Why Einstein's relativity theory is plain wrong

[lamare]

Posted this here:

Weekly Geopolitical News and Analysis20111024: Private "trading platforms" have been shut down in preparation for new financial system


Comment by darylluke on October 25, 2011 @ 7:48 am

"Lamare and Winiwin, regarding space being emptiness and therefore can’t have properties, what about dark energy and dark matter and what Lynn McTaggert calls The Field and David Wilcock calls The Source Field? I think that based on our limited knowledge about “space,” it is premature to conclude that Einstein was wrong."

My conclusions are not derived from the idea that space is emptiness and therefore can't have properties. However that is very simple to understand and it is also what Nikola Tesla said, so it is a very good illustration of how simple it really is to see that relativity cannot be correct.

What I did was go back to the fundamental theories of Electrical Engineering which are based on observations. Then I disvovered that a mix-up of cause and effect has been made in the formulation of the Maxwell equations, the fundamental mathematical descriptions of the electro-magnetic fields, which forms the basis for most of current Electrical Engineering theory. When you correct for that fundamental thinking error, really the floor drops from underneath the whole relativity theory. If you are interested to understand this fully, you will have to check out Meyl and Thornhill, referred to in my article.

Now to black matter and gravity. I posted this elsewhere:

http://www.energeticforum.com/163726-post74.html

<snip> Just take a look up in this thead...


All right. Now because some fundamental cause-and-effect error has been made, which lead to the disposal of the ether theory BUT introduced a "chicken and egg" problem, AND we still regard gravity as something completely different from the electro-magnetic domain, you basically have created a Swiss cheese with all kinds of holes in it you cannot explain, because your basic assumptions are incorrect. Matter is caused by the fields and not the other way around!

Take for example the difference between "near field" and "far field" regarding antenna's:

http://www.energeticforum.com/146809-post19.html

So, in essence, Tesla did not realise that there was such a thing as a near field and a far field. And actually, modern science literally makes "things" known as "virtual photons" up in order to hide the fact that they don't have the slightest idea what they are really talking about:

"In the quantum view of electromagnetic interactions, far field effects are manifestations of real photons, while near field effects are due to a mixture of real and virtual photons. Virtual photons composing near-field fluctuations and signals, have effects which are far shorter range than do real photons"

Yes, that's what it says. Near field effects are due to a mixture of something real and something completely made up aka "virtual", which is literally another word for "imaginary" or "not real".

And as a matter of fact, when you return to the old ether model, you don't need all this literally made-up stuff to straigten things out. See for example Paul Stowe:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Mat...%20Archive.pdf

The aether model has a lot going for it including:
- derivations of Planck's constant, elemental charge, Boltzman's constant, Rydberg's term, Permeability, Permitivitty from standard fluid properties
- Derivation of Newtonian Gravitation and a definition of the physical properties that create the gravitational constant G
- A foundation for Quantum Mechanics and a simple link to gravitation
- An explanation for the pure transverse nature of light
- Derivation of the 2.8 degree K background radiation
- A consistent framework for all physical phenomena
- An explanation for the distorted rotation profile of galaxies without invoking "dark matter"
- Explanation of Galvantic potential

And does so from a simply, single common basis. These are not pie in the sky descriptions but full mathematical derivations and definitions. So its kind of hard to argue with math since these a not arbitrary. Two "isolated" (that is to say no attempt is made in this post as to explain their origin) examples are illustrated below.

So far, so good.

Now I don't know McTaggert, but what Wilcock calls the source field, clearly connects to what Walter Russel (also referred to by Wilcock) was writing about:

Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

Man is omnipotent when he but knows his omnipotence. Until that day he is but man. Voltaire said that man could never comprehend God for man must be God to comprehend Him. Man is God and therefore God is within the comprehension of man. Man is Mind. Man is matter. Mind and matter are One. God is Mind. This is a universe of Mind, a finite universe, limited as to cause, and to the effect of cause. A universe of limitations cannot be infinite. There is no infinite universe. A finite universe, in which the effects of cause are limited, must also be limited as to cause; so when that measureable cause is known then can man comprehend and measure all effects.

The effects of cause are complex and mystify man but cause itself is simple. The universe is a multiplicity of changing effects of but One unchanging cause. All things are universal. Nothing is which is not universal. Nothing is of itself alone. Man and Mind and all creating things are universal. No man can say: "I alone am I."

There is but One universe, One Mind, One force, One substance.


[...]

There is no power in this universe other than the energy of thinking Mind. Thinking is the cause of motion and the periodicities, or states of motion, caused by thinking Mind are registered in light which man calls "matter." Matter is light. Nothing is which is not light.

Now back to my free energy article:

Based on my analysis of the systems built and demonstrated by Gray, Meyer and Puharich, I came to the conclusion that the basic principle is that you decouple load circuitry from driving circuitry in an unusual way, using a rectified carrier wave. By making sure that any frequencies the load circuitry may create are much lower than the carrier frequency, you separate the frequency bands wherein driving circuit and load circuitry are operating. Once you have done that, you can use a simple high pass filter to completely decouple load circuitry from driving circuitry in that sense that virtually no current goes back and forth between driving circuitry and load circuitry. So it's in essence a separation in the frequency domain combined with a high-pass filter trough which only the HF electric field from the carrier wave can pass. No charge carriers are actually exchanged between driving circuitry and load circuitry.

What this shows is that you can create a situation, whereby you have multiple more or less independent phenomena taking place, each within their own specific frequency band. This is the same thing as we do with radio engineering. Each radio channel does it's magic in a specific frequency band and you can select one out of several channels on your reciever, without noticing what is going on on the other channels. So, in a way, you can consider frequency as an extra dimension in our understanding of space and time. If you're into Wilcock and such, that should ring a bell.....

Another very interesting document is this one:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Mat...ers_of_Phi.pdf

Phi possesses the strange property of being able to automatically generate its power series when heterodyned successively with its own next-higher or lower powers! I believe this fact is a key to many fascinating areas yet to be discovered. As far as I can tell, this trait is not shared by any other number.

This connects the mixing of frequencies to the golden ratio, Phi. That means that for all the diffent frequency bands that exist ("radio channels"), some kind of connection exists, that interlocks specific frequency bands with one another, those that are a factor of Phi away from one another.

It seems that any information contained in these "radio channels" is "copied"/"shared" by all these interlocked frequency band "radio channels". So, you basically have the same radio program on lots and lots of different channels.

So, it appears that the source field basically is "the radio program" continuously transmitted over an infinite number of (Phi heterodyning) interconnected "radio channels" that all transmit the same program...

[Aether84]

Tesla Misunderstanding

OK I'll bite and I'm a little confused.

So are the hertz waves refered to the same as Transverse Electro Magnetic waves ? Theoretically.

So is it impossible for hertz waves to actually exsist ?

Then what powers my lights ?

When we use wire's do hertz waves travel the border between the wire and the air or the insulator.

The border of two media, water and air or wire and air. seems maybe even two layers of air of different densities, or metals.

Are two layers of air of different density considered different media.

Then can somebody describe the nature of the electricity that is flowing to my house from the grid system ?

Lets not get ahead of ourselves and make any rash deciscions here.

Makes me wonder how Tesla's system could be so different if there is no EM to be different from.

Cheers

tesla never said EM waves dont exist he just said they dont exist in free space or a vacuum because maxwell's aether was a solid

so EM waves do exist on wires - circuits - antennas but not once they leave a physical structure - ie radio waves or suns rays

there is no solid aether only a gaseous aether so only Longitudinal waves can exist in the air - free space or the vacuum

[lamare]

After I posted some emails about my article, I got some questions/remarks by José, who makes a very interesting point I had to think hard about before being able to shed some light on that one:

Einstein is wrong because the einstenian relativity has nothing to do with the relativity.

You and Einstein are in the same side. Why?

Because: What is the 'space time' (and also the Higgs's field) but a universal and real entity (like your aether) where all the bodies of the Universe are immersed? Relativity principle is valid only if the space is nothing, if behind the bodies and theirs fields is the vaccum.

Let's first take a look of what I think matter is and how it is present in the ether, or medium, as I posted at thunderbolts:

Thunderbolts Forum - General Relativity "slightly" Wrong?

Q: What are fields caused by?

A: Now THAT is a very good question. The problem is that there is no way to really know this from an Engineering point of view, because all we know is that everything that exists in the ether is:

1. steady state flows;
2. longitudinal waves;
3. vortexes.

All that is [physical], is a combination of these three phenemenon taking place in a substance called ether, with fluid-like properties in terms of the way it behaves with regard to electrical phenomena taking place.

This is all we really know about it's properties from an Engineering point of view:
A Dissident View of Relativity Theory by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D. :

"Given that the nothingness of a perfect absolute vacuum is bestowed with the physical properties of a permittivity, e_o 8.854 pF/m, a permeability, m_o 4p x 10-7 H/m, and a characteristic impedance of 377 ohms, is the concept of an aether really that outlandish?"

Now the problem is that the only way we can interact with the ether is trough electro-magnetic phenomena in all the various ways these occur. So, how are we going to know what the ether is like, if we can only investigate it's electro-magnetic properties?

[...]

Now what to make of the slit experiment, used to show the wave-particle duality principle?

As far as I can tell, you cannot have transversal waves in a fluid-like medium, but you can have vortexes. That means that all wave phenomena we call "transversal EM waves" must consist of some kind of vortex structure, where you have an electric component which is either steady state or a longitudinal wave, and you have a magnetic component, which is the rotational (vortex) component. So, all EM waves consists of some kind of localized structure consisting of a number of vortexes. And that is what photons as well as particles are.

Depending on the specific configuration, you get a resulting steady-state flow, the electric component which is one and the same as gravity, or no resulting steady-state flow. Depending on the geometry this steady state flow takes, you either refer to this resulting steady state flow as "gravity" or "charge". If there is no resulting steady state flow, you get a neutral (not charged), mass-less "particle".

Also depending on the specific configuration, you get a resulting rotational component, the magnetic field. When you have two counter-rotating vortexes, the rotational components can cancel one another out, and you get a non-magnetic material.

What I think happens in the slit experiment, is that the rotational component, which is part of the "internal" structure of a photon, gets removed. So, at the other side of the slit, you are left with the electric component: a longitudinal electric wave, which gives you the interference pattern.

(also see the pics at the TB forum)....

So, as far as I can tell, the difference between the "particle character" and the "wave character" regarding the "wave particle duality principle" is the presence of a rotational, magnetic component. Particles are some kind of structure consisting of vortexes interacting with one another. In the situation where you see the "wave character", the rotational component is removed by the very thin slits and you are left with a longitudinal "sound" wave, which gives you the interference pattern.


All right.

So, on the one hand we have a medium, defined with three characteristic properties in Electrical Engineering terms:

1. the permittivity,
2. the permeability,
3. the characteristic impedance.

And on the other hand we have the "classic" Galilean relativity:

Galilean invariance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity is a principle of relativity which states that the fundamental laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. Galileo Galilei first described this principle in 1632 in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems using the example of a ship travelling at constant velocity, without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary.

And now to your statement:

Relativity principle is valid only if the space is nothing, if behind the bodies and theirs fields is the vaccum.

If Einstein, or you, are right, then, the relativity principle is wrong. The relativity principle, well supported for a lot of experiment, needs the vaccum (not an aether, spacetime or a Higgs's field) between the bodies.

As far as I understand, your are saying that Galilean/Newton relativity, which is well supported by experiments, is also wrong if there is no empty vacuum, and you apparantly have a problem with that...

Let's first take a look at what I wrote here:

Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

we need to realise that the nature of these fields is dynamic and not static. In the old Newtonian model, we consider the voltage across an impedance to be the cause for a current to occur, which in our fandoor anology would be the pressure that the door "feels" being enacted by the airflow on its surface, while in reality it is the airflow (the electric) field that acts upon the door and not the pressure itself. In other words it seems like the "pressure" the electric field enacts on our components is static, hence the name "static electric field", while in actual reality this force is a dynamic force, something flows along the surface that creates the pressure. Tesla already realised this in [1892]:

"There is no doubt that with the enormous potentials obtainable by the Use of high frequencies and oil insulation luminous discharges might be passed through many miles of rarefied air, and that, by thus directing the energy of many hundreds or thousands of horse-power, motors or lamps might be operated at considerable distances from stationary sources. But such schemes are mentioned merely as possibilities. We shall have no need to transmit power at all. Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason; it has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus [Antaeus], who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain — then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature."

So, the electro-magnetic field is a dynamic force. And as I said elsewhere, there is no such thing as gravity. Gravity is one and the same phenomenon as the static electric field, it is a steady-state flow of ether. Now read this, from the same article as just above:

Any charge continously emits an energy field, an electric field, spreading with the speed of light, which is the real energy source that makes our circuits run. This energy-field, generated by the charges in our wires, is not created out of thin-air. Since there is a continuous flow of energy out of every charge, there also is a continuous flow of energy going into every charge. And that is where the energy eventually comes from, right from the vacuum itself. For our purposes, it doesn't really matter how the energy that ends up in the electric field is being taken out of the vacuum. It may be ZPE, it may be a "virtual partical flux", it may be anything. It doesn't matter, because we don't need to know.

All we need to know is that somehow, some form of energy flows into each and every charge in the universe and this energy flow is continuously converted into an outflowing electric energy field by each and every charge in the universe, 27/7, 365 days a year, for free.

All right.

So, Galilean invariance, or Newtonian relativity, says that Newton's laws hold in all inertial frames. However, in the Newtionian model, the forces are considered to be static, while in actual reality we are dealing with dynamic forces. Something flows around trough space, which gives rise to the forces that appear to be static. And the bodies we are dealing with, are not solid at all, but are made up of some kind of structure consisting of vortexes, which are like "ether pumps" that one the one hand draw energy from the ether and on the other hand influence the flow of ether around them. So, any "material" we call "mass" actively interacts with the medium at all times.

So, in essence, any "body" is some kind of dynamic structure, consisting of various vortexes in the ether, that is able to dynamically interact with and react to the ether it is immersed in. Now when a "body" is accelerated with respect to the ether it is immersed in, the ether will enact a force on the accelerating "body", which gives rise to what is known as inertia, which is also being considered to be something "static":

Inertia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest, or the tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion. It is proportional to an object's mass.

However, since the forces are actually dynamic and since every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction, what really happens IMHO is that the "body" reacts to the changes it experiences in the way the ether flows around it. It will realign it's internal structure such that it's internal "ether pumps" align with the (speed and direction) of any ether flows it finds itself in. In essence, it becomes a self-propelling structure that draws energy from the ether, a.o. in order to propel itself trough the ether such that it moves at a constant speed with respect to the ether automagically.

In other words: The dynamic interactions of any dynamic structure known as "body" with it's environment, the ether, are such that they quickly reach a steady state, which makes that the forces that occur appear to be static, while in actual fact they are dynamic. And that is why Galilean/Newtonian relativity holds in practice.

But at the fundamental levels we are talking about when considering the electro-magnetic field and the fabric of matter itself, it is no longer valid, IMHO.

[lamare]

Had another email exchange with José. He also rejects Einstein's relativity theory, BTW:

Ing. José Miguel Ledesma

The following exposition shows how the suppression of logic has destroyed the most elemental kinematic. That is the reason why, today, several pseudo sciences and magic proliferate with total impunity. If doctor of physics -intelligent as they are- accept and support the constancy of the speed of light, then the rest of the population is ready to accept any ridiculous inconsistency.

José also has a page on the Michelson-Morley experiment:

Ing. José Miguel Ledesma

Through this experiment, this two physicists aspired to measure the Earth's absolute velocity, an aspiration opposed to the relativity principle that made evident they did not comprehend this concept. The expectations (and prior deception) of these two physicists and their contemporaries, showed that the general validity of relativity was not inside the skull of anybody. Newton’s physics had been buried alive eighty years before the interferometer was sketched, because the idea of accepting a universal medium for light propagation first, and afterward, for electromagnetism, means that Newton's paradigm had been disallowed. In Maxwell equations, electric and magnetic fields exists in a universal medium and the electromagnetic wawe propagates in it at a constant speed, a fact that denies the concept of relativity and contradicts Newtonian mechanics. Lost in confusion, everyone fails to notice the contradiction between classical physics and the aether; between the assumption that their calculation were within the frame of classical physics and a confronting idea in the calculation.
We can understand the origin of this nonsense: relativity was too big an idea for those time (and it still is); so big that its significance was never appreciated, not even by his author, who never abandoned the idea of absolute space. When, at the beginning of the 19th century Fresnel, Arago, and young, among others, established the wawe nature of light, undulatory properties were attributed to the absolute space, and thus, the aether acquired, in the collective mind of humanity, the fictitious existence that has been mantained to present times, disregarding the meaning of relativity. Here it is the mistake: Galileo-Newton's relativity does not deny that light, as a wave, implies a medium for its existence and propagation from the source to the infinite but that medium should be unique and universal. The idea that every body is the centre of a particular system may help to understand this concept. Light should propagate at a constant speed though not in a universal medium but in its own propagation medium, i.e. the system in which its trajectory originated without interferences.
Were there any interference, the light would propagate in the reference system of the interference. This is a logical consequence necessary to satisfy the relativity principle. Surfaces where light reflected or transparent bodies passed through by light, for instance, are examples of trajectory origins. This automatically explains the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment; light traveled at the speed already known by Michelson in the cristals and mirrors' coordinate system of the apparatus.

In this article, he also rejects the existence of the ether:

Notice that aethereal denominators still enjoy a status they do not deserve, denying the already confirmed relativity. The expression on the left is a consequence of an unspecified contraction because... How much is our absolute velocity V?...And both indicate a higher value for T1 and T2 also unspecified for the same reason. What are those equations for? Logic has been sacrified to justify a prejudice, the existence of absolute space.
It is not true that Einstein has eradicated the aether from physics, since Lorentz's transformation, based on aether, are part of his theory; what actually occurred was that Einstein, without realizing it, made a modification to Lorentz's aether that, thought it does not account for reality, left the whole world in a catatonic state for the century

So, that is where we clearly differ in opinion.

BTW, Thierry De Mees pointed me to his book on gravity theory:

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/ebooks/D...ravity-new.pdf

At first glance, his theory looks interesting, because he comes up with a description of gravity that includes a rotational component. And he seems to have made a good analysis of the MM experiment that may help to further understand that one. Apparantly, this experiment is considered to be important, so I guess I better study it....

Anyway, this is what José mailed me:

Relativity means that there is not any reference system, the movement just exist between the bodies.

As relativity principle is well supported by experiments, then, aether, aristotle space, space-time and Higgs's field are wrong hipothesis.

And my reply:

What I'm saying about the classic theories is that these consider the forces to be static, while in actual fact we are dealing with dynamic forces.

What we are looking at with the classic view of relativity, as first described by Galilei (see my previous post), is a simplification of the real physical situation which gives the correct results at a macroscopic level, because the interactions of "a body" with the medium are balanced out very quickly, resulting in "the body" having steady-state (but dynamic!) interactions with the medium.

When "a body" moves with respect to the natural reference frame tied to the medium, it appears to be moving drag-free trough the medium, while in actual fact there is a continuous dynamic interaction with the medium, whereby the "atoms" that make up "the body", which can be considered to be "ether pumps", actually take energy from the medium (ZPE) and use that to "propel" "the body" trough the medium.

I know this is very hard to understand and I must admit it is only a hypothesis, but what I mean to say is very similar to what happens with a "cage of Faraday". Whenever you apply an electric field to a conductor, for a moment a current flows, until the charge in the conductor is such that no resulting electric field remains inside the conductor. In other words: the dynamic vortex structure the conductor is made up of changes in such a way that an externally applied electric field is nullified to a large degree when considered from a "static" point of view, while in actual fact the ether is very dynamic and flows all over the place.

In other words: the dynamics going on "under water" are invisible to a very large degree, because our "bodies" adjust their internal vortex structure to such a degree that at a macroscopic level you can describe the phenomenon taking place perfectly well when neglecting all the dynamics going on.

So, what I meant with saying "you have a problem with" is that, as far as I understand, you don't want to abandon "classic" relativity because it is well supported by experiments.

What I'm saying is that these experiments are all being performed at a macroscopic level, where you can neglect the interactions with the ether, which is tied to a natural reference frame, and therefore at a macroscopic level the "classic" relativity theory gives the correct results.

However, that does not mean you can apply "classic" relativity at a cosmic scale, nor at (sub)atomic scales, because at those scales you can no longer neglect the dynamic interactions "bodies" have with the ether with its single natural reference frame.

And I pointed once again to Jenny's Cymatic video's:

Let me also point you to the video's I was talking about in my article:

"Subsequently, the work of Hans Jenny is very interesting. He published a number of breathtaking videos which show what you can do with sound waves, eg in a bowl of water (parts 1, 2 en 3). He shows that many kinds of geometric shapes can be formed using standing sound waves in the fluid, whereby matter flows together naturally to certain areas and stays away from other areas. And that's also what happens in the ether. So, gravity is simply an electrostatic phenomenon caused by longitudinal standing waves in the ether, which determines the geometry of the solar system, our galaxy, and so on. Everything is connected to everything through these standing waves. "

Cymatics - Bringing Matter To Life With Sound (Part 1 of 3) - YouTube
Cymatics - Bringing Matter To Life With Sound (Part 2 of 3) - YouTube
Cymatics - Bringing Matter To Life With Sound (Part 3 of 3) - YouTube

What these give you, is a visualisation of the kind of phenomena that are taking place in the ether, which illustrates very nicely that we are talking about very complex and very dynamic phenomena. The description of these phenomena in terms of "static" physics can get you a very long way, but at some point you can no longer ignore all the dynamics that are taking place.

And his reply:

Don't think I don't understand you. I know these ideas; they are very old and mistaken (I'm sorry). Really, you can find them in a book published in 1907: 'The evolution of matter' written for, very famous these years, Dr. Gustave Le bon (born in 1841). These ideas are mistaken because, at least, the Michelson-Morley experiment well demonstrated: there is not aether, a universal mean as transmitter of wave of light; then, light participates of interferometer’s crystals and mirrors inertia. By the relativity principle is deduced: magnetic, electric and gravitational fields are not events that occur in one universal medium, named aether, space-time, etc, but these fields are inherent to its sources, the body that supports them. In accordance with the relativity principle, the bodies and theirs fields are the same system. The vacuum is behind them. But, if you fell in love of your point of view, go on.

This book can be found here:
Gustave Le Bon: The Evolution of Matter --- Complete text
The Evolution of Matter : Gustave Le Bon, F . Legge : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

[nueview]

ok i know this does not probably belong here but then were would i put it?

i had a strainge dream last night and when i woke this morning two things kept going around in my head i think i must have heard about this at some time in math but can't seem to remember maybe it was part of the dream.

so here goes if a fine glass buble is made and all the air evacuated will it float in the air such as a bubble of hydrogen will?

the other was pure math problem if 1^2=1 and 2^2=4 the difference is always 1+2=3 look again 8^2=64 and 9^2=81 8+9=17 81-64=17 what is this about i have played with this all day and it works with any number i choose.

but why the question about the bubble?

any thoughts would be appreciated.
Martin

[t-rex]

Self Explanatory

(1) I am an Electrical Engineer

(2) Einstein says electricity does not exist

(3) So what can I say? It is that basic!

This is why I wrote the "Theory of Anti-Relativity". It is in the thread "Peter whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?" It will make any Einsteiner's blood boil, you can rest assured of that. To quote Nikola Tesla; "Todays scientists substitute mathematics for experiments and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Such is the "Theory of Relativity".

[replaced]

(1) I am an Electrical Engineer

(2) Einstein says electricity does not exist

(3) So what can I say? It is that basic!

Give me the exact quote of Einstein saying that electricity does not exist.

Electricity is just a term used to describe a process. The process of negative ions losing electrons to positive ions.

This is why I wrote the "Theory of Anti-Relativity". It is in the thread "Peter whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?" It will make any Einsteiner's blood boil, you can rest assured of that. To quote Nikola Tesla; "Todays scientists substitute mathematics for experiments and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Such is the "Theory of Relativity".

If you do not accept Einstein's theory of relativity then physicists from a hundred years ago knew more than you do. The mathematics for experiments line up perfectly with the experiments carried out. So it's not just all math backing up the theory of relativity. We see real effects of time dilation in the planet mercury, our satellites, particle accelerators, and many many other experiments carried out ALL support the theory of relativity.

So choosing between your "Theory of Anti-Relativity" article and thousands of scientists with hundreds of experiments. I think I'll go with Einstein.

[Aaron]

The Theory of Anti-Relativity

So choosing between your "Theory of Anti-Relativity" article and thousands of scientists with hundreds of experiments. I think I'll go with Einstein.

[The Theory of Anti-Relativity, Chapter 1]
[The Theory of Anti-Relativity, Chapter 2]
[The Theory of Anti-Relativity, Chapter 3]
[The Theory of Anti-Relativity, Chapter 4]
You are constantly given references that you choose not to follow up, which shows your true agenda. The above 4 links have references in them with clear explanations that even a layman could understand. At the bottom of each of those pages is a link to a .doc that has all the notes typed out. It is not just an "article" and it has references that I believe are freely available at archive.org.

[t-rex]

Miss Replaced

Miss Replace,
Electrical Engineers are not *****s to "Physics". We HAVE to make something work. You don't even know how to make a crystal radio.

[replaced]

You are constantly given references that you choose not to follow up, which shows your true agenda. The above 4 links have references in them with clear explanations that even a layman could understand. At the bottom of each of those pages is a link to a .doc that has all the notes typed out. It is not just an "article" and it has references that I believe are freely available at archive.org.

I don't need to look at the references because I know that it's just a bunch of false gibberish. No equations are supplied in your references. I also know for a fact that overunity of anything cannot be achieved. Not even in a billion years from now.

[Aaron]

@replaced

I don't need to look at the references because I know that it's just a bunch of false gibberish. No equations are supplied in your references. I also know for a fact that overunity of anything cannot be achieved. Not even in a billion years from now.

Your opinion has been noted. Therefore, this forum serves no purpose for you and you contribute nothing to it. There is no point to you posting anymore because posting your opinion again will not increase the proof that you do not believe this - nor will it sway anyone's opinion that do believe.

You're welcome to post your own opinions in your own threads discussing your opinion on why you don't believe any of this but stay out of threads that you disagree with.

[lamare]

ok i know this does not probably belong here but then were would i put it?

i had a strainge dream last night and when i woke this morning two things kept going around in my head i think i must have heard about this at some time in math but can't seem to remember maybe it was part of the dream.

so here goes if a fine glass buble is made and all the air evacuated will it float in the air such as a bubble of hydrogen will?

the other was pure math problem if 1^2=1 and 2^2=4 the difference is always 1+2=3 look again 8^2=64 and 9^2=81 8+9=17 81-64=17 what is this about i have played with this all day and it works with any number i choose.

but why the question about the bubble?

any thoughts would be appreciated.
Martin

@nueview : I think you want to check out Randy Powell's vids. This is exactly what he explains in this vid:

Randy Powell - Advanced Vortex Math - Part 1 - YouTube

Randy Powell explains vortex math and the ABHA Torus from the beginning.

Expanding on the work of Marko Rodin. Contact Randy directly at randy@theabhakingdom.com or visit his website at http://www.theabhakingdom.com

theabhakingdom's Channel - YouTube

Theorum

I only watched the first vid I posted above and still have to watch the other ones. Very interesting material...

[lamare]

If you do not accept Einstein's theory of relativity then physicists from a hundred years ago knew more than you do. The mathematics for experiments line up perfectly with the experiments carried out. So it's not just all math backing up the theory of relativity. We see real effects of time dilation in the planet mercury, our satellites, particle accelerators, and many many other experiments carried out ALL support the theory of relativity.

So choosing between your "Theory of Anti-Relativity" article and thousands of scientists with hundreds of experiments. I think I'll go with Einstein.

Einstein's relativity theory is based on a misunderstanding of the electro-magnetic fields. A fundamental thinking error has been made in the formulation of the Maxwell equations. See my article on the matter with all the references you can dream of:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Ruins 96 Years Einstein Relativity

[t-rex]

Poison for the Relativists

Heaviside Vol II, Page 533

Electricity is just a term used to describe a process. The process of negative ions losing electrons to positive ions.

Thank you for sharing with us your complete lack of understanding of electricity, it is rather remarkable. Your "definition" of electricity perfectly describes an electrical fire on a bus bar insulator in a substation. We try to avoid YOUR "electricity" the best we can. The electricity that pushes the busbars apart through vacous space is what we work with. What Mercury, or satellites, or stars do have no application here in the substationand that is why we have a locked gate, so you do not get blasted and then sue us!

73 DE N6KPH

(P.S. can someone find Tom Brown so he can tell us why we can't see the stars in outer space, and how he came to that understanding. This would be helpful.

[kitcar]

If you do not accept Einstein's theory of relativity then physicists from a hundred years ago knew more than you do.

So choosing between your "Theory of Anti-Relativity" article and thousands of scientists with hundreds of experiments. I think I'll go with Einstein.

I think Ill go with Tesla the physicist from 100 years ago that really built his thoughts to working machinery instead of just putting them on paper like Einstein, with lots of mathematical tricks to get the errors out.

as to quote this from Tesla in line with Lamare's article:
"The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories.
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly.
One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Today's scientists (*today= now 100years ago) have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wander off through equation after equation
and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."