliptical?

What is "astral inertia"? How can we measure it?

3- The movement of the stars was originated since the Big Bang.

That's uncontroversial. Everything was originated since the big bang.

 

[Asexperia]

We understand that this is the case, but it is explained as the result of gravity, with the center of gravity in the center of the mass. That way, things on the surface "fall" toward the center mass, and therefore stay near the surface all the way around the sphere. If you abandon that concept, things in the leading side of the Earth's motion would stay on the ground, but wouldn't things on the trailing side fall behind?

If gravity is a fictitious force, the center of mass and center of gravity too.

 

[Asexperia]

Sent by James R:
How do you know? What evidence are you relying on?

Gravity does not have charge.

You speak as if gravity is a kind of particle. Is that what you're thinking?

No, gravity is not a particle.

Follow the movement of what? What is "this"?

The earth.

What do you mean by "originally"? When did the Earth, for example, follow a straight trajectory?

It is what would happen if the sun suddenly ceases to exist.

How did the Earth's orbit "convert" to elliptical?

Due to the astral inertia of the sun.

What is "astral inertia"? How can we measure it?

The astral inertia is determined by the mass.