Mathematically debunking "gravity"  A critique of Newton’s “laws”
5 posters
IFERS  Exposing the 'Global' Conspiracy From Atlantis to Zion :: Heliocentricity, Geocentricity, Cosmology and Cosmogeny
Page 1 of 1
Mathematically debunking "gravity"  A critique of Newton’s “laws”
The silent war for worldview dominance
The heliocentric model won over the geocentric Ptolemaic and Tychian (of Tycho Brahe) models in no small part because of the work of Tycho Brahe’s masonic disciple Johannes Kepler. By carefully studying the celestial objects (on the firmament) under extended periods, Tycho Brahe had a passion for exact facts and owned data that his young apprentice Kepler wanted to use for his purpose to verify the Copernican heliocentric model. Still, Brahe would not separate himself from it and argued that the data lacked the required parallax of the stars to support the heliocentric model. Then Brahe mysteriously fell very ill and died (likely poisoned), and Kepler used the data to claim verification of the Copernican model and refusal of the Tychian and Ptolemaic models.[ref #1]
By the time Newton came up with the idea of “gravity” as a force, most if not all of the theoretical and doctrinal groundwork was therefore already in place to allow for the authoritative cultural revolution we know as history. The first piece was the already established idea of heliocentricity and the consequence that there had to be something holding the earth in its orbit around the sun, and “A Godgiven path” was not a desirable answer.
If “gravity” was to be proven as a force acting at a distance, the force had to extend beyond the objects themselves. Gauss divergence theorem was revamped to give the foundation needed. Since the force was verifiably not a function of speed dX/dt (where X is the position vector), it had to be an expression of the second timederivative, acceleration (denoted “a”), d^{2}X/dt^{2}. And so, Newton's first "law" (F=m*a) was born, and "mass" (or “m”) consequently gained the unit of [F]/[a] = [Newton]*[seconds^{2}/meter]. Clearly showing that the target was to equalize gravity to acceleration. By doing this, Newton and his society effectively established a new paradigm where this “mass” became the proclaimed only source and variable for it (apart from distance). No one has ever really explained exactly what this “mass” is, what in "mass" it is that creates "gravity" and why “mass” and not just any energy gets to have this property of being the source of “gravity". Except to use the circular reasoning of referring to gravity or make Einstein’s claim that it to be inherent energy divided by the speed of light squared or referring to the quantum physics strawman that it is due to an exchange of “gravitons”.
Let's get going.
Gauss Theorem
When you have been into engineering mathematics for a while, you start learning to recognize the basic mathematical theorems often used in physics and by the nature of being attributed to a central source that supposedly issues a field that affects things on a distance, you realize that Newton and his gang used Gauss Theorem as a starting point. Gauss’s theorem is fundamentally a continuity equation. Meaning, it is an expression of the postulate that energy cannot be created, only transformed. The first law of thermodynamics. It is used as a foundation for much of both practical and theoretical physics. It can be stated as follows.
Let (V) be a volume with boundary surface (S) [like a football with a blue rubber skin] and let there be a flow F across this surface, i.e., a flow into, out from, or through the volume. Gauss theorem then makes theoretical equality between (one hand) summingup flows through the surface area (S) and (on the other hand) the sum of flows coming from sources (or disappearing into sinks) inside the many tiny volumeelements dV that make up the entire volume (V). The total sum of flows through the closed surface S is coming from the sources (or being swallowed by the sinks), within the volume.  Simple enough thought.
To picture this, imagine enclosing the end of the garden hose in your fist. Then the flow of water out between your fingers (the blue surface) equals the amount of water the hose puts into the fist (the "sources and sinks" inside the volume of your fist). No further water is magically created or taken away inside my fist, so all water from the hose should come out between my fingers. No more and no less.  Sounds reasonable.
The strengths of the sources/sinks inside the volume are counted by the amount of deflection (or "divergence") they cause on the flow (F) in the point where they are. Don't worry, this is just a way to express the amount of flow put into the fist. If the divergence in a point within the volume (the fist) is positive, then there is (assumed to be) a generation of flow (F) in that point. And if the divergence is negative, there is assumed to be a sink of flow at that point that is removing flow. How ever that generation or swallowing of flow is happening. Note the small surface area element dS and the normal vector (n) pointing perpendicular out from that surface element. This is a construction used to summarize the flow crossing the whole surface (S). It means that we will only be counting the flow that leaves perpendicular to the surface. More on that below.
Gauss theorem then says that
Here, the lefthand side (LHS) of the equality really means that we (in each small part of the surface, dS) only count the part of the flow (F) that is pointing straight out of the surface (volume), i.e., is aligned with the normal vector (n) at that crossingpoint.
Note here that the dashed red line represent the solenoidal part of the flow vector (F). This is the part is flowing around inside the volume. Gauss Theorem does not count this part of the flow since it is assumed to not bring any consequence to the surroundings of the volume (V). All parts of the flow that leaves the volume (black dashed arrow), is counted into the perpendicular part of (F) by the fact that it the part of (F) that aligns with the normal vector (n).
The rest of the LHS expression, just mean that we add up all those small perpendicular flowcontributions of F from each surface areaelements (dS) into a total crosssurface flow over the whole surface (S). Note that since both the flow (F) and the normal vector (n) is essentially different in every crossingpoint on the surface, we have to do an evaluation and summation in every point on the surface (S). There is no way around that.
Now to the righthand side (RHS) of (Eq.1) i.e. . As mentioned initially, this summarizes in 3 dimensions over the whole volume (V) the contributions of sources of the flow (F) residing within each tiny volumeelement (or point) dV.
The strength of each tiny source/sink is expressed in terms of the spreading (“divergence”) of the flow (F) that it creates in each point, written as .
Physically, the value of is the sum of change of (F) in respective dimensions in that point. The value of is positive if the source is outpouring and the flow (F) exhibits an outward spreading, and it is negative if it acts as a sink and (F) exhibits a contraction of force or flow. In standard orthogonal (x,y,z) coordinates, the "divergence" is formulated as
.
Naturally, then, in a flow where there are no sources or sinks, all these derivatives are zero, and in those cases =0 everywhere, the flow (F) will not be diverging in any way but be parallel. The net sum of flow in/out will be zero and so there is no outpouring or swallowing of flow inside the volume (V).
Some nonessential sidenotes:
Sidenote 1 : Therefore, if we sit on top of a flow volume element (dV), the "divergence" can also be interpreted as measuring the (spatial = lengths dimensions) rate of expansion (or contraction) of the volume element as we ride it in the flow along (F). This is just for curious people and these different views of rate of change illustrations are not important for the reasoning here.
Sidenote 2: The source strength at each point in the volume, is a scalar, and thus it only defines an amount of the flow medium created or added to the reality in that point (or unit volume dV). The outpouring from the source point has no defined direction, and so for most cases, it is presumed that the added or removed flow simply fills or vacates all spatial dimensions equally, i.e., “isotropically” i.e. that dF/dx = dF/dy = dF/dz.
Sidenote 3: A teaser for thought is that the source of (F) is (must be) generating spatial derivatives of (F). Consequently, if (F) is an acceleration"field" (which is the case claimed in Newton's "law") having the applied unit m/s^{2}, then the source of that "field" will have to be generating "substance" of unit 1/s^{2} in relevant points of the volume in consideration i.e., be proportional to frequency squared.
Continuing.
The creation of Newtons "law" of gravity
Newton’s second “law” of “gravity” was clearly a premeditated theoretical construction from a number of presumptions. It starts with simply cutting away the RHS of Gauss Theorem (Eq.1).
The whole Divergenceside of Gauss Theorem, just GONE and the LHS was matched with a whole new RHS (Eq.2) which was formulated as an expression proportional to the “mass” (M). On the LHS the basic idea of (F) became the supposed new "gravity field" (g). On the RHS, the proportionality constant in front of (M) was defined as 4*Pi*(G). Gone was the original Gauss RHS integral (summation) of sources over the volume (V). The unit of the “gravitational constant,” (G), then consequently became set to [meters / (Kilograms * seconds^{2}) ], since if (g) is positiondependent acceleration i.e. meters/second^{2},the unit of "mass" (M) is in kilograms and Pi is dimensionless, then the unit of (G) follows.
By applying then this proposal to a spherical volume (a ball), Newton presumed that the “gravitational field” (g) would be spherically symmetric. This is a special case since Gauss theorem makes no such prerequisite on the “field” (F) or the distribution or shape of the sources included in the RHS volume (V) of (Eq.1).
Newtons then used his own “shell theorem” to show that (in terms of "gravity") a spherically symmetric body affects external objects as though all of the “mass” of the sphere was concentrated in a point at its center. This is why the RHS of (Eq.2) expresses proportionality to the total "mass" (M) as being in a point. The shell theorem also states that the sum of all “gravitic” forces experienced from a material sphere by an external body would be acting in a straight line between the central point of the sphere and the “center of mass” of the outer body.
With these presumptions, Newtons stated that “the gravity field” could be theoretically simplified and written as the multiplication of a scalar field g(r) with (e_{r}) being the radial base vector of length one pointing in the direction of the external body, so (e_{r}) is a normal vector of the surface (S):
A scalar field like g(r) assigns a value to every point in the realm of (x,y,z) coordinates and the value is the same for the same distance (r) from the center regardless of where you are placed around it. This value is a scalar (alike Temperature), in itself, it has no direction. So this expression says that each point in the realm is assigned an amount of acceleration in m/s^2. And this acceleration (scalar field) is multiplied by the radial vector from the small "mass" (m) to the big "mass" (M), resulting in that we still end up with an acceleration in the direction toward (M). Under these conditions, (Eq.2) becomes
This idea is based on the assumption of spherical symmetry of the “mass” (M). The "gravity field" scalar value g(r), will be the same (constant) anywhere on the surface of any sphere of radius (r) from the center, including the larger sphere (dashed line above) that is intersecting the external body. So, g(r) and can therefore be moved outside of the integral.
And the remaining LHS integral summarizes to the area of the surface of the sphere of radius r:
Here we see why Newton added that strange 4*Pi factor to the RHS in (Eq.2). It was NOT to have that baked into the “gravitational constant” (G). Instead, that 4*Pi cancels out, and we are left with the expression for the “gravitational” strength at distance r from “mass” (M):
Accordingly, the soughtfor vector "field" variant of “gravity” from (M) then, according to (Eq.3) will be
And since then two point “masses” (M) and (m) will be affecting each other, the total attractive force F between them becomes  not to confuse the force F with the flow (F) in Gauss Theorem.
(Eq.5) is called “Newtons Law,” but again, it is NOT a law but a completely madeup mathematical construction and for this reason, it is NOT a legitimate theory.
Critique of the creation of Newtons (second) "law"
As we have already seen, it builds on a number of presumptions and at least two errors. I will simply outline them here in no particular order.
1. Frankenstein mathematics is not science
Taking the Gauss theorem (Eq.1), chopping it in half, and creating a new equation from its LHS and mathematical stretch it beyond the realm of its original validity, is not scientific.
Cutting away the RHS of Gauss Theorem (Eq.1) and replacing it with 4*Pi*G
It could be argued that the LHS of Gauss theorem was saved as basis for Newton’s proposition because it provides an opportunity extend the "skin" or "surface" part of the original equation to be an effect on a distance. The RHS was replaced because the volume effect is what they wanted to misrepresent as the fabricated "Mass" (M) as the source of the field/flow (F) here replaced by the supposed "gravity" field, (g). But the original balance, limit of validity, and physical meaning of the Gauss theorem is entirely gone after Newton’s butchering of it.
With this kind of Frankenstein operation, you can force the mathematics into producing any outcome you like. But it is not science or physically valid.
2. Presumptive logic is not science
Straightup presuming an scifi concept called “mass” (alone) is the only driver of an entirely new kind of “field” separate from electromagnetics and buoyancy and straight up, assuming a linear relationship as postulated in (Eq.2) and also in Newtons 1st "law" (F = M * a), is at best narrowminded and certainly not scientific.
In a situation like this, real scientists consider “antecedents” (variables suspected to be driving or shaping the effect) to be brought into the situation and candidate function, not so in this case. The fact that this was NOT done at all, is a dead giveaway of the intent for this work. The desired outcome as already clear to them when they got to work. And it would be less of a problem had the theory not had such immense consequences and not the scientific community been so quick and decisive in accepting and proclaiming the idea as a “law,” a title given only to natural effects that have been longtime verified and are really not disputed at all. This is certainly not the case for “gravity.” But this did not stop this piece of math from becoming the “law” and motivation for the entire world becoming indoctrinated with an infinite punctured vacuum “universe” and earth evolution into a spinning ball whizzing around the sun.
And to now, as the hoax is exposed, claim "it is just a theory" is doubling the deception, insinuating that this fabrication even was a legitimate theory in the first place. But this is not just a failure of a theory but the entire setup and all associated concepts.
3. Breaking the boundaries of validity, physics and logic
An inverse square “law” cannot be presumed to exist or be valid outside of the volume (and the surface of it) in which the sources of the flows are. – There is a reason why in the Gauss theorem, the closed surface (S) is completely surrounding the volume (V), and no part of the volume is sticking out or is detached in any way away from the limiting surface.
If you introduce a gap between the volume and the surface, the physics of that region is simply undefined. Same if the volume (the red volume) is sticking out of the surface. It's like the (red) pressurized bubble of air inside a football could somehow be sticking out outside of the (blue) leather/rubber skin of it. Impossible. Same also outside of the surface. Gauss Theorem is limited to the volume and the tightly fit blue skin of it. In any other regions, the math does not exist. The physical validity of the theorem breaks down and becomes a fairytale.
Also, the inverse square law is predicated on the "field" or "flow" (F or g) being uniformly spreading. This, in turn, means that the "field"/"flow" sources must be uniformly distributed throughout the volume (V), or it would not be spreading in such a uniform way that the inverse square property would be fulfilled.
Yet this is what Newton and his gang suggested. That the volume (V) was possible to implode while the sources of the proposed "gravity" still magically remains uniformly distributed in the region previously held by the volume  which now becomes such an undefined region magically created between the volume (V) and the surface (S), detaching them completely. They even stretched out the surface (S) to the distance of the second satellite "mass" (m).  Needless to say, the physicality of this scenario becomes science fiction, if it ever was anything else.
Fact 1: The permissible realm of Gauss theorem (and likewise integral theorems, including Newtons idea) is only at or inside the surface of the volume  not anywhere outside of it.
Fact 2: An “implosion” can only be allowed is to change both volume and surface together, never either one alone.
NOTE : Furthermore, the theoretical implosion is in itself not physically possible, not even in a “black hole” (presuming the very “gravity” theory that is questioned). Black holes are, consequently, as much constructed sciencefiction as Newton's second "law". And so, consequently, are the ideas of "space", expanding "universe" etc.
4. The deceptive shell theorem switch
As mentioned earlier, Newton’s shell theorem, which motivates the idea of imploding the “mass” to a central point, is built upon the predicate of “gravity” being ruled by the very same inverse square “law” that Newton’s “law” then results in. (presumptive or circular reasoning!). The theorem is twofold in its statement:
A. “A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center.”  This statement claims action on a distance without intermediate transfer, which violated the physical reality of the volume as the source and extent of “gravity.”
B. “If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object’s location within the shell.”  This is the same violation as in (a.), even as it occurs inside a shell and relies on that “gravity” has vectorial superposition.
Newton also adds that “inside a solid sphere of constant density, the gravitational force within the object varies linearly with distance from the center, becoming zero by symmetry at the center of mass.” And thereby verifying that implosion to a point is congruent with requiring a homogeneous density in the now larger volume. In its construction, the shell theorem is a preparation for the “action on a distance” that Newton abhorred but which the masonic society pushed to acceptance.
The only reason an inverse square relationship is obtained by Newton is that it numerically matches between the imploded LHS flow with the RHS (summation of sources/sinks) of a volume (V) holding uniformly distributed tiny sources/sinks. But by replacing the RHS with a “mass” (M) and a constant (4*Pi*G), the range of validity of the original theorem to the volume (V) is removed from the reasoning, leaving it fully open to then expand the flowfrom an imploded point to infinity by division by r^{2} (Eq.4). This may look mathematically correct but is neither scientific nor physically accurate.
Also, with isotropic sources, it is impossible for a point source to be an exact substitute for a distributed source. In other words, an imagined imploded sum of all sources into a central source, clearly created a field that is different than the one from the sources being spread. At best the total amount of field/force may be the same but the scenario is gone.
Ultimately in the end, the shell theorem builds on the same idea as the main theory relies on and "proves", this is one very intelligent piece of deception. This shell theorem moves the critical "magic" away from the scenery of the main theorem. It becomes just a footnote, albeit a very crucial one that supposedly motivate the insertion of black magic into the math, adding an entirely new region between the volume (the source point in the middle) and the now theoretical "skin" stretched out to the distance of the object that is supposedly affected. A true mark of masonic "handywork".
5. Half of the purported physics is not accounted for
Gauss theorem does not include any solenoidal part of the “field” (F) i.e. flow or "field" that does not flow through the surface (S) but stays rotating inside the volume (V). Repeating the picture, the solenoidal part is the dashed red line component of (F) :
The theorem only counts the dashed black arrow component of (F) that flow straight out of the surface at that point.
NOTE: There is no solenoidal flow either outside of the volume (V) and attached surface (S), because (again) it is outside of the validity of the fundamental theorem. The solenoidal component also only being defined in the region where there are sources/sinks exist i.e. within the volume. The flow arrows are sticking out of the volume/surface show what is the situation in that point ON that surface and do not illustrate the flow outside of it.
Now, seeing that Newton clearly claimed that the exact same kind of "flow" coming out of the “mass” was the very “gravity” he was theorizing, it is very odd that he and his gang made no effort in understanding the relation between this inner rotating part of the "flow" "field" and his “gravity”. For this reason alone, his theory is as incomplete as it is invalid and mathematically impossible.
6. Incomplete mathematical archetype
Going back to the note about antecedents, it is interesting that Newton also assumed (predetermined) that his "gravity" would be a force i.e. a vector and not a scalar, complex number, quaternion or tensor.
From this also, it is obvious to anyone who has done any theoretical science or statistics, that he was not trying to discover something that he did not know the nature of (thus needing to postulate more than vectors), but that the effort had a predetermined goal for which the math was sewn together from the necessary arbitrary pieces.
Einstein later bringing in tensors, was also just what was necessary to prove the predetermined idea of "gravity" instead being due to a stress in (a "bending" of) the fabric of "space" and time. To make a math that expressed what was already decided. Ofc, being just as much a hoax, trying to "prove" the same fantasy.  Tensors were not brought in to explore the true source of the phenomenon. If they had, they would have discovered that it traces back to the inner stresstensor (inner pressure i.e. reluctance to split) of the materials, NOT to something acting on a distance.
In other words, creating this false physics using Quarternions (or even more advanced mathematical number constructs), will NOT make it any more true.
Conclusions
Newton’s “law” is indeed a very intelligently created theoretical physics made by butchering of Gauss integral theorem under clear presumptions and goals, and consequently, the theory violates both logic and the fundamental domain of validity.
What is most concerning is that most modern physics is firmly based on this inverse square idea and likewise prearranged equations. Electrostatics i.e Columb’s “law” being the prominent example, and thereby also electrodynamics and (socalled ) quantum mechanics/dynamics/physics. All of those should be equally revisited.
It would be a good idea if someone could make a formulate a new theory that stays within the realm of validity and reality.
The idea that "gravity" simply is buoyancy seems intuitively correct.  There is more to the story to be uncovered.
References
[1] “The Principle,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHnwl22hxiE
The heliocentric model won over the geocentric Ptolemaic and Tychian (of Tycho Brahe) models in no small part because of the work of Tycho Brahe’s masonic disciple Johannes Kepler. By carefully studying the celestial objects (on the firmament) under extended periods, Tycho Brahe had a passion for exact facts and owned data that his young apprentice Kepler wanted to use for his purpose to verify the Copernican heliocentric model. Still, Brahe would not separate himself from it and argued that the data lacked the required parallax of the stars to support the heliocentric model. Then Brahe mysteriously fell very ill and died (likely poisoned), and Kepler used the data to claim verification of the Copernican model and refusal of the Tychian and Ptolemaic models.[ref #1]
By the time Newton came up with the idea of “gravity” as a force, most if not all of the theoretical and doctrinal groundwork was therefore already in place to allow for the authoritative cultural revolution we know as history. The first piece was the already established idea of heliocentricity and the consequence that there had to be something holding the earth in its orbit around the sun, and “A Godgiven path” was not a desirable answer.
If “gravity” was to be proven as a force acting at a distance, the force had to extend beyond the objects themselves. Gauss divergence theorem was revamped to give the foundation needed. Since the force was verifiably not a function of speed dX/dt (where X is the position vector), it had to be an expression of the second timederivative, acceleration (denoted “a”), d^{2}X/dt^{2}. And so, Newton's first "law" (F=m*a) was born, and "mass" (or “m”) consequently gained the unit of [F]/[a] = [Newton]*[seconds^{2}/meter]. Clearly showing that the target was to equalize gravity to acceleration. By doing this, Newton and his society effectively established a new paradigm where this “mass” became the proclaimed only source and variable for it (apart from distance). No one has ever really explained exactly what this “mass” is, what in "mass" it is that creates "gravity" and why “mass” and not just any energy gets to have this property of being the source of “gravity". Except to use the circular reasoning of referring to gravity or make Einstein’s claim that it to be inherent energy divided by the speed of light squared or referring to the quantum physics strawman that it is due to an exchange of “gravitons”.
Let's get going.
Gauss Theorem
When you have been into engineering mathematics for a while, you start learning to recognize the basic mathematical theorems often used in physics and by the nature of being attributed to a central source that supposedly issues a field that affects things on a distance, you realize that Newton and his gang used Gauss Theorem as a starting point. Gauss’s theorem is fundamentally a continuity equation. Meaning, it is an expression of the postulate that energy cannot be created, only transformed. The first law of thermodynamics. It is used as a foundation for much of both practical and theoretical physics. It can be stated as follows.
Let (V) be a volume with boundary surface (S) [like a football with a blue rubber skin] and let there be a flow F across this surface, i.e., a flow into, out from, or through the volume. Gauss theorem then makes theoretical equality between (one hand) summingup flows through the surface area (S) and (on the other hand) the sum of flows coming from sources (or disappearing into sinks) inside the many tiny volumeelements dV that make up the entire volume (V). The total sum of flows through the closed surface S is coming from the sources (or being swallowed by the sinks), within the volume.  Simple enough thought.
To picture this, imagine enclosing the end of the garden hose in your fist. Then the flow of water out between your fingers (the blue surface) equals the amount of water the hose puts into the fist (the "sources and sinks" inside the volume of your fist). No further water is magically created or taken away inside my fist, so all water from the hose should come out between my fingers. No more and no less.  Sounds reasonable.
The strengths of the sources/sinks inside the volume are counted by the amount of deflection (or "divergence") they cause on the flow (F) in the point where they are. Don't worry, this is just a way to express the amount of flow put into the fist. If the divergence in a point within the volume (the fist) is positive, then there is (assumed to be) a generation of flow (F) in that point. And if the divergence is negative, there is assumed to be a sink of flow at that point that is removing flow. How ever that generation or swallowing of flow is happening. Note the small surface area element dS and the normal vector (n) pointing perpendicular out from that surface element. This is a construction used to summarize the flow crossing the whole surface (S). It means that we will only be counting the flow that leaves perpendicular to the surface. More on that below.
Gauss theorem then says that
Here, the lefthand side (LHS) of the equality really means that we (in each small part of the surface, dS) only count the part of the flow (F) that is pointing straight out of the surface (volume), i.e., is aligned with the normal vector (n) at that crossingpoint.
Note here that the dashed red line represent the solenoidal part of the flow vector (F). This is the part is flowing around inside the volume. Gauss Theorem does not count this part of the flow since it is assumed to not bring any consequence to the surroundings of the volume (V). All parts of the flow that leaves the volume (black dashed arrow), is counted into the perpendicular part of (F) by the fact that it the part of (F) that aligns with the normal vector (n).
The rest of the LHS expression, just mean that we add up all those small perpendicular flowcontributions of F from each surface areaelements (dS) into a total crosssurface flow over the whole surface (S). Note that since both the flow (F) and the normal vector (n) is essentially different in every crossingpoint on the surface, we have to do an evaluation and summation in every point on the surface (S). There is no way around that.
Now to the righthand side (RHS) of (Eq.1) i.e. . As mentioned initially, this summarizes in 3 dimensions over the whole volume (V) the contributions of sources of the flow (F) residing within each tiny volumeelement (or point) dV.
The strength of each tiny source/sink is expressed in terms of the spreading (“divergence”) of the flow (F) that it creates in each point, written as .
Physically, the value of is the sum of change of (F) in respective dimensions in that point. The value of is positive if the source is outpouring and the flow (F) exhibits an outward spreading, and it is negative if it acts as a sink and (F) exhibits a contraction of force or flow. In standard orthogonal (x,y,z) coordinates, the "divergence" is formulated as
.
Naturally, then, in a flow where there are no sources or sinks, all these derivatives are zero, and in those cases =0 everywhere, the flow (F) will not be diverging in any way but be parallel. The net sum of flow in/out will be zero and so there is no outpouring or swallowing of flow inside the volume (V).
Some nonessential sidenotes:
Sidenote 1 : Therefore, if we sit on top of a flow volume element (dV), the "divergence" can also be interpreted as measuring the (spatial = lengths dimensions) rate of expansion (or contraction) of the volume element as we ride it in the flow along (F). This is just for curious people and these different views of rate of change illustrations are not important for the reasoning here.
Sidenote 2: The source strength at each point in the volume, is a scalar, and thus it only defines an amount of the flow medium created or added to the reality in that point (or unit volume dV). The outpouring from the source point has no defined direction, and so for most cases, it is presumed that the added or removed flow simply fills or vacates all spatial dimensions equally, i.e., “isotropically” i.e. that dF/dx = dF/dy = dF/dz.
Sidenote 3: A teaser for thought is that the source of (F) is (must be) generating spatial derivatives of (F). Consequently, if (F) is an acceleration"field" (which is the case claimed in Newton's "law") having the applied unit m/s^{2}, then the source of that "field" will have to be generating "substance" of unit 1/s^{2} in relevant points of the volume in consideration i.e., be proportional to frequency squared.
Continuing.
The creation of Newtons "law" of gravity
Newton’s second “law” of “gravity” was clearly a premeditated theoretical construction from a number of presumptions. It starts with simply cutting away the RHS of Gauss Theorem (Eq.1).
The whole Divergenceside of Gauss Theorem, just GONE and the LHS was matched with a whole new RHS (Eq.2) which was formulated as an expression proportional to the “mass” (M). On the LHS the basic idea of (F) became the supposed new "gravity field" (g). On the RHS, the proportionality constant in front of (M) was defined as 4*Pi*(G). Gone was the original Gauss RHS integral (summation) of sources over the volume (V). The unit of the “gravitational constant,” (G), then consequently became set to [meters / (Kilograms * seconds^{2}) ], since if (g) is positiondependent acceleration i.e. meters/second^{2},the unit of "mass" (M) is in kilograms and Pi is dimensionless, then the unit of (G) follows.
By applying then this proposal to a spherical volume (a ball), Newton presumed that the “gravitational field” (g) would be spherically symmetric. This is a special case since Gauss theorem makes no such prerequisite on the “field” (F) or the distribution or shape of the sources included in the RHS volume (V) of (Eq.1).
Newtons then used his own “shell theorem” to show that (in terms of "gravity") a spherically symmetric body affects external objects as though all of the “mass” of the sphere was concentrated in a point at its center. This is why the RHS of (Eq.2) expresses proportionality to the total "mass" (M) as being in a point. The shell theorem also states that the sum of all “gravitic” forces experienced from a material sphere by an external body would be acting in a straight line between the central point of the sphere and the “center of mass” of the outer body.
With these presumptions, Newtons stated that “the gravity field” could be theoretically simplified and written as the multiplication of a scalar field g(r) with (e_{r}) being the radial base vector of length one pointing in the direction of the external body, so (e_{r}) is a normal vector of the surface (S):
A scalar field like g(r) assigns a value to every point in the realm of (x,y,z) coordinates and the value is the same for the same distance (r) from the center regardless of where you are placed around it. This value is a scalar (alike Temperature), in itself, it has no direction. So this expression says that each point in the realm is assigned an amount of acceleration in m/s^2. And this acceleration (scalar field) is multiplied by the radial vector from the small "mass" (m) to the big "mass" (M), resulting in that we still end up with an acceleration in the direction toward (M). Under these conditions, (Eq.2) becomes
This idea is based on the assumption of spherical symmetry of the “mass” (M). The "gravity field" scalar value g(r), will be the same (constant) anywhere on the surface of any sphere of radius (r) from the center, including the larger sphere (dashed line above) that is intersecting the external body. So, g(r) and can therefore be moved outside of the integral.
And the remaining LHS integral summarizes to the area of the surface of the sphere of radius r:
Here we see why Newton added that strange 4*Pi factor to the RHS in (Eq.2). It was NOT to have that baked into the “gravitational constant” (G). Instead, that 4*Pi cancels out, and we are left with the expression for the “gravitational” strength at distance r from “mass” (M):
Accordingly, the soughtfor vector "field" variant of “gravity” from (M) then, according to (Eq.3) will be
And since then two point “masses” (M) and (m) will be affecting each other, the total attractive force F between them becomes  not to confuse the force F with the flow (F) in Gauss Theorem.
(Eq.5) is called “Newtons Law,” but again, it is NOT a law but a completely madeup mathematical construction and for this reason, it is NOT a legitimate theory.
Critique of the creation of Newtons (second) "law"
As we have already seen, it builds on a number of presumptions and at least two errors. I will simply outline them here in no particular order.
1. Frankenstein mathematics is not science
Taking the Gauss theorem (Eq.1), chopping it in half, and creating a new equation from its LHS and mathematical stretch it beyond the realm of its original validity, is not scientific.
Cutting away the RHS of Gauss Theorem (Eq.1) and replacing it with 4*Pi*G
It could be argued that the LHS of Gauss theorem was saved as basis for Newton’s proposition because it provides an opportunity extend the "skin" or "surface" part of the original equation to be an effect on a distance. The RHS was replaced because the volume effect is what they wanted to misrepresent as the fabricated "Mass" (M) as the source of the field/flow (F) here replaced by the supposed "gravity" field, (g). But the original balance, limit of validity, and physical meaning of the Gauss theorem is entirely gone after Newton’s butchering of it.
With this kind of Frankenstein operation, you can force the mathematics into producing any outcome you like. But it is not science or physically valid.
2. Presumptive logic is not science
Straightup presuming an scifi concept called “mass” (alone) is the only driver of an entirely new kind of “field” separate from electromagnetics and buoyancy and straight up, assuming a linear relationship as postulated in (Eq.2) and also in Newtons 1st "law" (F = M * a), is at best narrowminded and certainly not scientific.
In a situation like this, real scientists consider “antecedents” (variables suspected to be driving or shaping the effect) to be brought into the situation and candidate function, not so in this case. The fact that this was NOT done at all, is a dead giveaway of the intent for this work. The desired outcome as already clear to them when they got to work. And it would be less of a problem had the theory not had such immense consequences and not the scientific community been so quick and decisive in accepting and proclaiming the idea as a “law,” a title given only to natural effects that have been longtime verified and are really not disputed at all. This is certainly not the case for “gravity.” But this did not stop this piece of math from becoming the “law” and motivation for the entire world becoming indoctrinated with an infinite punctured vacuum “universe” and earth evolution into a spinning ball whizzing around the sun.
And to now, as the hoax is exposed, claim "it is just a theory" is doubling the deception, insinuating that this fabrication even was a legitimate theory in the first place. But this is not just a failure of a theory but the entire setup and all associated concepts.
3. Breaking the boundaries of validity, physics and logic
An inverse square “law” cannot be presumed to exist or be valid outside of the volume (and the surface of it) in which the sources of the flows are. – There is a reason why in the Gauss theorem, the closed surface (S) is completely surrounding the volume (V), and no part of the volume is sticking out or is detached in any way away from the limiting surface.
If you introduce a gap between the volume and the surface, the physics of that region is simply undefined. Same if the volume (the red volume) is sticking out of the surface. It's like the (red) pressurized bubble of air inside a football could somehow be sticking out outside of the (blue) leather/rubber skin of it. Impossible. Same also outside of the surface. Gauss Theorem is limited to the volume and the tightly fit blue skin of it. In any other regions, the math does not exist. The physical validity of the theorem breaks down and becomes a fairytale.
Also, the inverse square law is predicated on the "field" or "flow" (F or g) being uniformly spreading. This, in turn, means that the "field"/"flow" sources must be uniformly distributed throughout the volume (V), or it would not be spreading in such a uniform way that the inverse square property would be fulfilled.
Yet this is what Newton and his gang suggested. That the volume (V) was possible to implode while the sources of the proposed "gravity" still magically remains uniformly distributed in the region previously held by the volume  which now becomes such an undefined region magically created between the volume (V) and the surface (S), detaching them completely. They even stretched out the surface (S) to the distance of the second satellite "mass" (m).  Needless to say, the physicality of this scenario becomes science fiction, if it ever was anything else.
Fact 1: The permissible realm of Gauss theorem (and likewise integral theorems, including Newtons idea) is only at or inside the surface of the volume  not anywhere outside of it.
Fact 2: An “implosion” can only be allowed is to change both volume and surface together, never either one alone.
NOTE : Furthermore, the theoretical implosion is in itself not physically possible, not even in a “black hole” (presuming the very “gravity” theory that is questioned). Black holes are, consequently, as much constructed sciencefiction as Newton's second "law". And so, consequently, are the ideas of "space", expanding "universe" etc.
4. The deceptive shell theorem switch
As mentioned earlier, Newton’s shell theorem, which motivates the idea of imploding the “mass” to a central point, is built upon the predicate of “gravity” being ruled by the very same inverse square “law” that Newton’s “law” then results in. (presumptive or circular reasoning!). The theorem is twofold in its statement:
A. “A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center.”  This statement claims action on a distance without intermediate transfer, which violated the physical reality of the volume as the source and extent of “gravity.”
B. “If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object’s location within the shell.”  This is the same violation as in (a.), even as it occurs inside a shell and relies on that “gravity” has vectorial superposition.
Newton also adds that “inside a solid sphere of constant density, the gravitational force within the object varies linearly with distance from the center, becoming zero by symmetry at the center of mass.” And thereby verifying that implosion to a point is congruent with requiring a homogeneous density in the now larger volume. In its construction, the shell theorem is a preparation for the “action on a distance” that Newton abhorred but which the masonic society pushed to acceptance.
The only reason an inverse square relationship is obtained by Newton is that it numerically matches between the imploded LHS flow with the RHS (summation of sources/sinks) of a volume (V) holding uniformly distributed tiny sources/sinks. But by replacing the RHS with a “mass” (M) and a constant (4*Pi*G), the range of validity of the original theorem to the volume (V) is removed from the reasoning, leaving it fully open to then expand the flowfrom an imploded point to infinity by division by r^{2} (Eq.4). This may look mathematically correct but is neither scientific nor physically accurate.
Also, with isotropic sources, it is impossible for a point source to be an exact substitute for a distributed source. In other words, an imagined imploded sum of all sources into a central source, clearly created a field that is different than the one from the sources being spread. At best the total amount of field/force may be the same but the scenario is gone.
Ultimately in the end, the shell theorem builds on the same idea as the main theory relies on and "proves", this is one very intelligent piece of deception. This shell theorem moves the critical "magic" away from the scenery of the main theorem. It becomes just a footnote, albeit a very crucial one that supposedly motivate the insertion of black magic into the math, adding an entirely new region between the volume (the source point in the middle) and the now theoretical "skin" stretched out to the distance of the object that is supposedly affected. A true mark of masonic "handywork".
5. Half of the purported physics is not accounted for
Gauss theorem does not include any solenoidal part of the “field” (F) i.e. flow or "field" that does not flow through the surface (S) but stays rotating inside the volume (V). Repeating the picture, the solenoidal part is the dashed red line component of (F) :
The theorem only counts the dashed black arrow component of (F) that flow straight out of the surface at that point.
NOTE: There is no solenoidal flow either outside of the volume (V) and attached surface (S), because (again) it is outside of the validity of the fundamental theorem. The solenoidal component also only being defined in the region where there are sources/sinks exist i.e. within the volume. The flow arrows are sticking out of the volume/surface show what is the situation in that point ON that surface and do not illustrate the flow outside of it.
Now, seeing that Newton clearly claimed that the exact same kind of "flow" coming out of the “mass” was the very “gravity” he was theorizing, it is very odd that he and his gang made no effort in understanding the relation between this inner rotating part of the "flow" "field" and his “gravity”. For this reason alone, his theory is as incomplete as it is invalid and mathematically impossible.
6. Incomplete mathematical archetype
Going back to the note about antecedents, it is interesting that Newton also assumed (predetermined) that his "gravity" would be a force i.e. a vector and not a scalar, complex number, quaternion or tensor.
From this also, it is obvious to anyone who has done any theoretical science or statistics, that he was not trying to discover something that he did not know the nature of (thus needing to postulate more than vectors), but that the effort had a predetermined goal for which the math was sewn together from the necessary arbitrary pieces.
Einstein later bringing in tensors, was also just what was necessary to prove the predetermined idea of "gravity" instead being due to a stress in (a "bending" of) the fabric of "space" and time. To make a math that expressed what was already decided. Ofc, being just as much a hoax, trying to "prove" the same fantasy.  Tensors were not brought in to explore the true source of the phenomenon. If they had, they would have discovered that it traces back to the inner stresstensor (inner pressure i.e. reluctance to split) of the materials, NOT to something acting on a distance.
In other words, creating this false physics using Quarternions (or even more advanced mathematical number constructs), will NOT make it any more true.
Conclusions
Newton’s “law” is indeed a very intelligently created theoretical physics made by butchering of Gauss integral theorem under clear presumptions and goals, and consequently, the theory violates both logic and the fundamental domain of validity.
What is most concerning is that most modern physics is firmly based on this inverse square idea and likewise prearranged equations. Electrostatics i.e Columb’s “law” being the prominent example, and thereby also electrodynamics and (socalled ) quantum mechanics/dynamics/physics. All of those should be equally revisited.
It would be a good idea if someone could make a formulate a new theory that stays within the realm of validity and reality.
The idea that "gravity" simply is buoyancy seems intuitively correct.  There is more to the story to be uncovered.
References
[1] “The Principle,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHnwl22hxiE
Last edited by PacMan on Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:26 pm; edited 75 times in total
PacMan Posts : 12
Points : 653
Reputation : 0
Join date : 20210720
Bro, Tree, Xander and bdrasmussen like this post
Re: Mathematically debunking "gravity"  A critique of Newton’s “laws”
“Newton's first "law" (F=m*a) was born, and "mass" (or “m”) consequently gained the unit of [F]/[a] = [Newton]*[seconds2/meter].”
Just to clarify Newton’s First Law of Motion is Inertia and his Second Law of Motion is the F = m*a and the unit of force 1 N = 1 kg ⋅ m/s2
As far as my research has taken me his Law’s of Motion do not conflict with the Geocentric model. No issues.
However his Universal Law of Gravitation is a problem. It’s one big assumption. If anything it corrupts his laws of motion.
Awesome find. Thank you!
Just to clarify Newton’s First Law of Motion is Inertia and his Second Law of Motion is the F = m*a and the unit of force 1 N = 1 kg ⋅ m/s2
As far as my research has taken me his Law’s of Motion do not conflict with the Geocentric model. No issues.
However his Universal Law of Gravitation is a problem. It’s one big assumption. If anything it corrupts his laws of motion.
Awesome find. Thank you!
Re: Mathematically debunking "gravity"  A critique of Newton’s “laws”
Yes.
They stole the divergence of the stress tensor, Div(T) to be this "gravity".
Proof the Earth is not globe is also found in other factors than this nonexistent pulling "gravity", such as the existence of Polonium Halo's in rocks, lack of curvature, inconsistent topography in the southern hemisphere and other proofs.
However, the 1st "law" (F=ma) is also also just a construct, just as the 2nd "law" and in fact is the constituting equation that also makes it abundantly clear why Einstein later were able to equate "gravity" with acceleration.  It is no coincidence that the unit of Force (F) contain the unit of "Mass" (m)  with all the consequences to all other related physical units. Same also with inertia, as based on "density" i.e. "Mass" per unit volume. It is as they defined it. But it is completely fabricated.
The 1st "law" is simply their base equation that define/relate the two madeup units around acceleration  the one unit that is natural and real.
We need to get away from this Newtonian paradigm entirely.
Even using density, means that we stay in the paradigm we need to leave. We should only talk of relative inner pressure of "materials".
The reason we see the effects the effect we do, is because tighter knit (inert) material (with higher internal pressure) will not allow itself to be split by a less tightly knit (inert) material, so the first material instead clumps up and effectively pushes any looser knit material out of itself. Same with the room or Ether as with any material.
In the steady state, a material with higher inner pressure naturally has atoms that are closer per volume or larger interatomic forces. But it is not the closeness of the atoms (density) that dictates the inner pressure, but rather the interatomic forces. The unwillingness of the material to separate. Consequently, the same can be reasoned similarly as happening between a material and the room/ether (in lack of better wording).
They stole the divergence of the stress tensor, Div(T) to be this "gravity".
Proof the Earth is not globe is also found in other factors than this nonexistent pulling "gravity", such as the existence of Polonium Halo's in rocks, lack of curvature, inconsistent topography in the southern hemisphere and other proofs.
However, the 1st "law" (F=ma) is also also just a construct, just as the 2nd "law" and in fact is the constituting equation that also makes it abundantly clear why Einstein later were able to equate "gravity" with acceleration.  It is no coincidence that the unit of Force (F) contain the unit of "Mass" (m)  with all the consequences to all other related physical units. Same also with inertia, as based on "density" i.e. "Mass" per unit volume. It is as they defined it. But it is completely fabricated.
The 1st "law" is simply their base equation that define/relate the two madeup units around acceleration  the one unit that is natural and real.
We need to get away from this Newtonian paradigm entirely.
Even using density, means that we stay in the paradigm we need to leave. We should only talk of relative inner pressure of "materials".
The reason we see the effects the effect we do, is because tighter knit (inert) material (with higher internal pressure) will not allow itself to be split by a less tightly knit (inert) material, so the first material instead clumps up and effectively pushes any looser knit material out of itself. Same with the room or Ether as with any material.
In the steady state, a material with higher inner pressure naturally has atoms that are closer per volume or larger interatomic forces. But it is not the closeness of the atoms (density) that dictates the inner pressure, but rather the interatomic forces. The unwillingness of the material to separate. Consequently, the same can be reasoned similarly as happening between a material and the room/ether (in lack of better wording).
Last edited by PacMan on Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:35 pm; edited 16 times in total
PacMan Posts : 12
Points : 653
Reputation : 0
Join date : 20210720
Bro likes this post
Re: Mathematically debunking "gravity"  A critique of Newton’s “laws”
Terms like mass, point, volume, field, weight isn't well defined in consistent manner.
Look at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5kqQKUWqsNum3WtLhHN5yw
Brian Greene doesn't know what space is tuOhm18T3CA etc.
Correct Prism Model  Johann Goethe xJ8BJVkEsSI
Secrets of Magnetism & the MagnetoDielectric foundation of the Cosmos
lncdK4MqB0
First Time Ever Seen  Secret of Light  140 Year old mystery solved! Crookes Radiometer CCrnDGOl2xA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTICjwUhSys
Crystals (1958) kw84ZH_kXr8 and Water Crystals In Motion  Messages From Water  Dr Masaru Emoto and the different attitude the static compared with running electricity has, as well the double slit experiment.
All these indicates that such paper laws does not explain the mechanism in which nature work, but only describe the situation we observe, many times with contradicting explanations. If solid crystals can grow and analog liquid devices predict weather why we had to assume that only we had life and wisdom? Maybe life isn't only attributed to carbon compounds.
"Black holes are where God divided by zero" or rather we are joking because we are not able to understand or comprehend infinite wisdom and so we keep invent words and assign to them arbitrary theorems.
Look at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5kqQKUWqsNum3WtLhHN5yw
Brian Greene doesn't know what space is tuOhm18T3CA etc.
Correct Prism Model  Johann Goethe xJ8BJVkEsSI
Secrets of Magnetism & the MagnetoDielectric foundation of the Cosmos
lncdK4MqB0
First Time Ever Seen  Secret of Light  140 Year old mystery solved! Crookes Radiometer CCrnDGOl2xA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTICjwUhSys
Crystals (1958) kw84ZH_kXr8 and Water Crystals In Motion  Messages From Water  Dr Masaru Emoto and the different attitude the static compared with running electricity has, as well the double slit experiment.
All these indicates that such paper laws does not explain the mechanism in which nature work, but only describe the situation we observe, many times with contradicting explanations. If solid crystals can grow and analog liquid devices predict weather why we had to assume that only we had life and wisdom? Maybe life isn't only attributed to carbon compounds.
"Black holes are where God divided by zero" or rather we are joking because we are not able to understand or comprehend infinite wisdom and so we keep invent words and assign to them arbitrary theorems.
travma Posts : 4
Points : 2632
Reputation : 1
Join date : 20160116
Bro likes this post
Re: Mathematically debunking "gravity"  A critique of Newton’s “laws”
Any chance someone could explain this in like 23 short sentences for the elementary reader? I consider myself pretty bright but this is way over my head. I am an FEer / and I don't believe in Gravity// thanks!
kirastar Posts : 2
Points : 914
Reputation : 0
Join date : 20200926
Re: Mathematically debunking "gravity"  A critique of Newton’s “laws”
Wow great study! I will come back and read this more in depth later (although I’m not great at math I can usually see the points made). Nicely layed out and written.
Tree Posts : 87
Points : 921
Reputation : 13
Join date : 20210103
A step towards a better formulation of "gravity"  The math of soapbubbles and balloons
Wrongfully added the next posting as a reply here.
Moved it to the parent forum listing instead.
https://ifers.forumotion.com/t367towardabettertheoryofgravitybubbles
Moved it to the parent forum listing instead.
https://ifers.forumotion.com/t367towardabettertheoryofgravitybubbles
Last edited by PacMan on Mon Jan 09, 2023 12:37 pm; edited 3 times in total
PacMan Posts : 12
Points : 653
Reputation : 0
Join date : 20210720
Re: Mathematically debunking "gravity"  A critique of Newton’s “laws”
Well, I tried but I don’t think I can understand this math. Not saying it’s wrong or right it’s just not something I can evaluate. What exactly does Gauss mean by ‘flow’?
Glad you could make sense of the math though and find some counter arguments to the mainstream dogma.
Glad you could make sense of the math though and find some counter arguments to the mainstream dogma.
Tree Posts : 87
Points : 921
Reputation : 13
Join date : 20210103
In short
kirastar wrote:Any chance someone could explain this in like 23 short sentences for the elementary reader? I consider myself pretty bright but this is way over my head. I am an FEer / and I don't believe in Gravity// thanks!
It seems the concept and "law" of "gravity" was created by butchering an older physics equation that has its limit of validity.
They then used a deceptive trick to fool people that the "gravity" ultimately could extend beyond the "mass" generating it, utterly violating that limit of validity.  Alike claiming the force of your muscles would extend beyond your body.
In short, both the "gravity", "mass" and force in "newtons" were total inventions aimed at highjacking what are forces from contact between materials and making is seem like a force that magically is transmitted over distances. All to motivate the existence of "Planets" and the "Solar system".  Genius but still, a complete mathematical hoax.
TO MAKE IT COMPLETELY CLEAR:
This disproves not only the math. It disproves "gravity" as a pulling force on a distance as being an intentional construction.
It's a hoax!
We all know there is a force at play, but it is clear that it is NOT a pulling force due to a "Mass"driven "field" extending beyond the surface of a central source. And it is not a pulling field or force on a distance. It is a local pressure force from contact between "materials". And using the understanding found from this analysis, that pressure is similarly due to the Room/Ether pushing people and apples toward the less hard knit material of Earth.
The implications are VAST. The whole masonic vacuum scifi NASA "universe" goes bellyup!
 Globe Earth is a hoax.  No attraction on an distance  No hotmolten ball from pulledin matter and likewise no "Solar system".
 Alien "Antigravity" (UFO) is a hoax. There is no such pulling force to counteract! "UFO's" are just manmade blackbudget vehicles propelled electromagnetically in at least 3 different, fully explainable ways.
 General Relativity (Einstein), Quantum Gravity, and "Grand Unifying Theory" etc. are equally mathematical hoaxes (however dazzling) trying to motivate the same fundamental lie. But a lie promoting a nonexistent force, does not become truth just because you change the language used when telling the lie.
 Evolution is also a hoax because it (among other uses) builds on this "gravity" to motivate the (by “Dark Matter”) decelerated expansion of the "Universe" as a vast emptiness  outside of an nonexistent billons of years old ball Earth.
 NASA/Hollywood Greenscreen TV & CGI rocket launches into "Space", are hoaxes, promoting this lie as truth, that at best are fake photoops in "zeroG" planes, greenscreen "Space" station interiors and hardware scraping and crashing into pieces against the firmament.
 "Big Bang" is a hoax, since there consequently is no expanding "universe" that can have that BANG beginning.
 CERN, LHC etc. $ trillion operations are at best to a significant part, ignorant fools and masonic operations, aiming to perpetuate the same lie as a front for even worse things.
This whole house of cards of $trillion hoaxes, falls with this here firmly debunked distancepulling "gravity".
Regarding the "flow"
Gauss theorem (GT) is very generic basic physical theorem that essentially say "what flows in/out (of the volume V), must also flow in/out (of the closed wrapping surface S)".
In the posting, I exemplified it with the garden hose putting water into your closed fist (the volume), which then is pushed out between your fingers (the blue surface). This theorem is used in basically ALL physics. Waterflows, Aerodynamics (gas flows), Electromagnetics (Electric and magnetic fields from electric charges)  you name it. In some cases (like water) the flow is visibly material but with electromagnetics , man can only speculate and for this use concepts like "exotic", "field" and "quantum". In this case, they even purposefully butchered the theorem to get only the part they needed.
In the case of gravity, we now KNOW that there simply is no "flow" since the very idea of that pulling force from a "Mass" on a distance, was clearly a complete fabrication. Since the fundamental idea is a hoax, you can insert any imagination for that "flow" here if you like, "bending of spacetime", "gravitons" or just plain old "unicorns"  it does not matter.
PacMan Posts : 12
Points : 653
Reputation : 0
Join date : 20210720
kirastar likes this post
Similar topics
» Theory Of Light And Colours (Goethe vs. Newton)
» Flat Earth and Project Blue Beam
» Privately Funded Space Fakery (SpaceX, BlueOrigin, Virgin Galactic)
» Gravity Does Not Exist!
» Toward a better theory of “gravity”  Bubbles
» Flat Earth and Project Blue Beam
» Privately Funded Space Fakery (SpaceX, BlueOrigin, Virgin Galactic)
» Gravity Does Not Exist!
» Toward a better theory of “gravity”  Bubbles
IFERS  Exposing the 'Global' Conspiracy From Atlantis to Zion :: Heliocentricity, Geocentricity, Cosmology and Cosmogeny
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum

