What is gravity, the electric and magnetic fields?

[kevin]

Seasmith,
As an antique dealer, I can confirm that the bottom drawer is always the one with most content.
As for identifying those veiled, difficult, but look into the eyes to see those that KNOW?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Al ... ch_Kozyrev
Kevin

[junglelord]

Nice theory. But does it agree with what we observe in the universe? Gravitational lensing is not a proven fact!

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... misuse.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... avlens.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... gleweb.htm

I thought light could be polarized because of its direction of vibration, not because it was a flat rotating loop.

Polarized light waves are light waves in which the vibrations occur in a single plane

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/P ... 12l1e.html

Junglelord said.

I believe the Aether is a Rotating Magnetic Field.I believe that the Magnetic Flux comes from the Aether.I believe all Magnetic Fields are made of Dual Vortex Structures in the Aether.

Rotating Magnetic Field is the ether? Made from Dual Vortex Structures? Magnets within magnets? I do not follow you, the Dual Vortex Structures make magnetic fields, the magnetic field rotates making the ether? Then the ether, that is, the Rotating Magnetic Field makes the Magnetic Flux "Magnetic Flux comes from the Aether"? Something from nothing it would seem to me! It seems you are saying that the ether is some sort of a magnetic field that makes it self.

Gravitational lensing is not disproven either and may be due to a Radiation Pressure model according to BlazeLabs.
In otherwords several different views of gravity still create the effect. What is the correct model, well that remains to be seen, but they all say the same thing as far as what the relationships of gravity to light are, it bends it.
What is the structure of a photon then if it is not a circular loop?
I say a photon is not EM because by its very nature it does not respond to EM Fields, only Gravity.
What does that tell You? It tells me something. As far as Aether being a RMF, well what do you think Aether is then?
If you believe in Aether. If you do not, then it is a mute point. I have need to convince you of the Aether.

[Influx]

MODERATOR EDIT: For the sake of accuracy please be careful with the quotation attributes. Users should carefully review their posts to ensure they have not misspoken and that quotes are correctly attributed. Many of these forum discussions are complicated and convoluted enough.

MOD EDIT:[kevin wrote:]If you believe in Aether. If you do not, then it is a mute point. I have need to convince you of the Aether.

Belief is irrelevant, facts are not. The existence of ether is not a proven fact!

[bboyer]

Kevin,

To preserve the coherence of this thread, you may want to post the answere in the lower drawer of the forum; but my question,
re your words above:
,

...those that know this, and their adjenda to veil this must be tremendous.

Might you identify those that compose the "their" ??

Cheeers,
s
~

The thread was moved early on from EU to FOS. Of course, it may move ... lower.

[Influx]

The electric universe theory explains the behavior of matter in space, so far doing a darn good job too. But I wanted to get a EU perspective on gravity, the electric field and the magnetic field, when I posed the question. As far as I understand, EU does not talk about what space is or is not, where it came from and where it is going to. The last thing I read was that space is simple IS. EU proponents claim that there is no observable phenomenon that has been studied as of late that demonstrates the origin or the destiny of the universe. If I understand them correctly. IN light of this I wanted to see what people thought of the fact that the most important aspect of EU is also the least understood. That is, the fact that the electric and magnetic fields are still a total mystery. Electromagnetic radiation and its behavior is understood, but the components of of which it is made, electric and magnetic fields are not. I had hoped to get at least a valid answer, valid in a sense to EU. Instead everyone's pet theories.

[bboyer]

<snip> That is, the fact that the electric and magnetic fields are still a total mystery. Electromagnetic radiation and its behavior is understood, but the components of of which it is made, electric and magnetic fields are not. I had hoped to get at least a valid answer, valid in a sense to EU. Instead everyone's pet theories.

That pretty much sums it up, I think. And yes, lots of pet theories around.

Not sure much came of it, but here's an old thread I had begun back-when that has some of the ground we covered on magnetism.

Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

[junglelord]

The problem clearly lies in the public and also the EU position on EM.
It is a Heaviside dumbdown in effect for almost 100 years.
The public nor the EU theory has any corrections.
Instead they claim the Plasma Physics and drag along the Heaviside EM and state its an EU.

Birkeland is touted as the father of the EU.
Tesla is no where in the book.
TT Brown non existant and totally classified.

Watch the MIT Lecture series on EM.
The EU is disqualified in the FIRST LECTURE.
That is non sequitar.

They can however do that because of the Heaviside Reduction.
The Heaviside Reduction of 4 Vectoral Sums touted as Maxwells Formulas is a LIE>

So the EU is no where near a good EM theory. Its Plasma Physics are great.
It recognizes the EU but does not tell you the simple facts of EM via Tesla vs Heaviside. The lie sold as truth, the dumbdown. Its is not better to simplify the work of Maxwell. It is not close to being his work. It is the work of Heaviside.

Therein lies the problem. For every one. If you have not read Maxwell, Faraday, Tesla, Brown, then you know Heaviside.
You speak of the term current like it is Electricity. Nothing could be further from the truth and infact the term "current" as it applies via dimensional analysis is not in the proper units. It is a linear unit and is the movement of charge, like a river has current, yet current is not the river. However we speak of Electricity as Current, we even bring in the term Birkeland Current a linear unit, when in fact it is a Magnetic Tube, A Birkeland Tube is more proper as it is not a linear structure and in fact is nonlinear and distibuted.....Charge is always distributed. While we are on the subject of proper terms, Voltage is not a pressure....it is the Hill on the E field. Therein lies the Potential Difference.

The Scalar Product of Maxwells Quaternions and the work of Tesla shows that this Non Linear System is how the EU operates. Heaviside has no Scalar. The Alfven Wave is a Scalar Wave, it is a Soliton, it is Non Linear. Its has Structure.
The structural approach is the only way to know all things.

As far as pet theories. They exist. The truth also exists. Charge has a structure which clearly is a Sphere for ES Charge and a Toroid for EM Charge. The Fine Structure Constant of the e- is the proportional relationship between the geometry of ES and EM Charge. Electrons are a Shimmering Cloud composed of two waving geometries. The e- is a Dual Charge unit that is always distributed, is not a point or a wave but accounts for both and also disqualifies the so called Quantum Restriction of knowing both location and veloctiy of a particle. There are no particles. That clears that up. Now Magnetic Fields have a structure shown to be a Dual Vortex. The Dual Vortex also applies to Aether. The galaxy is a Spiral when in a mature form. Pet theories and what Nature is telling you can co-exist, I am living proof. So were my teachers, Tesla, Maxwell, Faraday, Dave Thomson,Konstatine Meyl, Wilbert Smith. No one can prove to me that the Spiral Galaxy is not the Archetype form. No one can disprove to me that Double Layers always make a Vortex and/or Helix. Birkeland currents, capacitors, diodes, transistors, land and sea, etc, all prove me correct.

Charge is continuous. Therefore it is a Tensegrity. Fuller Synergetics would therefore apply as it is directly accountable for natures rule of taking the path of least resistance to a geometry. I could go on, but then my pet theories seem kinda mad cause it all fits together perfectly. APM calls it a Unified Field Theory.

I support any model that gives the Structural Analysis of a Field, Sub Atomic Unit, Aether, Charge, Magnetic Field, and how this relates to all harmonic relationships via PHI< Pi < e.

Structure and Function cannot be seperated. He who knows the structure controls the function via the frequency.

[Solar]

The problem clearly lies in the public and also the EU position on EM.
It is a Heaviside dumbdown in effect for almost 100 years.
The public nor the EU theory has any corrections.
Instead they claim the Plasma Physics and drag along the Heaviside EM and state its an EU.

I can understand the importance of this. However, the association is complete as far as I'm concerned. That is to say that the EU has, like no other cosmology or scientific endeavor, fully aligned itself with electrical properties and potencies as a primary causative agent of celestial events. Though true that Quaternions where striped from Maxwell's equations I would suggest that by default the basic hypothesis of the EU will automatically associate along with any and all derivatives stemming from developments along the lines of fully realizing the potentials of Maxwell's original equations. This, not necessarily via the work of it's main team (though that may be the case), but even by investigation from some of it's proponents just as you have demonstrated.

Yet, all of these things need time and study before simply leaping the edge of the cliff.

They can however do that because of the Heaviside Reduction.
The Heaviside Reduction of 4 Vectoral Sums touted as Maxwells Formulas is a LIE>

It was pure laziness and Maxwell recognized it as such:

Also in November 1870, Maxwell wrote a Manuscript on the Application of Quaternions to Electromagnetism, which is reprinted in Volume II of Maxwell's Scientific Papers at pages 570-576. In it Maxwell uses the term curl instead of twirl, and he also says:

"... The invention of the Calculus of Quaternions by Hamilton is a step towards the knowledge of quantities related to space which can only be compared for its importance with the invention of triple coordinates by Descartes. The limited use which has up to the present time been made of Quaternions must be attributed partly to the repugnance of most mature minds to new methods involving the expenditure of thought ..." - Some Quaternionic History

Now you have an entire institution of scientifically educated individuals and endeavors unawares. The introduction of quaternions would probably disprove a host of well funded "lies". That will not occur overnight; if at all.

So the EU is no where near a good EM theory. Its Plasma Physics are great.
It recognizes the EU but does not tell you the simple facts of EM via Tesla vs Heaviside. The lie sold as truth, the dumbdown. Its is not better to simplify the work of Maxwell. It is not close to being his work. It is the work of Heaviside.

That's all fine and good however I'm more concerned with individuals who are new to the EU and it's ideas. One might prove quite unsuccessful if one assails their novice understanding with the full weight of the necessity of including the quaternions into Maxwell's equations when they may not even be familiar with plasma, scalar potentials, Alfven, Heavyside, and/or who Maxwell is.

Yes, the original equations with quaternions "had everything you need to write the equations for Longitudinal Waves in an elastic medium ..."

Influx. Were I curious as to an 'EU sense' of what are the components of gravity, electric and/or magnetic fields I would submit an e-mail via the main website and simply ask.

[junglelord]

Well I might be a special condition, but when I first read the EU, I was totally encouraged to apply their work to EM theory.

What they presented was a historical perspective that showed infact the EU is an old concept. It has been presented several times in the last 100 years. For what ever reason it has been not accepted. They gave me a history lesson.
I returned the favor. Tesla/TT Brown EM is what the EU needs is what I say must occur. Heaviside, currently is what they offer. This is the problem. Heaviside reductions make space gravity controlled and scalar non existant, ask Professor Lewin of MIT>

The book showed me how inadequate my knowledge of very recent and important physics was. It encourage me to do what I had been needing to do, read the original work and investigate the nagging problems with my college education in elecronic engineering vs what Bearden said Tesla was doing and what Maxwells original work showed. Meyl pushed me back to Faraday and his work on Inductance.

If gravity cosmology is wrong, and black holes are not real and if dark matter is not needed, then how do you suppose Plasma Physics with Heaviside EM will do to win over the sciencetific set? If Tesla is not even mentioned by professor Lewin at MIT EM lecture series, and infact is it would seem to me anyway purposefully left out, then maybe the EU should take the same que for Tesla, they applied to Birkeland and Alfven. Since Professor Lewin says the EU does not exist in lecture one, then how can the EU quantify itself without a Tesla EM? MIT Physics Faculty: Walter H. G. Lewin is no slouch. However watching the MIT EM lecture series with the education I received on ES from APM was invaluable, Dave Thomson is right. Why is Electrostatics not quantified? Walter H. G. Lewin and MIT say the EU does not exist in lecture one. They do not mention Tesla. I say the two are totally connected.

I also still maintain that EM theory currently is understood to support gravity cosmology, not The EU, when we get technical about it. Especially with such items as magnetic reconnection flying around as valid concepts. That means the EU needs to rewrite alot of stuff. Thats better done in one step then two if you ask me.

If your throwing out the current work, then why drag in nonsensical EM to support it? If you can rewrite cosmology, you can surely rewrite EM. Come on, especially if its EU. Or do you expect transverse EM limited to c to explain electric transmission from the galactic core? We both know it must be faster then c. It is clear Teslas IMTR is a quantum entanglement Z Pinch. Sounds like a EU Star in all respects as far as EU theory. Find that for me in the Heaviside work.


EM has been throughly reviewed historically, so how hard would it be for the minds that be to pull it together>?

Dave Thomson is currently going over Maxwells work line by line.
I suggest others do the same.

[Influx]

Well I suck at math , so instead I try to understand the cosmos by visualization.

[Solar]

What they presented was a historical perspective that showed infact the EU is an old concept. It has been presented several times in the last 100 years. For what ever reason it has been not accepted.

Alfven explains the reason for this quite well:

On the other hand, in the general theory of relativity the four-dimensional formulation is more important. The theory is also more dangerous, because it came into the hands of mathematicians and cosmologists, who had very little contact with empirical reality. Furthermore, they applied it to regions which are very distant, and counting dimensions far away is not very easy. Many of these scientists had never visited a laboratory or looked through a telescope, and even if they had, it was below their dignity to get their hands dirty. They accepted Plato's advice to "concentrate on the theoretical side of their subject and not spend endless trouble over physical measurements". They looked down on observers and experimental physicists whose only job was to confirm their high-brow conclusions. Those who were not able to confirm them were thought to be incompetent. Observing astronomer came under heavy pressure from prestigious theoreticians.
...

General relativity paved the way for a revival of Pythagorean thinking. Once agin it was believed possible to explore the universe by pure mathematics.
...

The sign at the entrance to Plato's Academy, "Let none who has not learnt (Euclidean) geometry enter here", was modernized to "Let none who has not learnt Minskowskian geometry enter here". The cosmological discussion became monopolized by Big-Bang believers who had studied general relativity for years. No one else is allowed to have any views about cosmology. Textbooks on 'modern cosmology' start with general relativity and often do not even mention the existence of heretical views.

Still more serious is the fact that only those observation which by any stretch of imagination could be interpreted as supporting the Big Bang are mentioned. The increasing number of observations which prove the Big-Bang hypothesis to be wrong are swept under the rug." - "Cosmology - Myth or science?" Hannes Alfvén 1984

This hasn't changed but in fact has worsened. It is entrenched dogma now which you well know. Even working within the confines of 'accepted' physics with plasma physics and the importance of electrical properties demonstrable in a lab a valid qualitative hypothesis such as the EU is not a welcomed site. This would probably be the case even if it were cloaked in the full regalia of erudite mathematica as so many other theories so clothed are similarly rejected out of hand as well via the review boards.

If gravity cosmology is wrong, and black holes are not real and if dark matter is not needed, then how do you suppose Plasma Physics with Heaviside EM will do to win over the sciencetific set?

Is that the goal of the EU or Plasma Physics? I honestly don't think so. Current plasma physics, as relates astrophysics, is couched in the terms of "space weather" or some such thing. Not in the way and manner of Anthony Peratt, Thornhill, Talbott, D. Scott, Mel Acheson et al. There is a significant difference between these approaches as you also well know.

Thats better done in one step then two if you ask me.

And with that you've discovered the secret ingredient. The proverbial "one step at a time". Perhaps the tortoise *may* have pondered whether or not he would win the race. But I would wager that he more-so made sure his strides were true and steady. Relax my speedy friend. We will get there.

[junglelord]

Your right. Good advice.

I would interject that the reasons why it is not accepted is more nefarious then publicly stated.
Blanent surpression of thought, knowledge, theory, both publicly and professionally.
This began simple enough back in the mid 30s. It has been going on for about three generations now and is "truth".
To the point that it is brainwashed into the psych that only fools and conspiracy theorist believe such dribble.
The EU is treated that way on BAUT, and other forums that supposedly are full of professionals.
It is talked about in private behind closed doors professionally when discussed, like a posion plague.


The surpression, impression, depression, opression, is engrained in so many ways that we may drown in the one step process. DMT is known to give instant release from any addiction.....the 10 step process could kill you while you struggle to rise from the quicksand of cancer that grows from all sides and sucks you into the black hole at the heart of every galaxy. But thats my position. One piece of the puzzle does not make a better picture. I defy you to tip just one domino and not bring down the entire house of cards. Thats what the EU did for me in 12 months. If I could do it myself with the start of the EU domino, then why should they not do it themself and make the book complete? Maybe because it is all conspriacy theorist territory....all I know is Tesla is so far removed from MIT, Heaviside, and is the EU EM candidate that would laugh at our attempt to introduce Plasma Physics with transverse EM, that he would split his gut laughing, or go away crying, or perhaps stay and teach us what would accompany this wonderful idea to completion in one more simple step. I think he would stay and would join forces with the EU Plasma theory....so that stars as a Z Pinch would be accounted as his Magnifying Transmitter/Receiver system and would be recognized as instant in relationship. After all that is the EU star model.

I have stated before I see the entire world 180 out of phase with everything believed.
Some call that the Mirror Mind.

[keeha]

GRAVITY http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_gravity.htm

[W]aves radiated by matter create standing waves because of all incoming plane waves. The result is an unusual standing wave set which may be called a plano-convex field of force....

The plano-convex field of force.
Matter is made of waves and it radiates waves all around. Because the universe is filled up with enormous quantities of matter, the replenishment or amplification process transforms plane waves incoming from very distant matter all around into outgoing spherical waves whose energy is equal....Outgoing spherical waves and incoming plane waves are adding constructively.

The biconvex field of force.
Between two material bodies, however, waves are spherical on both sides. The result is a biconvex field of force....For a given area, the central on-axis pattern is smaller despite the theoretically equal wave energy.
This smaller standing wave pattern radiates less energy. This causes a weaker radiation pressure.

The final disequilibria.
Because matter extracts some energy from plane aether waves, there is a shade effect between two material bodies. This causes the intermediate plano-convex fields to be weaker than the external ones. This is why they are displayed as smaller arrows in the diagram below. Then the extracted energy is totally radiated again into spherical waves and two joined additional arrows are added right in the middle of the diagram.

Theoretically, the energy sum for two smaller arrows equals that of one bigger arrow and the result should still be inertia. Let's repeat that because of this, Henri Poincaré and other authors showed that this would cancel the shade effect and that no residual force should remain.

They all concluded that waves could not explain gravity.

For example, the sun intercepts a little amount of energy from aether waves. This produces a shade effect, which is an attractive force. Then the sun radiates the exact amount of energy as spherical wavelets which create plano-convex fields all around including the intermediate shaded space, where they are weaker because of the weaker plane waves. The same radiated waves also create additional biconvex fields of force because they encounter opposite spherical waves. Such fields are truly weaker for a given quantity of energy and they cannot cancel exactly the attractive force. It turns out that inside the intermediate shaded space, the sum of both plano-convex and biconvex gravitational fields of force cannot achieve equilibrium any more.

The important point is that biconvex fields of force are weaker than plano-convex ones. Even though the wave energy involved is the same, the radiation pressure is not.


The complete gravity mechanism.

It should be emphasized that the difference is very small. Gravity is not the "fundamental force of the Universe". It is only a residual force, quite insignificant as compared to the sum of transferred energy from incoming to outgoing waves by one kilogram of matter during one second, which is far greater then Einstein's mc squared...

There is no General Relativity because gravity rarely involves "relativistic" speed. Gravity is only a regular force. Surely, gravity cannot "bend space". It is geometrically impossible. This hypothesis is totally absurd, actually an insult to our intelligence. What's more, it does not mechanically explain anything.

Frankly, did you really believe that? It is much better to simply admit Newton's law.

kevin-I'm partial to quarter-sawn Oak antiques myself, besides being stronger, with the ray cells one gets to observe an 'extra dimension' in one's furniture.

[Influx]

So Keeha you are basically saying that constructive interference causes an attractive force. Shouldn't that be easy to prove betwixt to antennas of the same size radiating the same electromagnetic waves?

[keeha]

Yes Influx, assuming one were to bathe the system with the appropriate planar waves and establish a resonance with it.

A similar experiment :
Mie resonances and bonding in photonic crystals, M. I. Antonoyiannakis et al 1997 Europhys. Lett. 40 613-618

Abstract. Isolated dielectric spheres support resonant electromagnetic (EM) modes which are analogous to electronic orbitals and, like their electronic counterparts, can form bonding or anti-bonding interactions between neighbouring spheres. By irradiating the system with light at the bonding frequency an attractive interaction is induced between the spheres. We suggest that by judicious selection of bonding states we can drive a system towards a desired structure, rather than rely on the structure dictated by gravitational or Van der Waals forces, the latter deriving from the zero point energy population of a state.