Attention to all Gravity and Aether Researchers

[Aaron]

time potential

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 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.

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?

Hi David,

It has been a very long time that the "authoritarian establishment" has
been proactively working at squashing what they wrongfully group under
"perpetual motion", etc... even though perpetual motion is not only
possible it is happening all around us.

The opinion of conservation of energy may be based on an empirical
observation but it is still founded on the premise of a
casual abstract and usage of the term potential, which they never even
understood as being an actual "substance."

They say in isolated or closed systems but conservation of energy
technically does not even exist in a closed system either. A flashlight
turned on is a closed system - yes it is open to gravity, etc... but for
the practical mechanics of it, it is a closed system. The battery breaks
the symmetry of the aether, the aether is polarized and condensed at the
terminals of the battery and since the loop is closed, that condensed and
polarized aetheric source potential flows over the wire and as resistances
occur, the potential is disorganized and dissipated right back to "vacuum"
space - right back to the aether. There isn't other input into the system
other than the potential difference established at the dipole from the
beginning. So it is a closed system but the potential comes into the system
at the dipole's terminals and dissipates right back out of the circuit
from where it came. There is no conservation of "energy" happening here.

Even Mendeleev had "elements" smaller than hydrogen but that was all
covered up. The Michelson-Morley experiment has been disproved by
multiple scientists over the years.

The only thing I can see coming close to being conserved in any of these
systems is TIME.

For example, pure potential is the potential for time to exist but not yet
existing. If there was a section of space with the density of aether
approaching infinite density, there would be no time ticking according to
my model because the density is so dense all motion is resisted, the aether
supplies the potential to a light "wave" but is so dense light cannot
propagate, protons in the mass encounter an approaching infinite
resistance, etc... so basically the flow of time approaches a standstill.
At infinite density, there is absolute equilibrium with no potential differences
and therefore, there is not time (not a thing but a periodic measurement
of movement through the aether). There is infinite TIME POTENTIAL...or
the potential for time to be measured. If someone was in that region,
if they could still physically exist, they would be frozen in an infinite moment but
could not tell but from an outside observer it would look as if everything is
still.

If the region of space had low density aether, there is a corresponding
reduction in the resistance to movement of mass thru the aether and
that faster absolute movement from an outside perspective is that time
is ticking quite quickly. To the observer in that space, it appears normal
to them from the outside, look to be at a certain speed that could
appear to be faster or slower.

In a magnetic coil, potential stimulates the current by attracting electrons
towards the positive terminal. So, we can measure WORK into the system
over a certain period of TIME.

When the coil switches off, all the input is dissipated and new potential
enters the system. Anyway, when we get a super high voltage potential
spike, it is narrow because all the TIME is locked up or conserved as
the potential itself. The pulse is narrow (no time) it is potential and not
work. The ability for TIME to flow is locked up in that high pressure
aetheric potential. It is high pressure or density of aether.

If we take that potential for time to exist and use it to create a
separation of "charges" on a capacitor, the capacitor will show a voltage
or potential difference. If that capacitor is put to a light bulb, it lights.
The separation of potential difference at the capacitor's terminals breaks
the symmetry of the aether, it flows in, the pressure greatly drops, resistance to
movement drops and time can flow meaning that there is an actual
pulse width to this pulse of the cap to the bulb. When the high pressure
aether or high voltage is reduced in such a manner, time can flow meaning
motion and resistance can happen and current manifests.

The notion of what time is has always been wrong as well, of course in
my belief but look at the obvious nature of it. It isn't a mysterious concept
of a 4th dimension, etc... or other complex thing like that. In simplest
terms of looking at it for the sake of seeing it's nature for what it is, it
is a periodic measurement of motion/resistance of mass through aether
from a local point of view which always seems fairly constant but an
outside observer from an omnipotent viewpoint can see slower and faster
depending on the density of aether in each respective region of space.

Long ago, Bedini discussed TIME CHARGE, TIME POTENTIAL, etc... but
most people didn't realize it is literally TIME POTENTIAL (radiant spike)
and the machines are time machines that charge batteries or more
accurately, separate the charges in the battery using the potential for
time to exist. You hook a load to the battery, and you get work over a
certain period of time. Basically, you get the TIME back out of the POTENTIAL as evidenced by the pulse width.

Anyway, wave a displacement of a particle is an interesting perspective - have to
ponder that one.

[Harvey]

Hi Dave,

Regarding the Wave particle Duality Louise de Broglie secured the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1929 for equating the energy of a particle with the energy of a wave. In 1950 his theory was modified and the current theory is known as the De Broglie-Bohm theory.

I am convinced that if the Aether exists, then it is the embodiment of space and time itself. Recent research has proven that both space and time are flexible and in some cases completely non-linear.

The idea of particles moving through a vacuum was very appealing to many because the testing and experiments were showing things that could not be explained by wave theory. So the concept of a massless particle or quanta that could be hurled through space was very inviting. Then when Maxwell's and later Heaviside's work seemed to support this concept the need for an Aether became less and less important. To those scientists, it was like saying a bullet does not need air to get from one place to the next and so they took the air away. But we know, that when a bullet is moving through the air, it makes a wave front and if it exceeds Mach it will produce a rupture in that front that sends secondary shock waves (sonic boom). This is not hard to do, even a good Bull Whip can break the sound barrier. So it should not surprise us that motions can result in waves in a medium.

The real question regarding the Aether is whether or not Space itself is a medium. The deeper we go the more we find that links the primary forces to space and time. Electromagnetism is especially tied to this in ways that many simply overlook. All light is electromagnetic radiation, but not all electromagnetic radiation is light. The one thing that all electromagnetic radiation has in common is frequency. Another thing that all electromagnetic radiation has in common is distance. Because these two things exist, then there is also velocity. And when we have velocity, frequency and distance, we have wavelength. Therefore, all electromagnetic radiation is a wave. Even a scalar wave (a stationary wave that changes in amplitude over time but does not propagate and therefore has no vector, thus is a scaler), still has a wavelength because there is a distance between its nodes (and likewise its antinodes).

Tesla envisaged the Aether being dragged around by mass and considered the Michelson Morley experiment flawed for that reason. I have suggested that the experiment be repeated at one of the poles orthogonal to the Earth's rotation. But a recent experiment called Gravity Probe-B took that to a whole other level and proved that space and time are in fact dragged along by the Earth's rotation but the values are so small the data has been called into question.

When I see seeming discrepancies such as wave particle duality, I begin looking for a single solution that makes both true. The same is true for Tesla's view of the Aether and Modern applications that do not rely on an Aether to function, I look for a solution that satisfies both. Tesla is quoted as having attributed his success to the existence of the Aether and this cannot be ignored. By the same token, Einstein attributed his success to the demonstration that light followed a curved path independent of the need for an Aether. What I see is two men naming the same thing two different names. Personally, I am more interested in the characteristics of whatever it is rather than what we call it. We can call it Zork for all I care, as long as we understand it and can interface with it.

One thing we know about gravity is that in rotating systems such as the Earth - Sun or the Moon - Earth we have Lagrangian Points and we have done missions to explore these. It becomes difficult to reconcile this with certain Aether Models of gravity. Another thing that is difficult to reconcile is the point at which a moving body becomes attracted to one or the other major bodies in a 3 body system. For example, the Apollo moon missions were in constant attraction to the Earth until they reached a certain point where the attraction from the Moon at that point was equal to the attraction from the Earth. Like the Lagrangian points, this Null Gravity location is hard to reconcile with Aether Gravity. But I am open to being convinced and look for a single solution that satisfies both perspectives.

From my perspective, De Palma's rotating sphere experiment could actually be used to prove that Einstein is right, Gravity is the result of curved space (or Aether if you prefer). The gyroscopic action of the spinning ball creates an envelope of spatial curvature as the outer surface has an angular velocity that is much greater than the Earth's. This relative differential leads to spatial differentials in a relativistic manner (http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html). A similar test was done by Boyd Bushman (see 2:30 here: YouTube - Boyd Bushman on Anti Gravity) where rather than rotating objects, he used magnets and had similar results. What this tells me, is that De Palma's rotating sphere was charged and produced its own magnetic field due to the rotation (see Rotating Charge and Magnets). The Earth is charged and it is rotating and it has a magnetic field as well. Theories abound on this, but what I see in the overall picture is that a rotating charge in space-time develops a magnetic field and that magnetic field interacts with Earth's magnetic field to offset Gravity. It would be interesting to repeat the Matsu****a tests and ensure positively (from a chemical perspective) that the electric charge on the gyroscope is zero.

As far as E=mc˛, our Nuclear Power plants and Atomic Bombs work on that principle. The equation is simply an equivalence between Energy and Matter where Energy is in Ergs and Matter is in kilograms. The C in that equation refers to a "Universal Constant" that was well known as "the velocity of light in empty space" (see 'On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies Section 1' ) .

What is interesting about this equation E=mc˛ is that Einstein did not write it. His equation was written a bit differently:
(See: First Correct Derivation)

You may find this helpful: E=mc2 Explained

It is also very noteworthy that those who believed in the Aether in the early 1900's (see:Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) did similar work as Einstein along different reasoning and arrived at the same equation. Some even felt that Einstein may have been inspired by their work.

Cheers!

[Aaron]

gravitational attraction

Separated, Jupiter, Saturn and Earth have those rates near their surface.

If they are close enough to attract each other or if the Earth was dropped into one of their Orbit's, I doubt they would approach at a rate that is
the sum of both of their rates.

As they get towards each other, they share the common aether between
them meaning the facing sides will be slightly less than normal so the
combined rate would be reduced because each of the facing sides had
their own facing sides reduced a bit.

That is what I would imagine would happen with your experiment.

[gravityblock]

Separated, Jupiter, Saturn and Earth have those rates near their surface.

If they are close enough to attract each other or if the Earth was dropped into one of their Orbit's, I doubt they would approach at a rate that is
the sum of both of their rates.

As they get towards each other, they share the common aether between
them meaning the facing sides will be slightly less than normal so the
combined rate would be reduced because each of the facing sides had
their own facing sides reduced a bit.

That is what I would imagine would happen with your experiment.

Drop a 100 pound ball on Jupiter and a 10 pound ball on Jupiter. They will both fall at a rate of 25.93 m/s2 near the surface. Earth is no different than the 10 or 100 pound ball, for the earth will fall at a rate of 25.93 m/s2 near Jupiter's surface. Drop those 100 and 10 pound balls on earth, and both balls will fall at a rate of 9.82 m/s2 near the surface. Replace one of the balls with Jupiter, and Jupiter will fall at a rate of 9.82 m/s2 near the surface of the earth.

So, the Earth will fall at a rate of 25.93 m/s2 near the surface of Jupiter, and Jupiter will fall at a rate of 9.82 m/s2 near the surface of the earth. They will be approaching each other at a rate of 35.12 m/s2.

If I'm driving 100mph and you are driving 50mph, and we are approaching each other, then we will approach each other at 150mph. It will be the same with two planets approaching each other due to gravity. Maybe I'm wrong, and If I am wrong, then I would like an explanation.

GB

[Aromaz]

Sorry, I wish I was better in explaining in English!

What if #1:
Aether is not a 'fabric of space' but the soup of all radiant energy from the whole universe. Imagine all bodies emitting radiant particles in all possible directions. Some of those are charged + or - and some are neutral. Now space becomes quite filled with these 'particles'. Wherever you are in space, you will be pressed from all sides by these radiant. Now if you get close to a planet, than that planet is shielding you from a portion of this radiant, while at the same time having its own radiation towards you, but it is somewhat less than the average ‘space’ – unless you get closer. Aaron gave a good explanation above.

What if #2:
The so called ridiculous postulate that Light ≠ Photons holds water; photons are only the carrier of light. Light does not travel at near 300K m/sec but photons do that in space. Light is an effect that is neither particle nor wave and has no mass; Light is a thing for which we do not have any description yet. Light is instantaneous, it is in all directions from the point of Photonic effect. Light in itself is no form of energy, not part of the ElectroMagnetic, has no frequency - it is just ‘light’. By using E=mc^2 we are in fact measuring two different issues Light and Photons; but consider them one. That is why in most applications the formula works, but there are also conditions in which the formula does not work. On the other hand, Photons (and this we know today by means of physical experiments) can have charge, does contain energy, has mass and above all: can be either + or – or neutral charged.

What if #3:
E=mc^2 works as a general measurement, same as I might use my wallet to measure my room as 20x30x15 wallets. Thus using that as ratio I can calculate many other things and it will near always work. However, if Photons does have mass, then E=mc^2 is wrong. In reference the Harvard research where ‘light’ is slowed down and eventually stop because of low temperature – in an opaque gas even at negative pressure (vacuum). THAT cannot be done with massless quantum; can only be with item that has mass! Throught hey did not stop 'light' they stopped photons.

The Sum
Temperature will affect the speed of photons.
Photons do have mass
Light is instantaneous – cause of ‘duality’ effect.
Gravity is effect from all radiating bodies in universe
This radiated soup (which I call aether) consist of Positive, Negative and Neutral quantum;
Photons can have charge;

NOW
If we apply these postulates; there is a strange and very interesting result.
We can begin to understand gravity – and once we understand Gravity; we will also understand electricity.
If photons do have charge, then such charged photons will be affected by gravity - and that will explain the 'bending of light' around planets or moons.

[gravityblock]

Thanks Aromaz,

Does anyone have anymore "What if's" to add to Aromaz's theoritical gravitational model? Please post your own personal model, so we may all learn together. One of the models or combination of models may be correct. It wouldn't be a surprise if gravity is due to a variety of effects and causes interacting with each other.

"The day we stop thinking, is the day we die".

GB

[Harvey]

Drop a 100 pound ball on Jupiter and a 10 pound ball on Jupiter. They will both fall at a rate of 25.93 m/s2 near the surface. Earth is no different than the 10 or 100 pound ball, for the earth will fall at a rate of 25.93 m/s2 near Jupiter's surface. Drop those 100 and 10 pound balls on earth, and both balls will fall at a rate of 9.82 m/s2 near the surface. Replace one of the balls with Jupiter, and Jupiter will fall at a rate of 9.82 m/s2 near the surface of the earth.

So, the Earth will fall at a rate of 25.93 m/s2 near the surface of Jupiter, and Jupiter will fall at a rate of 9.82 m/s2 near the surface of the earth. They will be approaching each other at a rate of 35.12 m/s2.

If I'm driving 100mph and you are driving 50mph, and we are approaching each other, then we will approach each other at 150mph. It will be the same with two planets approaching each other due to gravity. Maybe I'm wrong, and If I am wrong, then I would like an explanation.

GB

Using Newton's law of Universal Gravitation:


and supposing
m1 = Earth's mass of 5.9742 × 10^24 kg
m2 = Jupiters mass = m1 x 317.83
r = 77,875km(giving a 1km space between surfaces)
G = 6.674 x 10^-11

We get 0.00000000006674 x (5974200000000000000000000.0 x 1898779986000000000000000000.0) / 77,875,000˛ which gives us a force of 124837334148378336151125012.56026 N

The force divided by the respective mass will give us the acceleration of g = 20.8961 m/s˛ for the Earth moving toward Jupiter's starting position and g = 0.06575 m/s˛ for Jupiter moving toward Earths starting position.

There is a barycentric acceleration formula found at Gravitational acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that can be used. In this case the unit vector is used to identify the direction of the acceleration.


So we get g = 0.00000000006674 (1904754186000000000000000000)) / 77,875,000˛) * 1 = 20.9618 m/s˛ toward each other.

[gravityblock]

So we get g = 0.00000000006674 (1904754186000000000000000000)) / 77,875,000˛) * 1 = 20.9618 m/s˛ toward each other.

That is 5 m/s2 less than Jupiter, and 5 m/s2 more than the earth. Is there a correlation between the two?

GB

[gravityblock]

* 10 m/s2 more than the earth?

I tried to edit the previous post, but it won't save the changes.

GB

[Harvey]

* 10 m/s2 more than the earth?

I tried to edit the previous post, but it won't save the changes.

GB

Sometimes you have to 'go advanced' to get them to stick

The surface acceleration of gravity works good for small objects because the center of mass for those objects is still in that gravitational field gradient. But when we place the center some 6km away we get a skewed gradient where part of the earth would be accelerated at the higher value and the other side would be accelerated at a lower value. So the net acceleration ends up there just below 21 m/s˛.

At least that's how I see it

[gravityblock]

@Harvey:

What if the earth was held stationary, what would be the m/s2 for Jupiter? Also, if jupiter was held stationary and the earth is allowed to move, what would be the m/s2 for the Earth?

Do you think by comparing the results between these 3 different hypotheticals, it may shed a little more light into the properties of gravity?

GB

[Aaron]

mutual attraction vs simple fall to a mass at fixed point

Drop a 100 pound ball on Jupiter and a 10 pound ball on Jupiter. They will both fall at a rate of 25.93 m/s2 near the surface. Earth is no different than the 10 or 100 pound ball, for the earth will fall at a rate of 25.93 m/s2 near Jupiter's surface. Drop those 100 and 10 pound balls on earth, and both balls will fall at a rate of 9.82 m/s2 near the surface. Replace one of the balls with Jupiter, and Jupiter will fall at a rate of 9.82 m/s2 near the surface of the earth.

So, the Earth will fall at a rate of 25.93 m/s2 near the surface of Jupiter, and Jupiter will fall at a rate of 9.82 m/s2 near the surface of the earth. They will be approaching each other at a rate of 35.12 m/s2.

If I'm driving 100mph and you are driving 50mph, and we are approaching each other, then we will approach each other at 150mph. It will be the same with two planets approaching each other due to gravity. Maybe I'm wrong, and If I am wrong, then I would like an explanation.

GB

There is a point that the mass is enough to have an effect as I mention.
Maybe not much with Earth on Jupiter but Jupiter and Saturn surely.

Arm mentioned an interesting concept about magnetic "domains" or
whatever they're referred to "snapping into place". That type of concept
of reaching a critical point where the effect accelerates or is enhanced
applies to many things in nature. That magnetic effect was the first
I heard of that and is a very profound concept. I haven't spent any time
on it but I can see how it can be developed into various practical
applications.

I bring that up because there is a scale to various masses where it gets
to the point that there is that difference when it kicks in and a scale of
being to small where it doesn't.

The SCALE of things has to be taken into account.

If you drop a pebble from a mile high, that pebble is on a scale too
small to take away much of the dominant rebounding aether moving
towards the planet.

But if the moon were to enter orbit and fall to the surface of the
planet, it takes no guesswork as to the fact that it will certainly
be at a scale enough make a difference.

Look at the moon as it is now at its far distance let alone coming into
Earth's orbit. We have high tide twice a day. The one is on the opposite
facing side from the moon from "lag" behind the Earth that is too rigid
to flex and the other, which is the stronger one is directly at the point
facing the moon. There is less push on the earth on that surface facing
the moon so there is the high tide.

So there is a difference in scale.

9.82 is most likely not a constant but an average just like light speed. Light
speed is a constant and absolutely not a limit. If the rate of fall was
precisely measured all around the surface of the earth through different
times of the day, sun/moon positions, over water and over land, you
mention some of that, it would be found not to always be exactly 9.82
but an average of 9.82.

There are gravity stations by the doe near my home to observe
gravitational anomalies - of course it is not open to the public so who
knows what they are doing but the point is that constants are usually
just an average.

Light has been slowed down to a snails pace and has been slowed down
to almost a stand still and has even been sped up so fast it exited a
chamber before it fully entered. So there are many things that should be
considered when giving certain value to constants and that definitely
applies to the rate of fall.

Anyway, if the smaller mass is 1% of the larger mass, perhaps not enough
scale similarity to make a difference but conceptually and just looking at
the intrinsic nature of it, there is probably a certain % the small mass
has to be to trigger that critical mass, pun intended, to be able to have
the effect of taking away from the larger mass thereby reducing the
aetheric pressure on that facing side.

Also has to be taking in to account... if a large mass is 1% larger than
another larger mass, the smaller will move towards the larger, that is
the fall you explain. However, the larger will ALSO move towards the
smaller but at a smaller rate of approach from it's previously fixed
reference point. So ANY movement of the larger one towards the smaller
one must be subtracted from it's normal fixed position rate of acceleration
to its surface in whatever mathematical way that floats your boat.

[Harvey]

My theory of gravitation is an extension of Einsteins work, however I have an added coefficient that makes unification possible, explains why gravity is the lesser force and provides an identity for the strong nuclear force.

In a nutshell, my theory views gravity as the displacement of space by matter at the subatomic level. Furthermore, matter itself need not be a contiguous particle to cause this displacement and inherit mass. It can be a two dimensional skin wrapped into a hollow 3D shape - if you can imagine a skin with zero thickness . So the material itself need not have substance to have mass. All that is needed is a property to displace space and keep it outside of the interior. Imagine an air bubble forms in the ocean bottom and displaces the water around it. Now imagine the surface of the bubble is frozen solid and the interior evacuated and you have a close approximation of a 2d surface enclosing a 3D sphere with nothing in the middle.

Now imagine that matter is not always displacing space. Imagine that is collapsing and inflating at currently unmeasurable rates and when it does it creates spherical ripples in space-time. Now imagine that the time it is displacing space is a small fraction of the overall cycle. This is the explanation for why it is perceived as a weak force, because we only observe the average displacement. When we have many particles out of sync with each other in close proximity, the interaction of ripples create complex standing waves. Each nucleus has its own set of standing waves (which are longitudinal spherical waves represented as higher and lower space densities) that encircle the nucleus. Charged particles such as electrons prefer those lesser density paths - we call 'shells' in conventional descriptions.

When two particles like a proton and a neutron are synchronized in their oscillations, their gravity is very strong between them and they become bonded to each other. This strong nuclear bond is governed by the shared displacement time. When the shared time of displacement is greater than the shared time of non displacement, the particles have a strong attraction. If two particles did not oscillate at all, and were stationary in their displacement, they would exhibit the true maximum force of gravity. Such materials would have very high density greater than that of meteorites. So gravity really is a very strong force, but it is only 'on' part of the time.

As you might imagine this also explains why Galaxies behave the way they do and eliminates the need for dark matter or dark energy to explain those actions. We simply need to add into the gravitational computations this variable coefficient that basically describes the subatomic duty cycle of material oscillations.

Because gravity is a displacement in space-time and we are looking for a unification of all the forces, then we must view the other forces as forms of displacement or spatial interaction also. Such is the case with electromagnetism. A charged particle exhibits an interesting oscillation pattern that would resemble a sawtooth wave. Slowly building up displacement and then collapsing for one polarity and quickly inflating only to deflate slowing for the the other polarity. These oscillations create either an outward motion of ripples or an inward motion of ripples in space-time depending on the polarity of the particle. So while gravity describes the displacement and curvature of space around matter, electromagnetism describes the magnitude of the ripples that can be generated by the oscillations.

So of the four fundamental forces, this model describes 3 of them as variants of Gravity; Gravity itself, The Strong Nuclear Force and the Weak Nuclear Force. While the Fourth force, Electromagnetism, is described as a characteristic of the action that produces Gravity.

This means that a permanent magnet would have a continuous flow of ripples that move out from one end and enter back in at the other. But those ripples are possibly only yoctometers in amplitude and wavelength. It is a currently unknown value. But it does describe why flux pinning occurs as these ripples interlock.

I imagine if Le Bon were alive today, he would have solved this for us already as he was on the right track but didn't have all the stuff to work with that we have today. C'est la vie.

So there is the crash course of my theory that Aaron alluded to earlier in the thread

[Aaron]

editing

* 10 m/s2 more than the earth?

I tried to edit the previous post, but it won't save the changes.

GB

There is a little issue with vbulletin with that - not sure why.
When you edit, immediately click the button to ADVANCED EDIT.
It saves 100% of the time that way. I apologize for that inconvenience,
but it is one of the few goofy things with vbulletin forums.

[gravityblock]

Thanks Aaron and Harvey.

I think this thread is moving forward and in the right direction. Thanks to All. Keep the information and ideas flowing. Can gravity be controlled, manipulated, reversed, negated, or turned on/off to our benefit? If yes, then a theory for how?

GB