Skip to content

Newton’s Assumptions

Newton is such an iconic figure in physics, and so many of his theorems have been proven right, that it’s by now largely forgotten that he made several bold shortcuts in his time, especially when it comes to inertia and gravity.

His greatest unproven assertion is that there’s such a thing as mass, and that this property of matter applies equally to gravity and inertia. However, mass has never been found or detected. All we ever measure is either inertia, which is the tendency of matter to resist changes to motion, and gravity which is an attracting force between neutral bodies. No-one ever measured mass. It’s either inertia or gravity.

Also unproven is his assertion that gravity is universally the same everywhere, that gravity is independent of other factors than mass, and that gravity is a directionless monopole that acts with equal force in all directions. All of this is merely assumed to be true because Newton happened to believe it to be so. However, there are by now sufficiently many observations to cast doubt on these assumptions.

All sorts of problems are emerging. Our planet is believed to have a super-dense core. Our planet cannot possibly be growing, despite ample evidence of expansion. Mars is believed to have a relatively low density core. Comets are believed to be snowballs, despite their rocky appearance. Galaxies are full of dark matter that defies detection. The list of weirdness is long, and it’s all due to a refusal to challenges some of Newton’s assumptions.

The way I get around these problems is to break mass into its two detectable components, namely inertia and gravity, and to treat gravity as something dependent on charge in addition to matter. I’m also skeptical to the assumption that gravity acts as a directionless monopole. It seems intuitively more reasonable to believe that gravity has at least some directional component. Matter at the other side of our planet is not acting on me completely unhampered by intervening matter. There might not be much interference. But it seems almost inconceivable that intervening matter has no impact at all.

Once we embrace this thought, we see that Newton’s shell theorem no longer applies unconditionally to gravity. The perceived center of gravity can be closer to us than the geometrical center of our planet. We get a center of gravity that depends on various factors, such as the thickness of Earth’s crust and the position from which gravity is measured. Gravity anomalies and near Earth gravity oddities become easier to explain.

If we allow for charge and capacitance to play a role in gravity, controversial positions such as the hollow and expanding Earth model, become easier to defend. We don’t need to invent mechanisms in which super-dense matter is being created out of virtually nothing. Surface gravity increases with Earth’s expansion, due to an increase in charge and/or a perceive center of gravity coming closer to the surface.

We also find simple explanations for why Mars and comets are lacking in gravity, and why galaxies spin the way they do. There’s no longer any need to invoke dark matter. An increase in capacitance and charge over time is all that’s required.

None of this is in any way disrespectful of Newton. He remains the genius that he was. After all, charge and capacitance were poorly understood in his time, and he cannot be blamed for not spotting relationships that he couldn’t possibly have known about. Nor can we blame him for having made assumptions about mass and gravity, and some overly sterile premises for his Shell theorem. He knew perfectly well that he was making bold assumptions. It’s not his fault that we have taken these assumptions and turned them into dogma, and that we’ve done this to the point that we spend enormous resources looking for elusive mass particles and dark matter.

This Post Has 4 Comments

  1. “Mars is believed to have a relatively low density core. Comets are believed to be snowballs, despite their rocky appearance. ”
    Time to bring in Albert and E = mc^2. We need to consider where our density figures come from. Comets are highly electrically charged, due to their orbital pattern so the high energy gives a false mass figure, leading to nonsensical low density ice. Comets are obviously lumps of rock. But I wonder what happened to Mars in the past which gives its odd density value.

    1. Comets have a relatively low capacitance, so they are not very charged. But they have a very high voltage potential relative to their environment due to their oblong path through the solar system, so they interact vividly with the environment despite holding little charge.

      As for Einstein’s mass/energy equivalence formula, it’s not of much help because Einstein’s formula tells us that we need an enormous amount of energy to produce even the smallest amount of matter.

      However, if we allow charge to play a role in gravity, as I suggest, we can explain the gravity measurements by pointing out that Mars has lower capacitance than Earth, and comets have lower capacitance still.

      If all of these bodies are fully charged, Earth will have the strongest gravity relative to its size, Mars will have less gravity relative to its size, and comets will have very little gravity relative to its size, which is precisely what we find.

      Earth’s strong gravity is not due to a super-dense core. It’s due to the fact that Earth is a highly charged body. Similarly, Mars is not made of material much less dense than our planet. It’s merely less charged due to its lower capacitance. Comets are not made of very light material. They have low gravity due to their inability to carry a lot of charge.

    2. IF the electric-discharge theory of the Grand Canyon holds, then the similar electrical-looking scar on Mars could mean that, instead of increasing the capacitive charge, it was arched by a body of opposite polarity, diminishing or ‘discharging’ Mars.
      Capacitive charge sure is neater than energy turned into matter at the core, but I shall not dismiss the possibility of electromagnetic particles being fused in a sun-like planetary core. That one has the added benefit of explaining the Dark Mutterers’ improbable red-shift in their impossibly isotropic expanding universe.

      1. My position when it comes to the scar on Mars, as well as Grand Canyon here on Earth, is that they were caused by discharge, as you suggest. However, all that’s required for a discharge to occur is a difference in charge. The charged body causing the scars was not necessarily of a opposite polarity. It was merely more charged than were Earth and Mars at the time.

        This can be illustrated with two capacitors on a circuit board, separated by an open switch. If one capacitor is more negatively charged than the other, there will be current flowing between the two capacitors once the switch is closed.

        This means that we can have discharges between astronomic bodies even if they are all negatively charged, as I believe them to be.

        As for the body that scarred Mars and Earth, I believe it to have been Venus which may have been ejected by Jupiter a mere ten thousand years ago.

        The scenario outlined in my book is that Venus came out of Jupiter as a highly charged body, and that it wrecked havoc in the inner solar system before it settled into its current orbit.

        Venus obliterated Phaeton, creating the asteroid belt in the process. It scarred Mars, and it zapped Earth. But Venus was never of opposite polarity to Earth and Mars. It was of the same polarity, only much more charged than it is today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back To Top

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. More information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.