Why Copernicus Did Not Need a Force of Gravity

1. Why Copernicus Did Not Need a Force of Gravity
2. Other World Systems
3. Summary : Who Needs a Force of Gravity?

"Gravity, in fact, is not a true force."
It needs NO force carriers.

1.   Why Copernicus Did Not Need a Force of Gravity

 Most people are surprised to learn that Copernicus (1473-1543), indeed, did not need a gravitational force. In his "revolutionary" view, the Earth did not need a gravitational force and neither did the Copernican Solar System. The motion of Earthly objects and of the planets (and other heavenly bodies) was governed by principles developed by the Ancients. ... Gravity was not one of them.

If we look back to the Ancient Greeks and examine the system devised by Aristotle (384-322 BC), we find that his Geocentric cosmos did not need a force of gravity. The cosmos was ruled by the principles of natural motion. The natural motion of any terrestrial object involved "seeking its natural place." Since their natural place was at the center of the Earth, all falling objects were in "natural motion." No force was involved in such motion. The natural motion of celestial bodies involved moving in circles around the Earth; and accorded with their natural position as an embedded body on one or another transparent-and-rotating celestial sphere.  In the celestial realm Aristotle's system embodied Pythagoras's geometric ideal of perfect circular orbits. In the celestial realm, as in the terrestrial, no force was involved.

We could go even further back than the time of Aristotle and consider the rings-and-spheres system devised by Anaximander. Anaximander of Miletus (also known as Anaximandros) was born about 610 BC and died some time after 547 BC. Anaximander argued that the Sun was a hole in a fire-filled ring that encircled the Earth and revolved around it. The Moon was an opening in a separate fire-filled ring. The Moon-ring, however, had passages shaped like pipes through which the light from the fire escaped. Thus the phases of the Moon were explained by the Moon-pipe opening seen from various angles. The stars, he believed, were nothing more than holes in a rotating sphere, revealing otherwise hidden fires of the firmament.

And what, you might ask, kept the rings and spheres turning and kept the heavenly bodies moving along their celestial paths before the discovery of "natural motion" by the Ancients? ... It was the intervention of divine beings, the truly ancient mythical gods. It was pure magic. Helios the God of the Sun was conveyed in a chariot drawn by seven horses on daily journeys across the sky. The Egyptian version has Ra the Sun God being ferried by a heavenly boat as it cyclically sails across the daylight sky and through the dark Underworld. Each wandering star (planet) was under the control of a god or several gods.
 

The mathematician/astronomer Aristarchus of Samos (circa 280 BC) did not need a force of gravity for his Heliocentric system. Although Aristarchus is usually credited with being the first to place the Sun in a stationary state at the center of the universe the idea can be traced back to earlier philosophers. There was Philolaus of Croton, a pupil of the Pythagorean school in the 5th century BC, who suggested that the Earth orbits the Sun, not vice versa. Then, in the following century, the philosopher Heracleides of Pontus built on Philolaus’ ideas. The final touches were added by Aristarchus, who was born in 310 BC, the same year that Heracleides died.^[1] Like his fellow contemporary Greeks, Aristarchus subscribed to Aristotle's principles of motion for keeping his system running effortlessly. No force was required. Earth and the planets simply followed preordained, perfectly circular, orbits. However, having the Sun stationary at the center with the Earth flying around in "natural circular motion" was, at the time, considered too radical ! The idea was shelved and lay dormant for almost eighteen centuries.

It happened that Aristotle's system rose to dominancy. Sadly what was actually valid, the Aristarchean Heliocentricity, had been rejected; and what was dubiously valid, the natural state of circular motion, had been retained. In time, this error, no doubt, would have been discovered and quickly corrected. However, the Geocentric system became the "official" system backed by State and Church (often one and the same). ... Aristotle's Worldview became the theoretical foundation of Claudius Ptolemy's detailed astronomical system documented in the Almagest. It was also adopted by the Christian Church (to the future consternation of Galileo).

Fast-forward many long centuries. It is the 16th century and Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) has rediscovered the old Aristarchean System. By this time, not surprisingly, things had changed very little. The Official system still reigned (almost supreme) and everything still worked without a force of gravity.

We also find that Galileo (1564-1642) was a supporter of the no-force system.

Copernicus, as well as Galileo, simply went with the flow: Aristotle had stated the rules of natural motion; the rules were understood and had become an enduring part of natural philosophy. There seemed no reason to change the fundamentals of the world system. (In this light, the Copernican revolution of demoting the functional position of the Earth appears rather timid.)

But then two discoveries spoiled everything.

First and foremost, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), after brilliantly analyzing the numbers that Tycho Brahe had collected over many years, discovered that orbits of the local heavenly bodies did not have the divined perfection of circles. The visible planets actually moved in elliptical orbits. This was revolutionary. Whereas Copernicus and Galileo had made changes in the visible structure of the world system, Kepler forced changes in the very foundation.

Meanwhile, the work of Galileo led to the "discovery" that the natural state of motion is neither circular nor exponentially downward, but rather uniformly LINEAR. Galileo, after conducting numerous experiments with rolling balls, concluded that in the ideal case of zero resistance, horizontal motion would never stop.

In the absence of a net force the motion of the moving ball continues without change in a linear fashion. Newton, building on the foundation laid by Galileo, formalized the state of natural motion in a single statement: An object that is at rest will remain at rest, and an object that is moving will continue to move in a straight line with constant speed, if and only if the net force acting on the object is zero.

Let me sum up the situation. —Aristotle, Copernicus, and Galileo thought they had the ideal explanation for the orbital motions of the heavenly bodies. Aristotle had his rotating harmonious spheres. Copernicus had his idealized Solar system. Galileo had his Creator-induced heavenly-motion. They all believed that the natural motion of heavenly bodies is circular. But, in due course, Kepler found that that belief did not match reality. Kepler discovered that the planetary orbits are not circular. Real-world orbits are elliptical! Why was this discovery so revolutionary? ... Because it meant there was some kind of force or influence causing the planets to vary in speed and radial distance. It meant there was a force that causes the new Newtonian "natural" motion to deviate from its "natural" straight-line path.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727), in the 17th century, codified the force-law that could readily explain the evidence. The cosmology that Newton constructed became the first in history to employ a force of gravity —a force that mediates the interaction of all mass throughout the universe.

But there was a problem. A force of gravity, if it is to be consistent with what it means to be a "force," requires a force carrier —sort of a messenger particle relaying the force's influence to other bodies (or between bodies). The problem was, no force carriers have ever been found —not then, and not since. For many years Newton had pondered the question of the nature of the agent (modern "force carriers") necessary for the mediation of his gravitation force but could draw no conclusion; unable even to decide whether such agent is material or immaterial, particulate or ethereal.

However, there is really no need for us to dwell on the missing force carriers. It turns out that Newton's system was the exception to the rule. Gravity, in fact, is not a true force.

Now, since I have finished answering the question suggested in the title of this essay, it might be interesting to explore another chapter of this theme. I invite the reader to join me in applying the same basic question to three or four other world systems. The entire presentation is summarized in the accompanying table.

2.  Other World Systems

 Let us, then, briefly examine why Einstein (1879-1955) did not need a gravitational force.

In 1916-1917 Einstein constructed a universe, commonly known as the Einstein Equilibrium model, based on a highly abstract theory of gravity called General Relativity. Einstein's gravity was not a force in the usual sense, rather it was an effect associated with the curvature of space.

The Einstein universe was a mathematical construction in which the curvature of space (a mathematical concept) was intimately connected to the presence of matter; that is, the quantity and density of matter determined the degree of curvature of space. Now since Einstein's "space" was a mathematical abstraction, the curvature distortion of such space must also be a mathematical abstraction.

But if the gravity effect is purely an abstraction, how is it connected to the brick-and-mortar world of reality? ... No causal mechanism has ever been found to explain how matter “curves” space and how “curvature” sustains a body’s orbital motion. The problem is deepened by Einstein’s rejection of the existence of any sort of detectable space medium. In his own words, taken from the famous Leyden Lecture (1920):

Einstein worked on the gravity theory for most of his life including the year of his death, 1955. It is my conviction that because of his insistence on having space as an abstraction (he called it the relativation of ether, or the relativization of space, depending on the German-to-English translation), the cause lurking behind the formulation of gravity was never found.

Now take careful note of the following. Originally (in 1905) Einstein had been "arguing the total nonexistence of the aether" but by the time he presented the Leyden Lecture (in 1920) he had modified his view.

His original nonexisting aether now became merely non-ponderable aether (as in the earlier quote) !

In other words, the aether that filled space was not a material substance —granted— but it could be a non-material substance. Perhaps it is an ethereal substance with unusual properties —including gravitational properties.

Einstein's retraction was, in hindsight, a wise move indeed. He basically re-opened the aether door —the door to a non-material medium.

Let me sum up Einstein's Equilibrium universe. It was a static universe —notably non-expanding— which did not require gravity to be a force.
 

In the years 1927 and 1929 the first Big Bang universe appeared. Many versions followed throughout the rest of the 20th century. This period in the history of cosmology can best be described as the Golden Age of Expanding Universes. And, yes, even the Steady State models of Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle were (are) members of this class. The vast majority of these did not require gravity to be a force. Why not? ... It was because they were based on Einstein's curved-space gravity theory. There's no need to repeat the problems with this concept; we simply accept that the Big Bang models are mathematical universes (albeit highly unnatural, highly speculative representations). Instead, there is a simple question to consider.

Given that gravity is a spacetime distortion effect, and not a force, why are Big Bang proponents searching for force carriers? Why this decades-long search for gravitons !? And make no mistake, we’re talking about a perennially fruitless pursuit!

It would be nice, but I really don't expect a common sense answer. Maybe there's a deep mathematical answer; maybe not. Meanwhile, the Big Bang continues to be highly unnatural, highly speculative, and, in light of the "force" ambivalence, highly confusing.

A new century, a new theory of gravity. The pivotal year of 2002 witnessed the introduction of a combined luminiferous AND gravitational aether. In that year an Australian professor, Reginald T. Cahill, developed a quantum foam theory of space. Space is a quantum system undergoing classicalization and, at a deep substratum level, has the characteristics of a quantum foam. From this quantum-foam aether, Cahill constructed an aether theory of gravity. In his words:

Gravity has now become an inhomogeneous aether flow towards mass/matter. Knowingly or unknowingly Cahill had explored behind the nonmaterial-aether door which Einstein had left open (back in 1920) but had never exploited.

The theory is truly powerful. Cahill has discovered a second gravitational constant, which is actually the dimensionless fine structure constant α, with which it is possible to resolve numerous so-called ‘gravitational anomalies’—the experimental observations of gravitational effects incompatible with Newtonian gravity and general relativity. The best known of these is the “dark matter” effect, namely that spiral galaxies appear to require at least ten times the observed matter content in order to explain the high rotation speeds of stars and gas clouds in the outer regions of the spiral disk. The quantum foam theory of gravity makes it clear that the dark-matter effect is not caused by any form of matter, but rather by a non-Newtonian aspect of gravity. ^[7]

Once more, gravity is NOT considered to be a force.
 

Turning now to the Cellular World-System called the Dynamic Steady State Universe (DSSU). Gravity in the DSSU is not a force. It is a side effect of a heretofore unrecognized natural process. Gravity is a side effect of the way in which ALL matter —mass and radiation— is conducted by, and through, the aether. Of course, keep in mind that the aether of our universe is, as Einstein proposed in 1920, a non-material aether —an almost-but-not-quite-material medium. (In DSSU theory it is called the essence substance.)

Yes, gravity is a simple side effect. As gravity expert John Wheeler had predicted, decades ago, it is utterly and astonishingly simple. The simplicity that characterizes inevitability.

The key idea that underlies the effect of gravity is the unusual mode of conduction of mass and radiation by the aether. The gravity that we are familiar with is the byproduct associated with the amazing mode of conduction of ALL radiant particles and ALL mass particles. To say that it is unusual is an understatement. The process of conduction is unique. As far as I am aware —prior to the DSSU revolution— the concept did not exist!

Kepler, Galileo, and Newton redefined the nature of motion. Now the Conduction Theory of Matter redefines the nature of gravity —revealing its root cause.

The next DSSU research paper will present the profound details.

LINK TO: The Mysterious Primary Cause of Gravity [IN PREPARATION]

DSSU theory reveals why gravity needs no force carriers and therefore is not a force! ^[9]

* * * *

3.  Summary:  Who Needs a Force of Gravity?

SUMMARY TABLE: Who Needs a Force of Gravity?