Gravity and Density

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Can anyone tell me if the tests conducted in mine shafts are true that you weigh more on a mountain top than you do in a mine shaft one mile below ground?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That was an old idea based on Newton's law of gravity and the assumption that Earth's density was roughly constant. Any uniform spherical shell contributes zero gravitational force everywhere in its interior. So someone in a mine shaft would be inside a uniform spherical shell of Earth above him. That portion of Earth's total mass in the shell would no longer be pulling down on the person. So it was believed that the person deep underground would weigh less (not more, as your example claimed).

However, when the calculation was done properly for the real Earth, which increases sharply in density with depth, it turns out that the person's closer proximity to Earth's dense, massive core is more important than the lessened mass immediately below the observer. So for a while, the strength of gravitational acceleration actually increases as one goes down into the Earth. That effect does not continue very far, however. For most of the way down, the force decreases toward the center, as expected.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If it is then gravity is simply a product of a planetary bodies LENGTH OF DENSITY towards its centre and NOT soley its MASS.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Tests have been done for three centuries to try to find some dependence of gravity on density. None has ever been seen in even the most sensitive experiments. The Newtonian mass over distance squared law works perfectly out to parts per hundred million, where a slight dependence on velocity and potential (but still no dependence on density) sets in.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Hence a simple formula for gravity would be:
DENSITY * RADIUS * K
K is a tweaking factor to get the final result and can also be thought of as the PUSHING power of the local ETHERIC ENERGY causeing gravity through a type of matter displacement of the ETHER.
Any Comments?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is a good idea. But like most good ideas, it has been thought of and tried numerous times, and does not represent the way nature works. At that juncture, people tend to divide into those who insist that nature behave the way they think she should and try to find an explanation for the apparent misbehavior; versus those who let nature tell us how things are and jettison the good idea. Which type are you?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Also other experiments have apparently been carried out to prove that as you get to 1600 miles below ground, gravity is replaced by an upward push/levity. Is this true, and how did they measure it?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As I mentioned above, ordinary Newtonian gravity eventually decreases with depth because there is less mass pulling down. That follows from the ordinary, inverse square law without further modification or exceptions or "levitations". It merely requires using the law properly inside a body whose density keeps increasing toward the center. -|Tom|-

> To all interested in the possibility / impossibility of PUSH GRAVITY.
>
> Experiments such as that with step ladders and rocks are not going to give any proof against PUSH or PULL GRAVITY.
>
> During my own research into the possibility of gravity being a push, it is now plainly obvious that it has to be a PUSH and that there must be a type of ETHERIC ENERGY similar to the way energy flows through magnets.
>
> Magnets are in themselves not currently understood by any science that does not include an ETHER, for me they never quite explain how a permanent magnet can go on creating a hypothetically infinte amount of other magnets WITHOUT LOSING ANY OF ITS OWN POWER.
>
> This surely defies conventional physics, as it appears to be a free energy machine. However, this is much better explained by the existence of an ETHERIC ENERGY all around us.
>
> Gravity itself is not directly produced by how much MASS a planetary body contains, it is the sole product of the bodies DENSITY and the LENGTH OF this DENSITY towards the 'core'. If Jupiter was the size of the Earth but contained all its mass its Gravity would shoot up to around TEN TIMES that of Earths, because its Density has become bigger although its mass has stayed the same - the opposite would happen if it grew bigger without gaining any mass.
>
> Tests show that you would weigh more on a mountain than you would one mile BELOW ground. Again this is because the length of density is much greater than gound level and at these points, gravity will be greater.
>
> This also explains the rock / ladder experiment.
>
> As for objects weighing more at night ( something I myself queried on this site with regards to PULL gravity ), its doubtfull that the SUNS GRAVITY itself could have any great impact because we on Earth as a whole are constantly 'FALLING' into the SUN, because of its greater gravity.
>
> Now if you equate for a moment, that the Earth is the Sun and that an apple falling towards it is the earth. Everything on this apple ( disregarding earths atmospheric resistance ) would be falling at the same rate and would therefore weigh the same - regardless of its position on this spinning apple ( i am fully aware of the tiny discrepancies of gravity over distance due to the inverse square law ).
>
> The moon on the other hand will 'PULL' things slightly from the earth, just as our Earth will surely do with the Sun to a lesser effect. But our Earth should NOT do the same with the moon, because again the moon like the earth to sun, would be constantly falling into our Earth.
>
> It is my understanding that planetary bodies do not 'shadow' each others gravity, as ether will move through everything - possibly even itself - like a sieve. It is not about 'shadowing', it is simply the strength of an individual planets gravity interacting with another. Thus, the moon is an isolated system with its own gravity due to its 'DISPLACEMENT' of the local ETHER, which will affect the Earth just like an anchor as it goes around, but will not itself be affected by the earth because ALL of the moon is PULLED/PUSHED at almost exactly the same rate.
>
> All the current theories are very close to the truth - string theory, m theory, Relativity - they are all implying an existence of the ETHER, without directly saying it. This is why they will never understand the true nature of gravity unless they acknowledge its existence, which in my opinion Einstein did in his later life, but largely kept it to himself.

Questions:

It would be interesting to find out what would actually happen if a planetary body hypothetically stopped moving through space. Would its surrounding ETHER find its centre after being temporarily displaced and eventually leave the planet with little or no gravity regardless of its size?
>
> If as many people suggest there exists an opposite to Gravity, called LEVITY, then surely this would simply be the Gravity itself dissapating through the Earths core and on through the opposite end of the planet, making it appear as an opposite force? Although due to the inverse square law the power of this LEVITY itself would only be a third of the gravity coming in.
>
> Thanks for reading,
>
> David King.
>
> <Email>
> kingdavid1 @ talk21.com