What is gravity, the electric and magnetic fields?

[Peron]

I have another question, how do planets have moons, and how can humans put artificial satellites in orbit?

Lets say that gravity is electrical then wouldn't we have massive distortion in our power grids. Even in our radio and wireless signals?

Trying to detect radio waves from a van de graf generator would be like painting with water. Useless. While mainstream science claims there is only one spectrum, the electromagnetic waves, Tesla said there might be as many as six different kinds of spectrum's out "there".

I meant if gravity is electrical, then how does the earth and moon produce gravity? Where does the Earth get the charge? How can our satellites stay in orbit, when gravity is just electrical?

[altonhare]

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

Then thread theory is your best friend. There is no math required and no abstract gibberish. It is simple, rational, and most importantly it is scientific. Mathematics is an exercise in pure rationalism, it can lead you to a valid conclusion based on your premises, but it cannot provide you with valid premises.

[webolife]

Alton, you're back!
Premises built upon observations also must be evaluated. It's the connections we "see" in the patterns we observe that provide us with the premises we use to build our predictions of nature. This "seeing" is based on underlying presuppositions about the "nature" of nature, thus all conclusions we draw are built upon the presuppositions with which we "see". But this is for another thread!
Regarding this thread question, Peron, read more of the thunderbolts material, and you'll learn that gravitation is generally seen as a consequence of electricity, not that it doesn't exist. As an "active" or "attractive" force electricity far exceeds the effect of gravity, this is the paradigm shift of the EU.

[Influx]

Then thread theory is your best friend. There is no math required and no abstract gibberish. It is simple, rational, and most importantly it is scientific. Mathematics is an exercise in pure rationalism, it can lead you to a valid conclusion based on your premises, but it cannot provide you with valid premises.

The threads are just like dark matter. Dark matter, nicely, explains the movement of galaxies, but it is still a hypothetical construct. So are threads.

I meant if gravity is electrical, then how does the earth and moon produce gravity? Where does the Earth get the charge? How can our satellites stay in orbit, when gravity is just electrical?

There are massive flows of current in the universe that power the universe.

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

Why do satellites stay in orbit? Short range repulsion! Just like plasma currents in space.

[altonhare]

Then thread theory is your best friend. There is no math required and no abstract gibberish. It is simple, rational, and most importantly it is scientific. Mathematics is an exercise in pure rationalism, it can lead you to a valid conclusion based on your premises, but it cannot provide you with valid premises.

The threads are just like dark matter. Dark matter, nicely, explains the movement of galaxies, but it is still a hypothetical construct. So are threads.

Ho ho, I needed a good laugh, thanks for that one!

but it is still a hypothetical construct.

It's called the hypothesis, it's the first step of the scientific method. You might look it up some time.

[sathearn]

The opening post of this thread poses some very good questions. Here I'd like to second the opinion of Emeritus Professor of Political Science Paul DeLespinasse, who wrote that he "had been favorably impressed with [Dewey B. Larson's 1964 book] _Beyond Newton_. Its explanation of gravitation made more sense than anything I had ever seen on that subject." ("Linus Pauling's OSU Classmate: Outstanding, Unknown" http://www.proaxis.com/~ddeles/oped/PaulingLarson.html ). Larson made the striking claim that "gravitation is not propagated with the speed of light, nor is it propagated instantaneously; it is not propagated at all: a fact which is fully compatible with Newton's theory." (As quoted in Arnold D. Studtmann, "Toward a Unified Cosmological Physics: The Reciprocal System of D.B. Larson," PhD Dissertation, National Graduate School, 1979, p. 139, referring to Beyond Newton, p122.) The basic idea is that gravitating objects move _as if_ they are exerting mutual forces of attraction, when in actual fact they are moving independently of one another. This requires modification of our usual "motion" concept, to include motions of a "scalar" nature - those that have inherent magnitude but no inherent direction - and which, as a consequence, are often incapable of complete representation within a single spatial reference system. (For brief intros, see e.g. Larson's "The Nature of Motion": http://library.rstheory.org/node/139 and "Gravitation and the Galaxies": http://library.rstheory.org/node/144 ) Similarly, electric and magnetic "fields," and even the concept of autonomous force, Larson held to be what philosophers call "convenient fictions." On this understanding, fields are merely the "force aspect" of particular types of scalar motion - not something that really exists in the surrounding space.

Steve Athearn

[Influx]

It's called the hypothesis, it's the first step of the scientific method. You might look it up some time.

But its still a hypothetical construct. Hypothesis and hypothetical derive from the same root word. But this is irrelevant, because you need experimental evidence to back up any hypothesis, up until that point it is a "hope" . Any "structure" in this hypothesis is a hypothetical construct until proven by experiments. And by the way, scientific discoveries rarely follow the text book definition of the scientific method, but most science discoveries were made by a mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_construct

[tangointhenight]

It's called the hypothesis, it's the first step of the scientific method. You might look it up some time.

But its still a hypothetical construct. Hypothesis and hypothetical derive from the same root word. But this is irrelevant, because you need experimental evidence to back up any hypothesis, up until that point it is a "hope" . Any "structure" in this hypothesis is a hypothetical construct until proven by experiments. And by the way, scientific discoveries rarely follow the text book definition of the scientific method, but most science discoveries were made by a mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_construct

What if the hypothetical consruct is backed by common sense, and logic?

[junglelord]

NASA has tons of "enlightened" ideas like that....so what?

[Influx]

What if the hypothetical consruct is backed by common sense, and logic?

Heheheh, and what if that logic and common sense has nothing to do with the truth, or even the universe? What then? How do you know?

EU and the Standard Model, both are logical and use common sense! But only one is right. All these people who spew their pet "theatricals" around the web claim they exercise fast adherence to the scientific method, but the most important step, experimental evidence, is ignored. So instead they defend their hypothetical constructs with unending zeal. If their said goal is to get get away from the church like behavior of the standard model, then they in turn become just like their enemies as they defend their unproven untested "theories".

[tangointhenight]

What if the hypothetical consruct is backed by common sense, and logic?

Heheheh, and what if that logic and common sense has nothing to do with the truth, or even the universe? What then? How do you know?

EU and the Standard Model, both are logical and use common sense! But only one is right. All these people who spew their pet "theatricals" around the web claim they exercise fast adherence to the scientific method, but the most important step, experimental evidence, is ignored. So instead they defend their hypothetical constructs with unending zeal. If their said goal is to get get away from the church like behavior of the standard model, then they in turn become just like their enemies as they defend their unproven untested "theories".

"EU and the Standard Model, both are logical and use common sense! But only one is right."

What if there both wrong?

[tangointhenight]

Anyway if your theory is correct then we would be able to make gravity in a zero -g environment.
He he all you have to do now is convince NASA to grant you a seat on the shuttle, so you can test your idea.

[rnb]

First, what is given here is based on direct observations and verified physical experiments. This is probably very different from anything you have ever seen before, so take it a step at a time. NONE of what follows is at all theoretical. Please read it carefully. We support all our expressions empirically.

See: http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/Kleinindex.htm

Pay particular attention to:
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/Klein7.htm
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/Klein8.htm
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/Klein9.htm
Which articles lead to The Unification of Time, Gravitation, and Electromagnetism in
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/Klein10.htm
Leading to a Complete Unification, which includes Life and Consciousness in
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/klein11.htm

Our team is now exploring the physical results of "time-turbulence" in the flows of Kozyrev's "time substance", which is composed of SubQuantum particles, which SQ particles are the vehicles for the information conveyed at up to infinite velocity, physically manifesting as what is called the non-local quantum information field. These SQ superluminal superfluid flows also produce all matter, and all the forces, including time, gravitation, E/M, and sentient quantum behaviors. The SQ is also the origin of Life Force, Consciousness, and etc.

Again, none of this is theory or conjecture. All these expressions are based on reproducibly observable facts.

Best Wishes,

Dr. Boyd

[junglelord]

In the Aether Physics Model, this is the G Force. Clearly one and the same informational gateway.
Cheers.

The propagation velocity of the general time-flow is infinite. Given this, organization and information can be transferred by the time flow (a fluidic flow composed of infinitesimal infinite-velocity particles), to infinite distances, instantly. Time (aether flows) thus emerges instantly at every location, simultaneously throughout the entire universe. This behavior is called Universal Physical Time (UPT). We also know that the same flows are the primary causation of gravitation. Simply put, both time and gravitation are resulting from flows of the same substance, the infinitesimals.

According to Kozyrev's astronomical and laboratory observations and experiments, the aether flux which causes time has "active properties" which produce many physical effects on physical systems, including us. By using instrumentation to fix the "time flow" (actually aether flux) from stars, thus fixing the star's position at the present moment, the star's position in the past, the star's position in the future, and the actual proper motion of the astronomical object (its trajectory), Kozyrev & All were able to fix the true positions of astronomical objects, relative to their optically apparent positions. (In astronomy, this measurement is called the "parallax" of the astronomical object.) By measuring the angular distance between the true and apparent positions of the given object, the parallax of an object is determined by simple trigonometry.

We also mentioned earlier that all subatomic particles, including so-called "quarks" have substructures, being composed of yet smaller particles which are composed of yet smaller particles, and so on, down to the infinitesimals. This understanding changes things. Simply stated, all subatomic particles, including the electron, are resonant systems of orbiting smaller electric charges of opposite polarity, which sum to the observed charge on the given particle. These smaller electric charges are due to the various SubQuantum entities, in our view, such as the Kolmogorov vortex particles mentioned earlier. We have spoken earlier about the origination of the constituent aether fluxes as being due to plasma dissociation events internal to stars.

In this model, the electron is never treated as a point-like particle. (Experiment and observation have demonstrated that the electron has a finite and measurable extent, unfortunately for existing quantum theory.) The electron, and the other subatomic particles, must have substructures, in order to have an angular momentum and in order to demonstrate a preferred magnetic orientation (vaguely known as "spin"). There must be motions of subentities (K-vortices) circulating internal to the electron, in order to generate the observed electrical and magnetic dipole moments of the electron. The transfers of energies between these sub-entities which are moving internal to the classical electron radius, for example, must be resonant and near instantaneous, in order for the electron to remain a stable particle. This kind of perspective leads to a vast simplification of existing particle physics, one which is philosophically agreeable and easy to understand.

I like how they explain Quantum Resonance, which is distribued frequency, and scalar expression by instant action via the aether. APM says the same. The vortex within the distribued sphere of ES charge or the distribued toroid of EM charge, is the harmonic resonance of the vaccum radiation. This Platonic solid expression of vortexs within the distributed charges look like a particle when viewed in stop motion. Yet clearly there is NO particle.

[rnb]

Very good Junglelord

However, you've not gone to completion on this. Please read the referenced articles carefully, and note especially, The Unification of Time, Gravitation, and Electromagnetism in
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/Klein10.htm
Leading to a Complete Unification, which includes Life and Consciousness in
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/klein11.htm

There is no "space-time". There is no "curved space", nor is there "curved time", nor does the "curved space-time" fantasy have anything to do with Reality. There is, however, mass-time.

If you're interested, we've got some quantitative analysis done on this topic, if you're familiar with superluminal superfluids, SubQuantum Helmholtz vortices, cubics, the Monster Group, the Jordan algebra, Lie algebras, the Clifford algebra, and the like. We're preparing several publications along these lines which we'd rather not discuss in any intimate detail until after the publications have been printed, if you don't mind. But I can speak in terms of concepts and principles, if you'd like.

Best Wishes,

rnb