Lloyd wrote:lamare wrote:JouniJokela wrote: The MAIN PROBLEM in all these theories is, that it changes the Gravitational PULL to a PUSH. ...

In our model, gravity is considered as the second order Laplacian for the aether flow velocity field [v]. This implies gravity to consist of standing longitudinal waves, completely analogous to what is shown with "cymatics", whereby the standing wave of course is an interference of two waves going back and forth.

In our model, gravity is not considered to be a separate force, but a natural consequence of standing longitudinal sound-like pressure waves, whereby "matter" naturally moves from the "high pressure" areas in the standing wave interference pattern towards "low pressure" areas in the interference pattern.

High pressure is a push. So why don't you agree that gravity is a push, instead of a pull?

Where are these high pressure waves? Are they waves in the aether? Where are measurements of these waves that we can all observe? What causes the waves? Does the aether consist of photons?

By the way, if you start a forum website, I'd join.

You are correct, so I have no other choice but to agree that gravity IS a push. From a fundamental perspective, it is also rather strange to consider the possibility of pulling forces, given the fundamental hypothesis of the existence of a fluid-like medium called aether.

While in general this assumption is being regarded as "disproven", this is actually not the case, as has been argued by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D., in his article "A Dissident View of Relativity Theory":

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazi ... tview.html
Given that the **nothingness of a perfect absolute vacuum **is bestowed with the physical properties of a permittivity, epsilon_0 of 8.854 pF/m, a permeability mu_0 of 4pi x 10-7 H/m, and a characteristic impedance of 377 ohms, **is the concept of an aether really that outlandish?**

From our model, gravity is predicted to be

**standing** longitudinal waves, while the electric field is predicted to be "ordinary" sound-like longitudinal waves trough the aether, 100% analogous to the sound waves we observe in the waters and air all around us.

There is some measurement data available which suggests these waves are for real, considering that theoretically longitudinal waves propagate at a factor of sqrt(3) faster than "transverse" waves. A while ago, I started writing two articles/notes regarding these measurements, but they are not finished:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/ ... eChallenge
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/FastLight
Wheatstone's 1834 is the first experiment I know of, wherein propagation speeds much faster than c have been measured, although this is mostly been regarded as a "measuring error". It could be very interesting to repeat this experiment with modern equipment. Another highly interesting anomaly is "fast light", associated with "anomalous dispersion". So far, my work on that goes no further than a number of notes and considerations, as well as a small collection of articles including experiments with radio waves propagating faster than c:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/
However, these measurements all concern "faster than light" waves, which are implied by our model to be longitudinal in nature. Regarding gravity, I know there are some measurements regarding "gravity waves", but I have not looked into that.

However, a practical way to investigate the correctness of our prediction would be to study the "Biefeld Brown" effect and see how well our model holds up in correctly predicting that effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E ... own_effect
I have taken a look at Tjamar's paper, one of the most recent studies into that effect AFAIK:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AIAAJ..42..315T
https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwese ... evised.pdf
I suspect that the topology of his capacitor construction is problematic and that with our model one can come to a better topology, which I fully expect to lead to results which differ from Tjamar's. I received an e-mail from Zbigniew Modrzejewski, which contains a very interesting picture overlayed on TT Brown's patent, suggesting just what kind of topology could be considered:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/RecevedConsidera ... jewski.pdf
In other words: AFAIK at this moment, no measurement data is available which is directly interpreted as evidence for longitudinal waves, but a re-interpretation of some of the data might very well lead to supporting evidence. Further, we have proposed a number of experiments to validate our model. The simplest one is repeating Wheatstone's experiment.

More complicated experiments involve follow-up research of the work of the Erdmann brothers, Pappas and Obolensky (listed in the above Fast Light directory) and Wesley Monstein:

Monstein, Wesley - Observation of scalar longitudinal electrodynamic waves(2002).pdf
In our model, the aether is described as consisting of what you could think of as small spheres obeying Newton's laws of motion and not much more. Fundamentally, all known particles and electro

**magnetic** waves contain a magnetic component, which implies that some kind of

**vortex** is present in the phenomenon. And therefore, fundamentally, the aether cannot exist of any kind of known particle or photon.

The equations I have given, are all continuum mechanics equations, which therefore have a lower limit with respect to their validity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum ... _continuum
Materials, such as solids, liquids and gases, are composed of molecules separated by "empty" space. On a microscopic scale, materials have cracks and discontinuities. However, **certain physical phenomena can be modeled assuming the materials exist as a continuum**, meaning the matter in the body is **continuously distributed** and fills the entire region of space it occupies. A continuum is a body that can be continually sub-divided into infinitesimal elements with properties being those of the bulk material.

The validity of the continuum assumption may be verified by a theoretical analysis, in which either some clear periodicity is identified or statistical homogeneity and ergodicity of the microstructure exists. More specifically, the continuum hypothesis/assumption hinges on the concepts of a representative elementary volume and separation of scales based on the Hill–Mandel condition. This condition provides a link between an experimentalist's and a theoretician's viewpoint on constitutive equations (linear and nonlinear elastic/inelastic or coupled fields) as well as a way of spatial and statistical averaging of the microstructure.

In other words: the equations I have given, do not explain what the Aether is made of, although Stowe did some work on that, too. From my notes:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/ ... ectedPosts
OK, let's look at "Continuum Mechanics", T. J. Chung, Prentice Hall 1988. On page 1&2 we find:

"To distinguish the continuum or macroscopic model from a

microscopic one, we may list a number of criteria. ... A

concept of fundamental importance here is that of mean free

path, which can be defined as the average distance that a

molecule travels between successive collisions with other

molecules. The ratio of the mean free path L to the

characteristic length S of the physical boundaries of interest,

called the Knudsen number Kn, may be used to determine the

dividing line between macroscopic and microscopic models."

Bottom line, the limit of validity of the continuum model is when L/S < 1 period. If our boxes become smaller that L we simply can't use the continuum mathematics.

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/ ... sonalEMail
The basic physical quantities in this system are the medium properties identified by Maxwell in his 1860-61 "On Physical Lines of Force". We quantify the mean momentum (quanta) [ß], characteristic mean interaction length (quanta) [L], the root mean speed [c], and a mass attenuation coefficient [¿].

Their values are,

ß = 5.154664E-27 kg-m/sec

L = 6.430917E-08 m

¿ = 3.144609E-06 m^2/kg

c = 2.997925E+08 m/sec

In other words, all of the major observed and measured constants of physics can be derived from the above terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength
"The CODATA 2010 value for the Compton wavelength of the electron is 2.4263102389(16)×10−12 m."

So, when considering properties of the electron, we get an L/S of:

5.154664E-27 / 2.4263102389e-12 = 2.12448676899e-15,

which means we can safely use continuity mechanics at sub-atomic scales.

For Planck's length however, we get an L/S of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616199(97)×10−35 metres.

5.154664E-27 / 1.616199e-35 = 318937457.578

So, we certainly cannot use continuity mechanics at the Planck scale....

--::--

**Oops**, wrongly took the value of beta in my calculations. Should have been L....

For the electron, we would then get an L/S of 6.430917E-08/2.4263102389e-12 = 26504.9 , which means our model would already be invalid at that scale.

However, I don't know how Stowe determined the value for L, so further study is required in order to determine the lower limit of validity of our model. Stowe's value for L would be our lower limit, but I would need to know how he determined this value before being able to vow for it's correctness.