Now, on Galileo. We are told that Galileo made a significant discovery that all bodies fall to the ground with exactly the same acceleration. In other words, it is commonly believed that Galileo has proved experimentally that the acceleration of a test body due to gravitation is independent of the mass of the test body. Einstein went even further with his principle of gravitational and inertial mass equivalence:

we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system. —Einstein, 1907

Now I will try to convince you that not only Galileo did not prove that, but also that he could not possibly prove it experimentally.

In the "Boyd Bushman on Antigravity" video above, it says (around @ 6:10) that Apollo 15 Commander David Scott revisits Galileo and conducts gravity test on the Moon in 1971. He releases simultaneously a hammer from one hand and a falcon feather from the other, observes that both hit the ground at the same time, and then concludes that Galileo was right. There is a fundamental, and very instructive fallacy in the way Commander Scott conducts his scientific business. What is it? It's in the hidden, unspoken, or, perhaps, even subconscious assumption, which, when recognized, can easily be argued to be in direct and violent contradiction with common sense.

The unspoken assumption is: Since the hammer and the falcon feather differ significantly in mass, the difference in time intervals they take to hit the ground would be large enough to be readily detectable by our naked eyes if Galileo was wrong. And since we do not easily detect any difference with naked eyes, it follows that Galileo was in the right. But it takes just moment's thought to see that this line of reasoning has no solid ground under it.

Indeed, what is the cause of acceleration? Common sense tells us that the main factor here is by far the Moon itself. Therefore the mass of the Moon naturally shall be considered as the main contributor to the value of acceleration of a falling body. At this point it is entirely natural to assume that the mass of the falling body also contributes its non-zero share to the value of acceleration (unless we simply postulate the absence of such contribution a priori as Einstein did – without any justification whatsoever – on a par with his another nonsensical postulate about the speed of light being the upper limit of speed feasible in all nature). But if the mass of the falling body has non-zero impact on the value of its acceleration in free-fall, it is only reasonable to expect that the magnitude of this impact would be in the proportion of its mass to the mass of the Moon. Therefore the expected difference in the values of accelerations for the hammer and the feather would be of the order (Mass of Hammer - Mass of Feather)/Mass of Moon rather than (Mass of Hammer - Mass of Feather). Hence, the difference in time intervals that the two bodies would take to hit the ground after being dropped from the same height would be of the same order. Now, I can assure you that Commander David Scott had no bloody chance on Earth (on Moon, or anywhere else) of detecting with his naked eyes such an infinitesimal time-interval difference, even if we assume that he was in the possession of falcon's eyesight.

Galileo was even in a worse situation for obvious reasons. Let us do the math. What is the heaviest "hammer" Galileo could possibly drop from the Pisa tower? A 1000 kg "hammer" perhaps – but certainly not heavier than that. Therefore, considering that Earth's mass is about 6 x 10^24 kg, Galileo would need, at the very least, to have a chronometer with a resolution in the order of 10 to the power of minus 21 seconds in order to prove acceleration invariance experimentally! That was way beyond the reach of Galileo, not to mention that Galileo did not, nay, could not even know what the Earth's mass was to begin with.

Forget Galileo, even today no one could possibly prove experimentally that Galileo was in the right for the simple reason that the lack of chronometer of required accuracy is but one of the many troubles – it is not even the main one. The main trouble is that Galileo was either in the wrong, or hypothesis of free-fall acceleration invariance is simply a tautology.

Please stay in your seats, folks, we are not there yet. To be continued.

Barau, I did not understood nothing from what you said. Can you please and in simple words explain why in your opinion the feather and the hammer will hit the ground almost simultaneously (ignore the 10 to the power minus 21 seconds difference) ?

I have an explanation but first I want to understand your clear idea, if you will, on this topic.

Can you please and in simple words explain why in your opinion the feather and the hammer will hit the ground almost simultaneously (ignore the 10 to the power minus 21 seconds difference) ?

randomind, thank you for asking; it is a good question, and I cannot stress enough how important it is to answer your question in precise manner that leaves no ambiguity.

Nothing could be easier than to give a straight and concise answer to your question, and here it is. Indeed, I do not doubt that on the Moon, where there is no atmosphere to impede the free-fall of bodies, the feather and the hammer will hit the ground almost simultaneously, not because Commander David Scott proved it experimentally (I have some reservations that he was on the Moon to begin with, but that's another story), but simply because that was proved experimentally on the Earth by Galileo (roughly) and by many others (with more precision) since then.

Perhaps, the reader will be now at a total loss. I can hear loudly the followup question: If you do not doubt that, then what all the fuss is about? And that is the question which really requires some explanation; that is the question, the answer to which is so important.

What is the issue we are discussing here? There is a scientific hypothesis: every object in free-fall near the surface of the Earth is moving with constant acceleration, and the numerical value of that acceleration is the same for all objects, i.e. it does not depend on the mass of the falling body, it depends on the characteristics of the Earth alone; to be more specific, it depends on the distribution of the mass of the Earth alone. And we would like to know whether this hypothesis is true or not. That is precisely the issue we are discussing here.

Now, before we even get to the pressing question of how do we go about solving our problem, it is extremely important to clarify couple of things. First, our hypothesis does not say anything about the accuracy with which the alleged invariance of the free-fall acceleration is to hold; second, the hypothesis makes a great emphasis on the claim that the free-fall acceleration does not depend on the mass of the falling body.

Now we are ready to face the pressing practical question: How do we go about solving our problem? This is a question of scientific methodology, in other words, this is a question of what is the proper way to conduct scientific business. There are two major, time-honored and well-known ways to do it: (1) Conduct scientific experiments and make up your mind about the validity of the hypothesis on the basis of the experimental results you get; (2) Assume a priori that the hypothesis is valid and see where it leads you (in other words, treat the hypothesis as a postulate and stick to your postulate as long as it does not get you into trouble).

It is entirely up to you which way you want to go. But if you decide to go down the first path, i.e. by way of experimenting, then it is part of your job to state and resolve the question of accuracy of experimental data that could and would allow you to come to unambiguous conclusion about the validity of the hypothesis. And that is precisely the bone I have to pick with those who claim that Galileo proved the above hypothesis experimentally: Galileo did not state, much less resolve, the question of accuracy of experimental data that could and would allow him to come to unambiguous conclusion about the validity of the hypothesis. My contention goes much further then that: Galileo had neither the knowledge nor the technical means required to prove our hypothesis experimentally.

Please let me know if it is clear or not. If not, I am willing to elaborate on it as long as it takes, because it is very important and very tricky point, and it must be understood. Please do not hesitate to ask questions, any questions, for it is the only way I can gauge how much sense makes to you what I am trying to communicate.

The common explanation for the two falling objects is that gravity pulls the hammer with a greater force than the feather since it have more mass, on the other hand because it have more mass, it takes more force to move it than the lightweight feather, so eventually there will be a state of equivalence which will accelerate them equally (in vacuum of course).

So my question is what's wrong with this explanation ?

gravity pulls the hammer with a greater force than the feather since it have more mass

A perfectly legitimate premise that does not contradict observation. Call it Premise A.

, on the other hand because it have more mass, it takes more force to move it than the lightweight feather

Another perfectly legitimate premise that does not contradict observation. Call it Premise B.

, so eventually there will be a state of equivalence which will accelerate them equally (in vacuum of course).

This inference from correct premises A and B is logically flawed. The easiest way to see that is by way of counter-example. Indeed, consider the following conjecture.

Conjecture C: The force of gravitational pull between masses m1 and m2 is given by formula F = (m1*m2)^K/R^2, where K is close to 1 but not equal to 1. For example, K=1/2.

Now, it is obvious that Conjecture C is in agreement with Premise A; it is obvious as well that conjecture C does not contradict Premise B. But your conclusion

, so eventually there will be a state of equivalence which will accelerate them equally (in vacuum of course).

However, I personally do not think it is radical enough for my quest. It represents the let's be lazy radical approach, and not re examine completely every aspect of modern physics.

The Magnetic current that Ed proposed comes from a time when there were 2 competing well researched explanations, one based on magnets and championed by Weber, the other Electric and championed by Franklinites. The Franklinites basically bought off JJ Thompson by giving him public awards and recognition for the discovery of the Electron!

Thompson , by the way refused for a very long time to call his discovery an electron, because , as he explained, he was dealing with a "plasma" substance quantitatively, not counting individual visible particles. This is why he developed the atomic model that Rutherford " laughed off" as the " sticky pudding " model.

Weber himself was suborned by his relationship with Gauss, and his work on magnetic compasses for the Prussian Navy, much of which was a military secret. I have not yet researched Goethe philosophical framework which challenged Gilbert's presentation of the scientific enquiry model I believe but maintained magnetism as the core manifestation of the aether.

I think we do need to go back to these seminal ideas, and reexamine the empirical, and ideological basis for the conclusions reached. In particular Örsteds philosophy merits a fuller exposition .

Boyle was reduced to speaking in riddles about the electric fluids he suspected in all materials. This was because he was careful to avoid the charge of being an Occultist, or worse still an Alchemist polluting the coin of the realm! But he worked very hard to overturn that law in Britain that the church was using to condemn and ruin men of science. Boyle and many others felt magnetism was the force that acted between planets, but they did not know how, and suspected some other fluid was involved, which we now openly want to call electricity, but should not be misled by Eddisons propaganda machine.

Plasma is fir me the new and malleable term for these aether or material manifestations suspected or observed by these early researchers and philosophers. It will be fought over by vested interests seeking to promote their ideology, as I indeed use it to communicate my searchings, but while we have this opportunity before the new EU paradigm takes hold , let's get the " truth out there"!

Let us suppose that a magnetic current has a structure as ken describes. But when the power becomes huge the magnetic explode into baby magnetic structures. Let us suppose that the Maser effect also holds, thus we seek a reflective boundary at which magnetic structures and currents can be repeatedly reflected into coherence with strong coherent 2-way bursts .

Matter may be sufficiently reflective to huge magnetic currents to create fractal Maser patterns, and leave behind coherent magnetic structures in ferromagnetic materials, and incoherent magnetic structures in other materials .

Let us continue with our scrutiny of Galileo's and Einstein's ideas.

Hopefully, I have convinced you by now that Galileo had neither the knowledge nor the technical means required to prove experimentally the hypothesis of free-fall acceleration invariance.

Now I will try to convince you that the hypothesis of free-fall acceleration invariance cannot be proved to begin with – neither experimentally nor otherwise – for the simple reason that this hypothesis contradicts logic and common sense. In other words, I will try to prove that this hypothesis is false.

Let's start with the assumption that the second law of Newton, F=m*a, the law of universal gravitation, F=G*m*M/R^2, and the principle of superposition of gravitational fields are all valid. Let us calculate accelerations for the hammer and for the feather in the two scenarios depicted in the attached figure: M – Earth's mass, m1 – hammer's mass, m2 – feather's mass, and R is the distance from the center of the Earth to the point where the acceleration is taking place. The calculations are elementary and we get the following formulas for the hammer's acceleration, a1, and feather's acceleration, a2:

We observe that a1 ≠ a2, i.e. the hypothesis of free-fall acceleration invariance contradicts the laws and principles of Newton's mechanics!

Now, I foresee three, more or less reasonable, objections to the above substantiation of my contention that the hypothesis of free-fall acceleration invariance contradicts logic. And I wish to behead all three objections, pardon the pun, before they raise their heads in somebody's head.

Objection 1. You are just playing dirty games: what you have designated as the mass of Earth, M, has different numerical values in the two scenarios with the hammer and the feather.

Very well. Let's do the calculations keeping in mind this very reasonable objection. Let M denote the mass of the Earth including masses of all the hammers and all the feathers on the planet Earth. Now we get the following expressions for the accelerations of the hammer and the feather, respectively:

Again, we see that a1≠a2, i.e. Objection 1 did not work out the way it was expected to by the potential objector!

Objection 2. But we know that the laws and principles of Newtonian mechanics, which you have accepted as valid from the start, are not quite correct and they, in fact, hold only approximately. Therefore, your demonstration is not thorough because it ignores Einstein's corrections of Newton in regards to the second law, F=m*a, as well as to the law of universal gravitation, F=G*m*M/R^2.

Very well. I do not wish to delve here into Einstein's theories of special and general relativity – that wouldn't do any good because very few people can make sense of these theories; and I, along with Tesla and many other reasonable men, suspect the reason for it is that these theories are nonsensical.

Instead, in order to behead Objection 2, I will point out to the objector that the validity of my demonstration is not hinged, or dependent on any particular expression of the law of universal gravitation. Indeed, we can easily repeat the acceleration calculations with the assumption of many other, largely different laws of universal gravitation. For example, assume the following law of universal gravitation:

F = G*(m*M)^K/R^2, where K is a positive constant nearly equal to 1; or F = (m*M)[k0 + k1*(m/M) + k2*(m/M)^2 + k3*(m/M)^3 + ... ]*f(R), where k1, k2, k3, ... are some positive coefficients in Taylor expansion, and f(R) is an arbitrary function of distance between the two gravitating objects.

We still get the pesky inequality a1≠a2!

Objection 3. The inequality a1≠a2 you are talking about is so indistinguishably near to the equality a1=a2 that discussing it is sheer waste of time.

Really? Imagine two "hammers" of the size of the Moon each now. Does the inequality a1≠a2 still look insignificant to you?

Are there any other reasonable objections to my demonstration? I would be happy to hear them from you and to address them.

The magnetic current is just there, travelling down the centre . But note also the clockwise and counterclockwise rotations. The pinch effect is the dielectric plane or bloch wall ken is highlighting.

Magnetic reciprocation ? I am looking for reflection , but reciprocate is to inversely respond. However it is now heavily arithmetical and its meaning is more than reflecting , it includes inverting and then sending back.

We have 2 torsion terminations free and fixed. The free tends to reflect without much distortion, the fixed reflects but also inverts the distortion . This is the precise behaviour I want to explore in regard to Masing .

The two Forms of the Equation are for different purposes. One is to explain Keplers laws on an axiomatic basis , the principles of motion of astrological bodies, the other is to explain motions within a common field where all objects are centripetally attracted and thus gain their mass related force by this common centred attraction.

The model has to be fitted to the local circumstances and do requires supporting data to tune it to its use. This very fact alone makes it clear that it was never a universal law by default. It was a solar system rule that hot pushed beyond it design and empirical limit.

How did we get voyager out to the planets? Not by using Newtons law! Colorectal data of the planetary alignments and correct Adjustments of the velocities allowed the force between bodies to be estimated and velocities to be adjusted accordingly.

No one knows the mass of any of the planets or the stars, so the law has to be based solely on proportions. The velocities thus are based on proportions and estimates have proven to be justified within certain limits.

Galileo had a critic , Grimaldi, who demonstrated several times that his assertions were not founded . However the power of his Dialogo, his fractal pattern and the revelatory drawings of the planets and other observations made him a folk hero for Protestant scientists.

Back in those days you did not have to be extremely precise, just good enough to predict the next eclipse. However the genius of Newton was his model, like the Antykythera machine before it, accounted for all the known and observed astrological phenomena. It is when he started to predict tides that naval people started to sit up and take notice.

The point is that locally when we measure the acceleration centripetal to the earth in his model it has by design to be a constant. Thus his Acceleration for the rock and the feather only need to be apparently the same. You combine 2 accelerations in an odd way, but nevertheless the first part necessarily confirms the acceleration as the same. The second part shows that for the hammer and the feather the earth is negligible attracted.

If you read Newton you will know that he not only employed approximations he did do in the safest way he knew how. Thus he did not set small perturbations to 0 as some particularly Berkley claimed, he in fact waited until they were 0! This is the training of a qualified astrologer, to denote the opportune time for any activity!

Kens inertial -acceleration and force- motion distinction applies here. The earth is do massive it appears not to move to a third party. Thus it is a third party viewpoint that reveals inertia and acceleration as a coupled system, and force and motion as a separate but connected coupled system.

Jehovajah, you are making some very good points in your last comment.

You combine 2 accelerations in an odd way, but nevertheless the first part necessarily confirms the acceleration as the same. The second part shows that for the hammer and the feather the earth is negligible attracted.

I will take this as:

Objection 4. In your demonstration, you have used two identical hammers, and two identical feathers, both pairs symmetrically located with respect to the Earth, instead of using one hammer and one feather in free-fall as you should. Isn't that dishonest?

Very well. Let us do it the "honest" way rather than the "odd way". No matter how we arrange the three bodies in question – the hammer (m1), the feather (m2), and the Earth (M) – we shall not ignore any of the three pairs of gravitational interactions: (m1 →← M), (m2 →← M), and (m1 →← m2). That's the honest (and one step closer to holistic) way. Now, do the calculations again, and you'll find that getting rid of the inequality a1≠a2 by doing things the honest way becomes even harder. Indeed, depending on the distance between the hammer and the feather, r, the "second part" of acceleration (i.e. G*m1/r^2 for feather, and G*m2/r^2 for hammer) can get, theoretically, even bigger than the "first part" (i.e. G*M/R^2), no matter how big M might be compared to m1, or m2.

Now the only escape that seems left to us is nitpicking for being overly theoretical. Call it Objection 5, and it is the tough one. The only way I can respond to it is to acknowledge: I am not aware of any model - be it Galileo's, Newton's, Maxwell's, or anyone else's - which, if pushed far enough, does not lead to nonsensical logical conclusions. And it seems safe to assert that Einstein's theories of special and general relativity are by far the most nonsensical them all; they appear as little more than mathematical toys devoid of both physical sense and practical value.

The alternating magnetic frequency alternated by radio frequency magnetic currents

A bar magnet maintains one magnetic status, but that staus can be dynamically changed. Thus a battery must contain a varyin magnetic staus.

Let us assume a magnet achieves a standing rotational wave in which the dynamic rotation appears from the centre, expands and refracts back into the centre of the opposite side, similarly a rotationl wave emanates from this opposite side refracts and enters in at the opposite side.. The MASER acts at the dielectric Bloch wall generating these rotating waves out of both ends.

The Maser requires a collimatir to focus its output so a mased output naturally expands even when it is a coherent " beam".

For this model to apply an environmental pumping source must be identified and that may be the earths magnetic emanations. Thus when 2 magnets are brought together within the earths magnetic emanations the new magnetic structure is immediately pumped from the environment and a new Bloch wall is established at the centre.

Let us continue scrutinizing kaleidoscopic, patchwork-quilt-like view of nature as nothing but heap of dead, flat matter allegedly governed by the so-called second law of thermodynamics. In this installment I will consider yet another objection to my assertion that the hypothesis of free-fall acceleration invariance cannot be proved – experimentally, or otherwise.

Objection 6. In all your demonstrations, so far, of the alleged logical inconsistency of Galileo's hypothesis of free-fall acceleration invariance, you have always used three bodies (two hammers and earth; two feathers and earth; a hammer, a feather, and earth) insisting that holistic approach requires that we take into account all three pairs of gravitational interactions. But your insistence on the holistic approach is hogwash because taking into account three bodies is not much more holistic than taking into account just two of them. True holistic approach would require taking into account every possible type of interaction (mechanical, electrical, magnetic, gravitational, and multitude of others we don’t even know about) between all the bodies in the entire universe! Such an approach is obviously untenable; therefore, it is of no use to us. Hence, we have no other choice but to be content with what you have fastidiously called kaleidoscopic, patchwork-quilt-like view of nature. With the gravitational interaction of two bodies alone, you will find no logical contradiction between Galileo's hypothesis and Newton's laws of physics.

This is a sober, legitimate, and very compelling objection, so let's consider it with all due seriousness.

We analyze gravitational interaction of two bodies in the framework of Newtonian physics (click on the enclosed figure to enlarge it): CG denotes the center of gravity (or center of mass, if you wish) of the interacting bodies M1 and M2; the center of gravity is associated with an instance of inertial frame of reference, in which, we are told, the laws of Newton hold. Let us calculate the free-fall acceleration for each body using Newton's second law along with the law of universal gravitation. We easily get the following formulas for the accelerations:

A1 = G*M2/(R1 + R2)^2, A2 = G*M1/(R1 + R2)^2.

We see that free-fall acceleration of either body does not depend on its own mass – it depends on the mass of the other body alone – and that is exactly what Galileo has asserted! It looks like we are caught red-handed.

Not so fast. I want to demonstrate next that there is a great deal of subtle tautology in the interplay of physics and mathematics of Newton – something that, so far, has apparently escaped scrutiny.

What is Newton's definition of acceleration? It is the time derivative of velocity: A = dV/dt. And what is the definition of velocity? It is the time derivative of distance: V = dS/dt. And what distance exactly we should plug in into this definition of velocity? Clearly, S is not to be equated with the distance between the two interacting bodies, R1 + R2. Indeed, if we take S = R1 + R2, then we can get out of it, by mathematical manipulation, one velocity only, and from one velocity we can get one acceleration only. The distance S, of course, is the distance between the body, for which the velocity is sought, and the origin of an inertial frame of reference. Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that because distance S is, according to Newton, to be defined as a vector quantity rather than a scalar. However, since we are analyzing rectilinear motion here, we can safely ignore this tricky, vector vs. scalar, point.

It should be clear by now that we shall plug in S = R1 while doing velocity and acceleration calculations for body M1, and S = R2 while doing velocity and acceleration calculations for body M2. Let’s get on with actual calculations according to Newton's calculus.

At point of time t = t0, we have the configuration depicted in the attached figure. After the passage of infinitely small amount of time Δt, at point t = t0 + Δt, the bodies will get a bit closer to each other:

R1 → R1 – ΔR1, R2 → R2 – ΔR2.

By the very definition of the CG (which, as we have noted already, is at the origin of an inertial frame of reference and, therefore, is at rest, or moving with constant speed – whatever that means), we shall have:

M1*R1 = M2*R2, M1*(R1 – ΔR1) = M2*(R2 – ΔR2).

Subtracting the second equation from the first one, we get:

M1*ΔR1 = M2*ΔR2.

Dividing this equation by Δt, we get the following relationship between the two velocities:

M1*V1 = M2*V2,

Think for a moment about this relationship. What is the meaning of it? Does it have any physical content, or is it a mere tautology? These are not idle questions. Indeed, on the one hand, you can treat it as a new law of physics: linear momenta of interacting bodies are always equal; this law holds true not only for gravitational interactions, but for any interaction (don't confuse this law with the law of conservation of linear momentum!) On the other hand, we just deduced this new law by using nothing but two abstract mathematical definitions: (a) definition of center of gravity, CG; and (2) definition of velocity, V. It looks very much like tautology to me.

But this is just the beginning of weird stuff. Let's go on with our calculations in accord with Newton's mathematics. In order to calculate the accelerations, we can use the new law (tautology?) we have just derived; we apply it to two infinitely near instants of time:

M1*V1 = M2*V2, M1*(V1 + ΔV1) = M2*(V2 + ΔV2).

Subtracting the first equation from the second one, we get:

M1*ΔV1 = M2*ΔV2.

By dividing this equation by Δt, we get the following relationship between the two accelerations:

M1*A1 = M2*A2,

Think for a moment about this relationship. What is the meaning of it? Does it have any physical content, or is it a mere tautology? These are not idle questions either. Indeed, on the one hand, you can recognize in this relationship the third law of Newton – action equals reaction – which holds true not only for gravitational interaction, but for any kind of interaction. On the other hand, we just deduced it by using nothing but three abstract mathematical definitions: (a) definition of center of gravity, CG; (2) definition of velocity, V; and (3) definition of acceleration, A. It looks very much like tautology to me.

This relationship between accelerations of the interacting bodies is in perfect agreement with the expressions for accelerations, which we have derived earlier from the second law of Newton and the law of universal gravitation:

A1 = G*M2/(R1 + R2)^2, A2 = G*M1/(R1 + R2)^2.

However, we have derived this relationship, i.e. M1*A1 = M2*A2, just from three abstract mathematical definitions without making any use of any laws of nature! It looks like Sir Isaac Newton presented us with plenty of tautology but not much of a science. At long last, I am starting to appreciate Jehovajah’s allusions to the fact that Newton was an astrologer and alchemist.

There is growing realization that natural philosophy took the wrong turn in the first quarter of the 20th century with the advent of Einstein’s theories of relativity and the quantum mechanics. However, it is quite possible that the seed of trouble has been sown long before that. I cannot help but think that natural science started with the wrong footing from the very beginning with the untenable concept of inertial frame of reference by Galileo and Newton. I feel strongly that we need to go back to drawing board and reexamine everything. In particular, we need to go back to vortex ideas of Descartes and Leibniz, go on from there with the similar ideas of Ørsted, Maxwell, Tesla, and Leedskalnin to erect the entire body of science upon the solid foundation of the principle of scale invariance of the laws of nature.

## Comments

experimentallythat the acceleration of a test body due to gravitation is independent of the mass of the test body. Einstein went even further with his principle of gravitational and inertial mass equivalence: Now I will try to convince you that not only Galileo did not prove that, but also that he could not possibly prove itexperimentally.In the "Boyd Bushman on Antigravity" video above, it says (around @ 6:10) that Apollo 15 Commander David Scott revisits Galileo and conducts gravity test on the Moon in 1971. He releases simultaneously a hammer from one hand and a falcon feather from the other, observes that both hit the ground at the same time, and then concludes that Galileo was right. There is a fundamental, and very instructive fallacy in the way Commander Scott conducts his scientific business. What is it? It's in the hidden, unspoken, or, perhaps, even subconscious assumption, which, when recognized, can easily be argued to be in direct and violent contradiction with common sense.

The unspoken assumption is: Since the hammer and the falcon feather differ

significantlyin mass, the difference in time intervals they take to hit the ground would be large enough to bereadily detectableby our naked eyesif Galileo was wrong. And since we do not easily detect any difference with naked eyes, it follows that Galileo was in the right. But it takes just moment's thought to see that this line of reasoning has no solid ground under it.Indeed, what is the cause of acceleration? Common sense tells us that the main factor here is

by farthe Moon itself. Therefore the mass of the Moon naturally shall be considered as the main contributor to the value of acceleration of a falling body. At this point it is entirely natural to assume that the mass of the falling body also contributes itsnon-zeroshare to the value of acceleration (unless we simply postulate the absence of such contributiona priorias Einstein did – without any justification whatsoever – on a par with his another nonsensical postulate about the speed of light being the upper limit of speed feasible in all nature). But if the mass of the falling body has non-zero impact on the value of its acceleration in free-fall, it is only reasonable to expect that the magnitude of this impact would be in the proportion of its mass to the mass of the Moon. Therefore the expected difference in the values of accelerations for the hammer and the feather would be of the orderrather than(Mass of Hammer - Mass of Feather)/Mass of Moon. Hence, the difference in time intervals that the two bodies would take to hit the ground after being dropped from the same height would be of the same order. Now, I can assure you that Commander David Scott had no bloody chance on Earth (on Moon, or anywhere else) of detecting with his naked eyes such an infinitesimal time-interval difference, even if we assume that he was in the possession of falcon's eyesight.(Mass of Hammer - Mass of Feather)Galileo was even in a worse situation for obvious reasons. Let us do the math. What is the heaviest "hammer" Galileo could possibly drop from the Pisa tower? A 1000 kg "hammer" perhaps – but certainly not heavier than that. Therefore, considering that Earth's mass is about 6 x 10^24 kg, Galileo would need, at the very least, to have a chronometer with a resolution in the order of

seconds in order to prove acceleration invariance experimentally! That was way beyond the reach of Galileo, not to mention that Galileo did not, nay, could not even know what the Earth's mass was to begin with.10 to the power of minus 21Forget Galileo, even today no one could possibly prove

experimentallythat Galileo was in the right for the simple reason that the lack of chronometer of required accuracy is but one of the many troubles – it is not even the main one. The main trouble is that Galileo was either in the wrong, or hypothesis of free-fall acceleration invariance is simply a tautology.Please stay in your seats, folks, we are not there yet. To be continued.

I did not understood nothing from what you said. Can you please and in simple words

explain why in your opinion the feather and the hammer will hit the ground almost

simultaneously (ignore the 10 to the power minus 21 seconds difference) ?

I have an explanation but first I want to understand your clear idea, if you will, on this topic.

Nothing could be easier than to give a straight and concise answer to your question, and here it is. Indeed, I do not doubt that on the Moon, where there is no atmosphere to impede the free-fall of bodies, the feather and the hammer will hit the ground

almostsimultaneously, not because Commander David Scott proved it experimentally (I have some reservations that he was on the Moon to begin with, but that's another story), but simply because that was provedexperimentallyon the Earth by Galileo (roughly) and by many others (with more precision) since then.Perhaps, the reader will be now at a total loss. I can hear loudly the followup question: If you do not doubt that, then what all the fuss is about? And that is the question which really requires some explanation; that is the question, the answer to which is so important.

What is the issue we are discussing here? There is a scientific hypothesis: every object in free-fall near the surface of the Earth is moving with constant acceleration, and the numerical value of that acceleration is the same for all objects, i.e.

, it depends on the characteristics of the Earth alone; to be more specific, it depends on the distribution of the mass of the Earth alone. And we would like to know whether this hypothesis is true or not. That is precisely the issue we are discussing here.it does not depend on the mass of the falling bodyNow, before we even get to the pressing question of how do we go about solving our problem, it is extremely important to clarify couple of things. First, our hypothesis does not say anything about the accuracy with which the alleged invariance of the free-fall acceleration is to hold; second, the hypothesis makes a great emphasis on the claim that

.the free-fall acceleration does not depend on the mass of the falling bodyNow we are ready to face the pressing practical question: How do we go about solving our problem? This is a question of scientific methodology, in other words, this is a question of what is the proper way to conduct scientific business. There are two major, time-honored and well-known ways to do it: (1) Conduct scientific experiments and make up your mind about the validity of the hypothesis on the basis of the experimental results you get; (2) Assume

a priorithat the hypothesis is valid and see where it leads you (in other words, treat the hypothesis as a postulate and stick to your postulate as long as it does not get you into trouble).It is entirely up to you which way you want to go. But if you decide to go down the first path, i.e. by way of experimenting, then

. And that is precisely the bone I have to pick with those who claim that Galileo proved the above hypothesis experimentally:it is part of your job to state and resolve the question of accuracy of experimental data that could and would allow you to come to unambiguous conclusion about the validity of the hypothesisGalileo did not state, much less resolve, the question of accuracy of experimental data that could and would allow him to come to unambiguous conclusion about the validity of the hypothesis. My contention goes much further then that:Galileo had neither the knowledge nor the technical means required to prove our hypothesis experimentally.Please let me know if it is clear or not. If not, I am willing to elaborate on it as long as it takes, because it is very important and very tricky point, and it must be understood. Please do not hesitate to ask questions, any questions, for it is the only way I can gauge how much sense makes to you what I am trying to communicate.

a greater force than the feather since it have more mass, on the other hand because it have

more mass, it takes more force to move it than the lightweight feather, so eventually there

will be a state of equivalence which will accelerate them equally (in vacuum of course).

So my question is what's wrong with this explanation ?

Conjecture C: The force of gravitational pull between masses m1 and m2 is given by formula

F = (m1*m2)^K/R^2, where K is close to 1 but not equal to 1. For example, K=1/2.

Now, it is obvious that Conjecture C is in agreement with Premise A; it is obvious as well that conjecture C does not contradict Premise B. But your conclusion does not follow.

What are you suggesting ?

And not less important, do you have a mechanical explanation to this phenomena ?

However, I personally do not think it is radical enough for my quest. It represents the let's be lazy radical approach, and not re examine completely every aspect of modern physics.

The Magnetic current that Ed proposed comes from a time when there were 2 competing well researched explanations, one based on magnets and championed by Weber, the other Electric and championed by Franklinites. The Franklinites basically bought off JJ Thompson by giving him public awards and recognition for the discovery of the Electron!

Thompson , by the way refused for a very long time to call his discovery an electron, because , as he explained, he was dealing with a "plasma" substance quantitatively, not counting individual visible particles. This is why he developed the atomic model that Rutherford " laughed off" as the " sticky pudding " model.

Weber himself was suborned by his relationship with Gauss, and his work on magnetic compasses for the Prussian Navy, much of which was a military secret. I have not yet researched Goethe philosophical framework which challenged Gilbert's presentation of the scientific enquiry model I believe but maintained magnetism as the core manifestation of the aether.

I think we do need to go back to these seminal ideas, and reexamine the empirical, and ideological basis for the conclusions reached. In particular Örsteds philosophy merits a fuller exposition .

Boyle was reduced to speaking in riddles about the electric fluids he suspected in all materials. This was because he was careful to avoid the charge of being an Occultist, or worse still an Alchemist polluting the coin of the realm! But he worked very hard to overturn that law in Britain that the church was using to condemn and ruin men of science. Boyle and many others felt magnetism was the force that acted between planets, but they did not know how, and suspected some other fluid was involved, which we now openly want to call electricity, but should not be misled by Eddisons propaganda machine.

Plasma is fir me the new and malleable term for these aether or material manifestations suspected or observed by these early researchers and philosophers. It will be fought over by vested interests seeking to promote their ideology, as I indeed use it to communicate my searchings, but while we have this opportunity before the new EU paradigm takes hold , let's get the " truth out there"!

Let us suppose that a magnetic current has a structure as ken describes. But when the power becomes huge the magnetic explode into baby magnetic structures. Let us suppose that the Maser effect also holds, thus we seek a reflective boundary at which magnetic structures and currents can be repeatedly reflected into coherence with strong coherent 2-way bursts .

Matter may be sufficiently reflective to huge magnetic currents to create fractal Maser patterns, and leave behind coherent magnetic structures in ferromagnetic materials, and incoherent magnetic structures in other materials .

Hopefully, I have convinced you by now that Galileo had neither the knowledge nor the technical means required to prove

experimentallythe hypothesis of free-fall acceleration invariance.Now I will try to convince you that the hypothesis of free-fall acceleration invariance cannot be proved to begin with – neither experimentally nor otherwise – for the simple reason that this hypothesis contradicts logic and common sense. In other words, I will try to prove that this hypothesis is false.

Let's start with the assumption that the second law of Newton, F=m*a, the law of universal gravitation, F=G*m*M/R^2, and the principle of superposition of gravitational fields are all valid. Let us calculate accelerations for the hammer and for the feather in the two scenarios depicted in the attached figure: M – Earth's mass, m1 – hammer's mass, m2 – feather's mass, and R is the distance from the center of the Earth to the point where the acceleration is taking place. The calculations are elementary and we get the following formulas for the hammer's acceleration, a1, and feather's acceleration, a2:

a1 = G*M/R^2 + G*m1/(2*R)^2,

a2 = G*M/R^2 + G*m2/(2*R)^2.

We observe that a1 ≠ a2, i.e. the hypothesis of free-fall acceleration invariance contradicts the laws and principles of Newton's mechanics!

Now, I foresee three, more or less reasonable, objections to the above substantiation of my contention that the hypothesis of free-fall acceleration invariance contradicts logic. And I wish to behead all three objections, pardon the pun, before they raise their heads in somebody's head. Very well. Let's do the calculations keeping in mind this very reasonable objection. Let M denote the mass of the Earth including masses of all the hammers and all the feathers on the planet Earth. Now we get the following expressions for the accelerations of the hammer and the feather, respectively:

a1 = G*(M – 2*m1)/R^2 + G*m1/(2*R)^2 = G*M/R^2 – 7*G*m1/(2*R)^2,

a2 = G*(M – 2*m2)/R^2 + G*m2/(2*R)^2 = G*M/R^2 – 7*G*m2/(2*R)^2.

Again, we see that a1≠a2, i.e.

Objection 1did not work out the way it was expected to by the potential objector! Very well. I do not wish to delve here into Einstein's theories of special and general relativity – that wouldn't do any good because very few people can make sense of these theories; and I, along with Tesla and many other reasonable men, suspect the reason for it is that these theories are nonsensical.Instead, in order to behead

Objection 2, I will point out to the objector that the validity of my demonstration is not hinged, or dependent on any particular expression of the law of universal gravitation. Indeed, we can easily repeat the acceleration calculations with the assumption of many other, largely different laws of universal gravitation. For example, assume the following law of universal gravitation:F = G*(m*M)^K/R^2, where K is a positive constant nearly equal to 1;

or

F = (m*M)[k0 + k1*(m/M) + k2*(m/M)^2 + k3*(m/M)^3 + ... ]*f(R), where k1, k2, k3, ... are some positive coefficients in Taylor expansion, and f(R) is an arbitrary function of distance between the two gravitating objects.

We still get the pesky inequality a1≠a2! Really? Imagine two "hammers" of the size of the Moon each now. Does the inequality a1≠a2 still look insignificant to you?

Are there any other reasonable objections to my demonstration? I would be happy to hear them from you and to address them.

Magnetic reciprocation ? I am looking for reflection , but reciprocate is to inversely respond. However it is now heavily arithmetical and its meaning is more than reflecting , it includes inverting and then sending back.

We have 2 torsion terminations free and fixed. The free tends to reflect without much distortion, the fixed reflects but also inverts the distortion . This is the precise behaviour I want to explore in regard to Masing .

The two Forms of the Equation are for different purposes. One is to explain Keplers laws on an axiomatic basis , the principles of motion of astrological bodies, the other is to explain motions within a common field where all objects are centripetally attracted and thus gain their mass related force by this common centred attraction.

The model has to be fitted to the local circumstances and do requires supporting data to tune it to its use. This very fact alone makes it clear that it was never a universal law by default. It was a solar system rule that hot pushed beyond it design and empirical limit.

How did we get voyager out to the planets? Not by using Newtons law! Colorectal data of the planetary alignments and correct Adjustments of the velocities allowed the force between bodies to be estimated and velocities to be adjusted accordingly.

No one knows the mass of any of the planets or the stars, so the law has to be based solely on proportions. The velocities thus are based on proportions and estimates have proven to be justified within certain limits.

Galileo had a critic , Grimaldi, who demonstrated several times that his assertions were not founded . However the power of his Dialogo, his fractal pattern and the revelatory drawings of the planets and other observations made him a folk hero for Protestant scientists.

Back in those days you did not have to be extremely precise, just good enough to predict the next eclipse. However the genius of Newton was his model, like the Antykythera machine before it, accounted for all the known and observed astrological phenomena. It is when he started to predict tides that naval people started to sit up and take notice.

The point is that locally when we measure the acceleration centripetal to the earth in his model it has by design to be a constant. Thus his Acceleration for the rock and the feather only need to be apparently the same. You combine 2 accelerations in an odd way, but nevertheless the first part necessarily confirms the acceleration as the same. The second part shows that for the hammer and the feather the earth is negligible attracted.

If you read Newton you will know that he not only employed approximations he did do in the safest way he knew how. Thus he did not set small perturbations to 0 as some particularly Berkley claimed, he in fact waited until they were 0! This is the training of a qualified astrologer, to denote the opportune time for any activity!

Kens inertial -acceleration and force- motion distinction applies here. The earth is do massive it appears not to move to a third party. Thus it is a third party viewpoint that reveals inertia and acceleration as a coupled system, and force and motion as a separate but connected coupled system.

theoretically, even bigger than the "first part" (i.e. G*M/R^2), no matter how big M might be compared to m1, or m2.Now the only escape that seems left to us is nitpicking for being overly

theoretical. Call it, and it is the tough one. The only way I can respond to it is to acknowledge: I am not aware of any model - be it Galileo's, Newton's, Maxwell's, or anyone else's - which, if pushed far enough, does not lead to nonsensical logical conclusions. And it seems safe to assert that Einstein's theories of special and general relativity areObjection 5by farthe most nonsensical them all; they appear as little more than mathematical toys devoid of both physical sense and practical value.A bar magnet maintains one magnetic status, but that staus can be dynamically changed. Thus a battery must contain a varyin magnetic staus.

Let us assume a magnet achieves a standing rotational wave in which the dynamic rotation appears from the centre, expands and refracts back into the centre of the opposite side, similarly a rotationl wave emanates from this opposite side refracts and enters in at the opposite side.. The MASER acts at the dielectric Bloch wall generating these rotating waves out of both ends.

The Maser requires a collimatir to focus its output so a mased output naturally expands even when it is a coherent " beam".

For this model to apply an environmental pumping source must be identified and that may be the earths magnetic emanations. Thus when 2 magnets are brought together within the earths magnetic emanations the new magnetic structure is immediately pumped from the environment and a new Bloch wall is established at the centre.

This is a sober, legitimate, and very compelling objection, so let's consider it with all due seriousness.

We analyze gravitational interaction of two bodies in the framework of Newtonian physics (click on the enclosed figure to enlarge it): CG denotes the center of gravity (or center of mass, if you wish) of the interacting bodies M1 and M2; the center of gravity is associated with an instance of

inertialframe of reference, in which, we are told, the laws of Newton hold. Let us calculate the free-fall acceleration for each body using Newton's second law along with the law of universal gravitation. We easily get the following formulas for the accelerations:A1 = G*M2/(R1 + R2)^2,

A2 = G*M1/(R1 + R2)^2.

We see that free-fall acceleration of either body does not depend on its own mass – it depends on the mass of the other body

alone– and that is exactly what Galileo has asserted! It looks like we are caught red-handed.Not so fast. I want to demonstrate next that there is a great deal of subtle tautology in the interplay of physics and mathematics of Newton – something that, so far, has apparently escaped scrutiny.

What is Newton's definition of acceleration? It is the time derivative of velocity: A = dV/dt. And what is the definition of velocity? It is the time derivative of distance: V = dS/dt. And what distance exactly we should plug in into this definition of velocity? Clearly, S is not to be equated with the distance between the two interacting bodies, R1 + R2. Indeed, if we take S = R1 + R2, then we can get out of it, by mathematical manipulation, one velocity only, and from one velocity we can get one acceleration only. The distance S, of course, is the distance between the body, for which the velocity is sought, and the origin of an

inertialframe of reference. Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that because distance S is, according to Newton, to be defined as a vector quantity rather than a scalar. However, since we are analyzing rectilinear motion here, we can safely ignore this tricky,vector vs. scalar, point.It should be clear by now that we shall plug in S = R1 while doing velocity and acceleration calculations for body M1, and S = R2 while doing velocity and acceleration calculations for body M2. Let’s get on with actual calculations according to Newton's calculus.

At point of time t = t0, we have the configuration depicted in the attached figure. After the passage of infinitely small amount of time Δt, at point t = t0 + Δt, the bodies will get a bit closer to each other:

R1 → R1 – ΔR1,

R2 → R2 – ΔR2.

By the very definition of the CG (which, as we have noted already, is at the origin of an

inertialframe of reference and, therefore, is at rest, or moving with constant speed – whatever that means), we shall have:M1*R1 = M2*R2,

M1*(R1 – ΔR1) = M2*(R2 – ΔR2).

Subtracting the second equation from the first one, we get:

M1*ΔR1 = M2*ΔR2.

Dividing this equation by Δt, we get the following relationship between the two velocities:

M1*V1 = M2*V2,

Think for a moment about this relationship. What is the meaning of it? Does it have any physical content, or is it a mere tautology? These are not idle questions. Indeed, on the one hand, you can treat it as a

newlaw of physics: linear momenta of interacting bodies are always equal; this law holds true not only for gravitational interactions, but for any interaction (don't confuse this law with the law of conservation of linear momentum!) On the other hand, we just deduced this new law by using nothing but two abstract mathematical definitions: (a) definition of center of gravity, CG; and (2) definition of velocity, V. It looks very much like tautology to me.But this is just the beginning of weird stuff. Let's go on with our calculations in accord with Newton's mathematics. In order to calculate the accelerations, we can use the new law (tautology?) we have just derived; we apply it to two infinitely near instants of time:

M1*V1 = M2*V2,

M1*(V1 + ΔV1) = M2*(V2 + ΔV2).

Subtracting the first equation from the second one, we get:

M1*ΔV1 = M2*ΔV2.

By dividing this equation by Δt, we get the following relationship between the two accelerations:

M1*A1 = M2*A2,

Think for a moment about this relationship. What is the meaning of it? Does it have any physical content, or is it a mere tautology? These are not idle questions either. Indeed, on the one hand, you can recognize in this relationship the third law of Newton – action equals reaction – which holds true not only for gravitational interaction, but for any kind of interaction. On the other hand, we just deduced it by using nothing but three abstract mathematical definitions: (a) definition of center of gravity, CG; (2) definition of velocity, V; and (3) definition of acceleration, A. It looks very much like tautology to me.

This relationship between accelerations of the interacting bodies is in perfect agreement with the expressions for accelerations, which we have derived earlier from the second law of Newton and the law of universal gravitation:

A1 = G*M2/(R1 + R2)^2,

A2 = G*M1/(R1 + R2)^2.

However, we have derived this relationship, i.e. M1*A1 = M2*A2, just from three abstract mathematical definitions without making any use of any laws of nature! It looks like Sir Isaac Newton presented us with plenty of tautology but not much of a science. At long last, I am starting to appreciate Jehovajah’s allusions to the fact that Newton was an astrologer and alchemist.

There is growing realization that natural philosophy took the wrong turn in the first quarter of the 20th century with the advent of Einstein’s theories of relativity and the quantum mechanics. However, it is quite possible that the seed of trouble has been sown long before that. I cannot help but think that natural science started with the wrong footing from the very beginning with the untenable concept of

inertialframe of reference by Galileo and Newton. I feel strongly that we need to go back to drawing board and reexamine everything. In particular, we need to go back to vortex ideas of Descartes and Leibniz, go on from there with the similar ideas of Ørsted, Maxwell, Tesla, and Leedskalnin to erect the entire body of science upon the solid foundation of the principle of scale invariance of the laws of nature.To be continued.