Attention to all Gravity and Aether Researchers

[Harvey]

I think I am understanding Aaron as regards the Aether 'Flow'.


If I am understanding correctly, then the 'flow' exists because the center of a conglomerate mass (such as the Earth) is a sinkhole for the Aether. This means that the Aether flows into that sinkhole from all directions and mass is dragged with it but cannot flow through the portal.

Therefore, if we 'swim' against that flow, we expend energy to do so and the energy we use is applied to the work performed. It takes more energy to flow upstream than sideways across the stream. So if we swim upstream, then we can expect that the extra energy we spend will take us to a new position where we can allow the stream to act on us and push us back down stream.

According to that perspective; since the stream is always flowing there is no static potential - no static pressure - simply a constant flow from the vast reservoir of space flowing into the Aether Drain.

In real terms though, we have organized our verbal skills to describe energy. Our digestive systems are a remarkable tool for extracting stored energy. Solar energy is stored in plants in combinations of molecular bonds that our bodies are able to disassemble and use. If you pick the fruit for example, and make it into canned fruit and put on the shelf until a later time, it represents stored energy. Another example is the electrical charge in a Double A battery. The batteries are charged months in advance and shipped to a store, we buy them and take them home and put them on the shelf. Then at some later time, we put them in our hand held remote and the energy allows us to change the channels on our TV from across the room. Without the batteries our remote does not function, but with them it functions well. Clearly in both examples there is a source of energy stored for a duration of time. Linguistically we call this stored energy "Potential Energy" because it must be applied to action before it becomes dynamic. So in our society we use the term 'Potential' to describe an available thing that is not yet applied. In terms of Energy, we have Potential vs. Kinetic or Static vs. Dynamic, or Inactive vs. Active. Therefore the word "Energy" does not necessarily have to denote action and it is considered to be noun:
Energy | Define Energy at Dictionary.com

Power on the other hand is not constrained to being a noun. Power can be a noun, a Verb, an adjective, a Verb phrase or even an idiom.

If you look at the Davidson Chart in the link from my previous post you will find a very strange entry. In that chart, Davidson shows the formulas for voltage and current, but then he introduces an odd one for energy: E=VI ??? Now when I saw this I recognized right away where he had made his mistake. He confused power with energy. The correct formula is P=VI
Now we can associate Power with energy by connecting it through work. The formula becomes: W=PT where W is work P is power and T is Time. And we have already posted the formula for W=ΔEk or the change in kinetic energy. So by combining these two, we find that ΔEk = PT or a change in kinetic energy equals power multiplied by time. The operative in that sentence is the word 'kinetic'. It denotes action.

But what about the word 'Force'? Here again we have a noun or a verb or an idom depending on the context. But there is an interesting thing implied by this term - continuous action. But this can be misleading because that continuous action may not result in any motion where two equal and opposite forces are in equilibrium. As long as the two forces are in continuous action against each other, no motion occurs. Let's take for example the common refrigerator magnet stuck to a vertical ferromagnetic metal surface here on the Earth. Here we have several forces at play that work together to find equilibrium. The magnetic force acts to hold the magnet to the metal, friction acts to prevent the magnet from sliding as does a certain amount of cohesion and adhesion. All combined, these forces prevent the orthogonal force of gravity from moving the magnet and therefore we conclude that the forces are in equilibrium. But, in order for this to remain true as time progresses, the actions must be continuous. Remove the opposing forces and the magnet falls to the ground. Are the forces static or dynamic? This depends on the context. At the atomic level everything is dynamic. But to the housewife that pins the grocery list to the fridge, it is static. Another example would be a boat moored at a dock in a river. The river places a constant and continuous force on the boat as does the mooring line. The two forces balance each other and the boat appears to to remain in a static state - but the forces are dynamic and continuous.

We are not alone in the confusion of terms. This matter became so problematic for science that a standard was setup and adopted known as SI Units that even has it's own writing style so that everyone reading it knows what they are reading. Here is a series of tables showing the conversions of various world known values into SI units: Conversion of units - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(you may want to book mark that for future reference)

You may notice then that the SI unit for energy is the Joule. One Joule is One Watt for One Second. J = W · s. It can also be described in reference to mass, distance and time: 1 J = 1 m·N = 1 kg·m²/s²

We also find that the SI unit for Potential Energy is the Joule. So this helps us to understand that there is an ability to apply this energy and get the same results as we would if we applied another form of energy such as electrical or mechanical. So if we roll a rock down a hill and it snaps a tree off, we can be sure that it expressed the same energy as would be required if we hooked a team of horses to that tree and used them to snap it off. And the beautiful thing is, we have the SI conversion formulas to compare the horsepower to the gravitational potential energy

Good Stuff!

[Aaron]

energy and potential

I can not imagine a fundamental particle being compressed.

The Aether by itself has the only fundamental and conserved energy

I agree with Harvey that having potential or storing it is a question of semantics,

but I can understand that if you prevent matter from moving due to the kinetic force of the Aether impaired on it, you are creating a potential. If you remove that prevention, the matter has the potential to move.

You right that energy has the potential to perform work but I can’t understand energy as the “potential”.
But money itself isn’t a potential, is the energy that you will use to by the car.

Hi David,

I think the space between the source charges can be reduced and this
causes a higher density and I don't think that an increase or decrease
in the size of a or the fundamental particle has to be ruled out. It could
be increased or decreased from an outside observers perspective but
from it's own perspective, it wouldn't know a difference.

Conservation of energy is a myth based on wrong definitions of what
energy and potential are.
Not only has it not been proven it has directly been disproved by
nature itself and countless experiments showing that the energetics of
open natural systems has nothing to do with conservation or changing
forms.

If conservation of energy is true, it would be impossible to have a
system that is over 1.0 cop and a bouncing ball is over 1.0 cop just
like a refrigerator, geothermal heat pump, etc...

Energy literally is created out of thin air by having potential charge
perform work by being resisted through the movement of it from one
potential to another. Or I should say energy is manifested literally out
of thin air.

So when Tom Bearden for example says that no power station has ever
supplied a single watt to the grid, he is totally right on. It is a dipole
established that breaks the symmetry of the aether and the aether
or source charge comes into the system at the very point of the
potential difference and none of it left a generator to move over a wire.

And there is no changing of forms. We put energy into something
as the input then it is used up, then NEW potential enters the system
gets dissipated and then new potential enters the system, etc...
None of the input was changed into something else, it was simply
dissipated back to equilibrium into the aether then new potential, aether
or source charge enters.

Like a pulsing coil and getting the inductive spike.

When we apply some wattage to an electromagnetic coil to "charge" it.
100% of that input is completely dissipated at that point and when the
switch turns off, it is brand new potential or source charge from the
aether that comes in and with some losses, we get a spike that is a
bit less potential than the amount of potential we used to start the system.

No form of energy was transformed into anything else. The potential
permitted work to happen, it was completely dissipated and then new
potential entered which is a bit less than what we started with. Nothing
was "conserved".

The issue of storing potential isn't a matter of semantics. The classical
usage of "storing potential" simply never says what the potential is -
it remains a completely abstract concept. The point I'm making is that
it remains abstract because potential and what it actually is has never
been understood by mainstream academia.

Potential is actually supplied by the aether as a potential charge that can
interact with the mass of an object. So this is what potential actually is
as a tangible concrete thing and not an abstract concept.

So I can't see how it can be considered semantics. It isn't a matter of
how it is looked at. Classically - it's abstract with no definition of what
potential actually is and in the aetheric model, it is pinpointing and addressing
not only what the source potential or source charge is but showing how it
interacts with mass - not such an abstract thing after all.

I understand the usage of how some kid may have so much potential
to be a xyz. Or a potential customer, etc... but they are all casual uses
of the term potential in its abstract form, which has no relevancy in physics
when a source charge or potential can be pinpointed.

The dictionary says energy is the capacity to do work. But capacity is
the ability to do work or a potential to do work. The dictionary defines
energy as a potential, literally and it is a false definition.

If we prevent matter from moving such as a table that keeps a camera
from falling through it, instead of creating a potential we manifest a
highly efficient dissipation of the potential instead of storing it.

And if removing the table, yes the camera has the "potential" to move,
but that is the casual usage of the word potential that is not the same
as addressing the actual tangible potential, which is the aether moving
down through the camera - the gravitational potential. It isn't
semantics, it is potential being used for two different purposes either
abstract or concrete - they in no way, shape or form describe the same
thing.

The concrete one addresses the actual energetics of what potential is
while the abstract one expresses just an idea of an ability.

I actually don't think energy has the potential to perform work. I think
Potential is what has the ability or capacity to perform work. When it
does perform work, that is what energy is - the actual potential being
resisted and "working".

Even the abstract casual use of the word potential contradicts the common
definition of energy. If someone walks into a store, they are a "potential"
buyer. That means they have the capacity or ability to become a buyer.
That means that the ability or capacity to become a buyer is an attribute
of the potential before energy has ever been displayed.

Once the person forks out some money to the cashier, the potential for them
to become a customer or capacity or ability for them to become a customer
is actualized the moment they spend money. The moment they become
a buyer by forking out the money, that very activity or actualization is
literally what energy is. But the potential, capacity or ability to do work
all existed before there was any energy whatsoever.

Therefore, I think that taking it at face value, energy has never been
a capacity or ability to do work because that definition is a contradiction
from the dictionary itself.

Energy simply is work and work is the complete and total opposite of a
capacity, ability or potential.

I don't have a training in the math, etc... either. I learned a few concepts
and all the rest logically and seamlessly fell into place by simply
extrapolating one connection to the next by just observing nature,
giving attention to intuition, following God and doing experiments.

I think we definitely both believe in an aether but classical thermodynamics
and any notion of conservation is also completely incompatible with aether
being the source charge or potential. It is moving through matter and is
an endless river that can be tapped at any time and conservation, storing,
changing forms, etc... are all really out of alignment with the intrinsic
nature of the aether itself.

[Aaron]

diople and source charge

If I am understanding correctly, then the 'flow' exists because the center of a conglomerate mass (such as the Earth) is a sinkhole for the Aether. This means that the Aether flows into that sinkhole from all directions and mass is dragged with it but cannot flow through the portal.

Therefore, if we 'swim' against that flow, we expend energy to do so and the energy we use is applied to the work performed. It takes more energy to flow upstream than sideways across the stream. So if we swim upstream, then we can expect that the extra energy we spend will take us to a new position where we can allow the stream to act on us and push us back down stream.

According to that perspective; since the stream is always flowing there is no static potential - no static pressure - simply a constant flow from the vast reservoir of space flowing into the Aether Drain.

Hi Harvey, great post on language having issues.

Yes, and whether or not I'm right or wrong is irrelevant, you clearly
get my definitions.

But I wouldn't call it a portal in the sense of a black hole or anything like
that. Just that the mass has displaced a region of space with aether and
that aether is pushed outwards. So to get back into equilibrium, the
aether must rebound back to the area where there is less aether. It is
simply a gradient.

And yes, no static potential, it is an infinite streaming river of source
potential moving through matter and can be put to work by establishing
potential differences to get various resistances happening (work).

The battery analogy though I'd have to say it doesn't store anything.
The batteries chemistry is to separate its internal charges so there is a
plus and minus potential difference at the terminals. The greater the
potential difference the greater the voltage or pressure.

When the loop is closed on a light bulb for example, those battery
terminals are causing an asymmetrical condition in the aether where the
aetheric source charges plus and minus go to their respective terminals
and then flow over the wire and as the positive source charge is flowing
over the wire towards the negative terminal, it is attracting the electron
out of the copper atoms - if electrons even exist - and they move
towards the positive or "opposite" polarity encountering resistances on
the way and that is what the work is and what the dissipation of that
source charge is right back into the aether.

So the source charge isn't coming from the battery, it comes from the
external aetheric source charge that moves to the terminals by having
its symmetry broken or put out of balance.

These resistances and like charges "push" against the like charges in the
electrolytes polarization and cause them to get disordered so there is a
lower and lower potential difference between the terminals. The battery
gets lower and lower not because it ran out of something but because
the electrolytes are disordered and have low potential difference at the
terminals meaning it is breaking the symmetry of the aether with very low
pressure. If it was a 1000v battery, the pressure of the aether moving
from the aether/environment/external towards the battery terminal and
over the wire would be at high pressure.

So in this instance, even a battery never stores a charge. Charging a
battery simply establishes or reestablishes a dipole at various potential
differences so that it can break the symmetry of external aether that is
outside of the battery.

I think Bearden is right about this battery interaction and it is the most
consistent and compatible concept that is in perfect alignment with
the aetheric source charge model and a dynamic potential versus static.

So the same potential that gives the effect of gravity is the same that
supplies the potential to light a light bulb.

I think there would be a small but measurable difference in a battery
voltage here on earth compared to sitting in outer space far enough away
from earth's gravity. There would be higher here because the aetheric
pressure is denser on the planet and less out there.

[Matos de Matos]

Hi David,


I think we definitely both believe in an aether but classical thermodynamics
and any notion of conservation is also completely incompatible with aether
being the source charge or potential. It is moving through matter and is
an endless river that can be tapped at any time and conservation, storing,
changing forms, etc... are all really out of alignment with the intrinsic
nature of the aether itself.

Hi Aaron:

I do respect all that made us know what we know.
All the great Minds worked hard and proved all the knowledge that we have today.
I am thankful to them to have discovered and master physics and science and made my living pleasurable.
They made me understand my surroundings scientifically and with proved postulates.
Saying that conservation of energy and entropy are utopias, is considering the work of all those Genius a fake.
I couldn’t do that, God may not like it.

Nature does use energy smartly and the entropy of some is the energy of others, and in the process, there is growth. Energetics and Howard Odum explains how the rate of energy transformations can be used in benefit of a system, having excess energy.

Howard T. Odum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Energetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harvey does understands that, congratulations again Harvey, great lessons.
Only God can make particles, so us mortals, just add or subtract particles, trying to pump the creation of matter, the ultimate of Nature.
I think that God fabricates and pump the Aether in the black holes, with His infinity power, to keep the Aether mass and pressure of the Universe constant.

Thank you
David

[Harvey]

. . .I think there would be a small but measurable difference in a battery voltage here on earth compared to sitting in outer space far enough away from earth's gravity. . . .

That is a very interesting thing to ponder

It makes me wonder what type of energy we are using here:
Voyager - The Interstellar Mission

and if there have been any records of the batteries reducing in voltage as they get farther away.


It also makes me curious about the Aether between the Earth and the Moon and if we can somehow interrupt the flow

[Aaron]

joules and thermodynamics

All the great Minds worked hard and proved all the knowledge that we have today.
I am thankful to them to have discovered and master physics and science and made my living pleasurable.
They made me understand my surroundings scientifically and with proved postulates.
Saying that conservation of energy and entropy are utopias, is considering the work of all those Genius a fake.
I couldn’t do that, God may not like it.

David,

They never proved any of it. If you believe that they did, that is fine
and we can agree to disagree. If you follow the history of how much
of it played out, you will see that much of the "gospel" taught today
and for the past however many years were based on misunderstandings
and speculations - as a matter of historical fact.

Conservation of energy, yes it is a myth.

I never said entropy was a myth but since you mention entropy...
the non-equilibrium systems which mirror every natural system in the
universe defeat entropy on an ongoing basis usually with a bit of loss
on each cycle but that can even be overcome.

That is the entire point of the open systems such as gravitational systems,
there is CONSTANT influx from environmental potential adding to the system
which can be more than what we put in. That compensates the entropy of
our particular input.

God may not like it? So you believe that God is on the side of the
conventional establishment and their textbooks. I would imagine God
may not like people going along with what is told to them as being the
truth instead of trying to see if it is or not.

I could just as easily add that
God may not appreciate all the "geniuses" that have come
along and "proved" that God created created a universe of poverty instead
of infinite abundance. Claiming that God needs to have something
conserve "energy" is the same as claiming that there isn't enough
potential to go around.

I can bring up many points that completely destroy the foundation and
basis for many of the past "geniuses" and their "laws". That is a funny
concept in itself for humans to be so arrogant as to proclaim a law of
nature, which implies that every known possibility is known and therefore
they know the laws by which nature operates.

Newton never claimed to have the laws of nature, he just observed
nature and reported what he saw...it was later that what Newton said
was turned into a law, ridiculous really and as DePalma says, Netwon
would spin in his grave at 2400 rpm if he knew what his work was
turned into.

David, I'm not slamming your beliefs just like you're not slamming mine.
However, your God comment does imply many things. I won't go into
that but just to ask you... what are a few experiments that were
conducted that determines what 1 joule of energy is? That is the
fundamental benchmark or whatever you want to call it for establishing
a unit of work.

And, what is the difference between equlibrium thermodynamics that
explain closed systems and non-equilibrium thermodynamics that explain
open systems?

[stevend]

It makes me wonder what type of energy we are using here:
Voyager - The Interstellar Mission

and if there have been any records of the batteries reducing in voltage as they get farther away.

Interesting question. It turns out they're using a Radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RPG). That uses a radioactive material that sits there generating heat from radioactive decay. The heat is then turned into electricity using the Seebeck effect - thermocouples. From the website you linked to above:
"Electrical power is supplied by three Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs). The current power levels are about 315 watts for each spacecraft. As the electrical power decreases, power loads on the spacecraft must be turned off in order to avoid having demand exceed supply. As loads are turned off, some spacecraft capabilities are eliminated."
From wikipedia's RPG page, the Voyagers were down to about 80% they're original capacity as of 2010.

So basically, not using batteries. Interesting reading though. Thanks for wondering .
-Steve
http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org

[Aaron]

gravitational attraction

if there have been any records of the batteries reducing in voltage as they get farther away.

It also makes me curious about the Aether between the Earth and the Moon and if we can somehow interrupt the flow

If any space probe experiences any inertia that would simulate gravity
and would have an apparent increase in density of the aether relative
the mass of the probe and battery and would show a higher voltage than
standing still. If there is no acceleration, maybe not.

If a battery was in a rocket and was launched almost straight up under
x G's, that would be interesting to monitor its voltage between sitting,
accelerating and then coming to a drift in orbit.

The Earth and Moon scenario - under normal circumstances, two pieces
of matter cannot occupy the same space. But, two pieces of matter or
masses can share or split the available aether filled space between them.

So the facing sides have a weaker rebound to the surfaces than the far
sides. With rotating objects and moving in orbit, there is a centrifugal
push that is counted by a slightly more dominant centripetal push. Arm's
thread - he has some innovative ways of looking at that.

But lets take orbit and rotation out of it to see it in the simplest form.

If two masses - solid spheres of steel or whatever are floating in space
and not rotating and not orbiting anything, they have a good symmetrical
push from all sides by the aether rebounding.

Of course at a very large frame of reference, they're rotating around the
center of their galaxy and so on... but this is an example of more noticable
local effects that are more pronounced.

Anyway, each mass/sphere has a symmetrical relationship with the aether
filled space they are submerged in. The aether rebounds equally around
all sides.

If the two masses are brought close enough together, the aether filled
space between them breaks the symmetry of the aether filled space
around each one of them. They share the common aether between them
meaning there is a lighter or weaker rebound on those facing sides.

This causes an asymmetrical push on each mass - push in the direction
of the weaker pushed on side (facing sides).

If we have a wet bar of soap and squeeze on it equally all around, it
stays there - that is in a symmetrical type of equilibrium.

Remove some of the push on the soap on any particular side and the soap
will be squeezed in that direction since there is less resistance holding
the soap back on that side.

Anyway, my model predicts that the two masses will be pushed towards
each other and this is what causes gravitational attraction between masses. And this is how the flow is interrupted between two masses
such as the Earth and Moon. Rotation and orbits add more variables but
this is the bare bones effect of two masses near each other.

[Matos de Matos]

David, I'm not slamming your beliefs just like you're not slamming mine.
However, your God comment does imply many things. I won't go into
that but just to ask you... what are a few experiments that were
conducted that determines what 1 joule of energy is? That is the
fundamental benchmark or whatever you want to call it for establishing
a unit of work.

And, what is the difference between equlibrium thermodynamics that
explain closed systems and non-equilibrium thermodynamics that explain
open systems?

Aaron:

My apologies for the term, by any means I wanted to be offensive.
I was expressing my feelings about how I see it.
Imagine that you connected a computer to some device that reads in the walls all the information of the activity inside an aquarium.
You could learn everything that happens inside, from the movement of the water, to the “thoughts” of the living creatures on it.
God probably has various aquariums, collecting information, knowledge, feelings, and all the wisdom that He possess, using pumps to supply energy for us to create knowledge for Him.
Conscious and high contributions to the purpose of evolution are reward with the possibility to keep contributing in another form of matter.
All those that contributed with honor are watching us trying to solve the mysteries that they mastered, with so little material conditions.
“God doesn´t play dices”, so they left us with only the “enough” to follow God´s plans.
When time comes to have efficient ways to produce work, He, or them will influence the discovery.
It is up to us to catch the inputs, being in tune, and not annoying our “fathers”, because they may go to somebody else and whisper at them, and I want to keep contributing.
This is how I feel it. My apologies for my poor English, I am Portuguese.
I understand your model, and will look for Arm´s tread for the centrifugal model.
Can this be computer modeled?
I would like to see the pressure correlation between two bodies bombarded from all sides with very tiny and fast particles.
Other thing that probably can be modeled is a small pipe free floating in a chaotic flow of air in a pressured vessel. The rotation and flow in the inside would be interesting to study. And with a vortex form?

Good thinking, you are doing the math model?

Thank you
David

[Aaron]

giants of the past

Hi David,

I have no doubts about the past scientists having valid contributions.

But the thing about thermodynamics and other "laws" is that they have
been actively and very deliberately used against mankind from their
inception. It has been used against us so that we are hoodwinked
and cannot see that there is infinite abundance all around us.

As long as people believe there is a such a thing as mass to energy
"conversions", classical thermodynamics, etc... then people will never see
things as they are. If we believe in conservation of energy, etc... we are
doomed on having to rely on the establishment (established science,
industry, oil, etc...) to provide for us as evidenced by most of the
planet being a slave to oil.

Keeping people in the dark is their job because applied knowledge is
power but if students graduate from school and they have erroneous
"knowledge" then everything they apply it to will be out of touch with
nature such as all the closed loop systems they are taught to build.
They don't want the real info out because it means competition and
empowerment at the individual level. It is a big nasty political business
and has little to do with teaching science in school.

I have no problem with and I respect the "giants" of the past, however their
science has been adulterated with politics, agenda and greed and one
of the most blatant examples of this with the laws of motion and
thermodynamics.

So it is what their info has been turned into that I have the real problem
and I know I'm not the only one that feels this way.

I can disprove Einstein for $20 and so can everyone else.

But the cheapest and simplest one anyone can do is to get 2 pinballs,
get a router or high speed dremel type of motor and mount a cup on it
to contain the ball. Put the other ball in a cup that is not rotating. Spin
the rotating one to 20,000 rpm and then toss them in the air simultaneously.

If Einstein is right, both balls would go up and down together.
But the spinning ball goes up SLOWER and HIGHER and when it comes
down, its decent accelerates FASTER and it goes FURTHER out.

That was one of MANY of DePalma's experiments and that two ball
experiment can be done in many ways. But the bottom line is this,
the experiment works this way because Einstein was wrong...or at least
what he told the public is wrong.

I think he was forced to not tell the truth about the aether and that
e=mc2 has always been a scam.

[Matos de Matos]

Hi David,

I have no doubts about the past scientists having valid contributions.


I think he was forced to not tell the truth about the aether and that
e=mc2 has always been a scam.

Hi Aaron:

You do not want to lose that whispering, too.

Please correct me, but I think that conservation of energy was lay down when everybody still believed in the Aether.

“The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time”

I do not consider my proposals of devices being in a closed system, we just can, the environment is open to all kinds of interferences and isolate a system is the “convention” that “smart guys” decided to use, to calculate and explain phenomenon’s easily and scientifically.

I think that Einstein come back to Galilean and Newton theory of a particle, (photon) and his reasoning was that Aether had to be a real particle, but, because of the majority being in favor of Maxwell wave theory, and the substitution of caloric for kinetic theory, plus the Michelson-Morley experiment, he chicken out, and come up with that “bending time and space” that I can´t understand.

E=mc² is not the same as F=ma?
I am wonder what would happen if we introduce a velocity superior to the light in vacuum, in any of those equations
“ EAether= m(c²)²”
The conservation of energy will be applied?
I think that even if we introduce a new kind of particle in an operating closed system, Rankine cycle for example, the total energy will balance out. We are using the energy of the flow of mass (water and heat (phonon). We are not using directly the energy of the Aether, or of other possible small particle that may be in the system, too.
If we find a way of taping that energy directly, we will use it and the difference, the remaining velocity of the Aether living the system, will becalled entropy.
I think that conservation is made to last.
In mathematics and science, a wave is a disturbance that travels through space and time, usually by transference of energy

Why don´t we say that waves are the displaced path of a particle, in cycles, that we need an “isolated system”,a Pocket of energy to study it and explain it?
The paradox of the wave-particle duality,“current scientific theory holds that all particles also have a wave nature (and vice versa)” , can be solved if we change “the wave is a “disturbance” for the “wave is the displacement in cycles of a particle”.

Harvey, my friend, mathematically, specially looking at Maxwell equations, can this be possible?

This is how I see it.
Thank you
David

[gravityblock]

Not a lie, but not the whole truth either

Drop two small balls of varying weight from the same height and they will hit the surface of the earth at the same time. Jupiter is 25.93 m/s2 while Saturn is 11.19 m/s2. Jupiter and Saturn can be considered two big balls of different weight and mass for this thought experiment. Now, if we dropped both Jupiter and Saturn simultaneously from the same height will they hit the surface of the earth at the same time? Yes, because Jupiter will pull the earth and the earth will move that same distance towards Saturn as it does with Jupiter, thus they will hit at the same time (the Earth will also pull both Jupiter and Saturn the same distance towards itself).

Jupiter and the Earth should collide with each other in less time than what it takes Saturn and Earth to collide with each other if they are individually dropped from the same height and are separate experiments, and it should be the same for two small objects or balls of varying mass also.

This suggest that the Earth will have a rate of 25.93 m/s2 at the surface of Jupiter, and Jupiter will have a rate of 9.82 m/s2 right before the collision. They will be moving towards each other at a combined rate of 35.12 m/s2. Saturn and the Earth will have a combined rate of 21.01 m/s2 right before their collision. When both Jupiter and Saturn are dropped together, then the combined rate of all three is 46.31 m/s2?

Not a lie, but not the whole truth either


GB

[gravityblock]

Expanding on my previous post, the Earth will acclerate any object, regardless of it's mass, to 9.82 m/s2 near it's surface. At what point will the Earth's gravity not be able to accelerate an object with suffecient mass to 9.82 m/s2? A tiny blackhole maybe?

GB

[Aaron]

different falling rates

the Earth will acclerate any object, regardless of it's mass, to 9.82 m/s2 near it's surface.

Hi GB,

All non-ferrous metals fall slower than ferrous metals. It is a small difference
but measurable.

When an aluminum ball for example is dropped, the Earth's magnetic field
is inducing eddy currents into the aluminum that repel against the
magnetic field slowing its fall.

Most of the lab tests were done with very small pieces in vacuum sealed tubes comparing to ferrous metals and they always fell slower.

[gravityblock]

Hi GB,

All non-ferrous metals fall slower than ferrous metals. It is a small difference
but measurable.

When an aluminum ball for example is dropped, the Earth's magnetic field
is inducing eddy currents into the aluminum that repel against the
magnetic field slowing its fall.

Most of the lab tests were done with very small pieces in vacuum sealed tubes comparing to ferrous metals and they always fell slower.

I'm not interested in how other outside influences, such as eddy currents, air resistance, magnetic fields, local gravity, etc may have on the rate of fall. I'm interested in the rate of fall due to gravity itself and not due to other outside influences affecting it's rate of fall. Dropping the same object over the ocean may have a different rate of fall than dropping it over land. This is called local gravity. In my thought experiments, it should be automaticly assumed the gravity field is uniform around the entire mass, or being dropped in the same location so that all things are equal and done in a controlled way. Do I need to say this? I would need to write a book, in order to convey a simple thought experiment if certain things are not left for the reader to decide or fill in.

GB