EU Breakthrough? - Gravity is Electro-Magnetic

[Aardwolf]

If you want to hide behind the misconception that aether consists of particles then that is your choice.

Where did I state that the aether consists of particles?

All you seem willing to discuss is a particle gravity theory.

Gravity is not caused by particles.

Gravity is caused by displaced aether pushing back toward matter.

I am trying to encourage Michael to explain phenomena using particulate push-only theory. Please go back and read my posts.

[mpc755]

If you want to hide behind the misconception that aether consists of particles then that is your choice.

Where did I state that the aether consists of particles?

All you seem willing to discuss is a particle gravity theory.

Gravity is not caused by particles.

Gravity is caused by displaced aether pushing back toward matter.

I am trying to encourage Michael to explain phenomena using particulate push-only theory. Please go back and read my posts.

Gravity is not a partciulate push-only theory.

Gravity is caused by displaced aether pushing back toward matter.

[mpc755]

The good looking complex, not easy to do.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.

[Maustin]

Wow mpc755, you're a real thread killer. I'd like to try and get this back on track, without having to read another copy/paste wall of text from you. So, this is addressed to anyone else:

I really like the idea of EM gravity as expressed in this thread, but I'm having difficulty reconciling it with my (admittedly limited) understanding of solar system dynamics.
As I understand it, in this thread it is argued that what we know as the force of gravity is simply the minor, tiny difference between electromagnetic forces of attraction and repulsion acting in an equalized system. Since attraction is slightly stronger than repulsion, the fraction of attractive force which isn't cancelled out by repulsive forces remains and we observe it as 'gravity.'

Even without understanding what gravity is or what really causes it, our scientists were (and are) able to launch satelites out of the solar system using gravity maths. While it was occasionally necessary to make minor adjustments to the satelite's velocity/trajectory in order to hit the extreemely small window for gravity slingshotting off of other planets, the maths were substantially correct to a fine order of magnitude. As a layperson, "good enough for government work" sums it up. The point being, in my mind at least, we have pretty firmly established that classical gravity maths do govern local motions within the bounds of our solar system. What we don't see is surprise accellerations of a thousand trillion trillion trillion times expected.

But, this new EM understanding of 'gravity' requires a substantially neutral environment. I'm not sure how to express that... all bodies in the system must be charge-neutral/of the same voltage/whatever the language is which describes the state of attraction and repulsion being as close to equilibrium as they ever get. Otherwise, either attraction or repulsion would entirely overwhelm the opposite force and completely dominate the motions/structures/discharges in the system.

This is indirectly corroborated by Thornhill/Talbot in The Electric Universe p. 37: "In the electric universe the gravitational systems of planets and moons, stars, and galaxies have their origin in this proven ability of electricity to generate structure and rotation in plasma. Gravity can take over only as the electromagnetic forces approach equilibrium."

My confusion seems to stem from that fact that since I've started learning about EU in general, everything I've read argues that our solar system is not in electrical equilibrium. Planets and the Sun as anodes and cathodes, cometary discharges, solar wind, etc etc... but if we're not a system in 'equilibrium', how come we measure gravity as the weak force we know and love, instead of things behaving dramatically differently under a greater degree of electrical stress?

So which is it? And/or, what am I missing?
Thanks in advance,
Michael

[mpc755]

Even without understanding what gravity is or what really causes it

What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

[Lloyd]

* MPC's statement about gravity being a force of the aether is plausible to me. EU theorists tend to accept the existence of the aether. Mathis at http://milesmathis.com considers aether to consist of photons, which have mass and can have velocity from zero up to light-speed and then some. His theory is plausible too. Actually, he considers the law of gravitation to contain also the EM force within it. So gravitation would really be both gravitation and EM. He also calculates that dark matter is explained by EM. Anyway, I suggest that you check out Mathis' site. Also, I recommend Charles Chandler's work on star formation etc at http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=6031. He's trying to work out a model in which every aspect of the process is explained in detail. Like Mathis, he doesn't consider EM forces to be dominant most of the time, but they're essential for most or all phases of such processes. Charles also has a thread on the NIAMI board called the Sun's Density Gradient.

[dusthurricane]

Magnetism exsists without electron flow. Electricity involves electron flow and is the conversion of magnetic lines cutting through a conductor shifting magnetic electrons as it moves.

I read some very odd posts on this forum. Magnets dont just have two poles . Its has four - two at the top and two at the bottom. Magnetism is a vortex of non-electronic forces. If they were electronic - we could just rest a permanent magnet next to a conductor and collect the electron flow. A magnets vortex - which constitutes its field lines, is a path for particles - non-electronic.

Electro-static requires friction - motion
Electro-magnetic requires motion.
Magnetic - is particle motion.

[jacmac]

Maustin,
Good questions.
You said

But, this new EM understanding of 'gravity' requires a substantially neutral environment. I'm not sure how to express that... all bodies in the system must be charge-neutral/of the same voltage/whatever the language is which describes the state of attraction and repulsion being as close to equilibrium as they ever get. Otherwise, either attraction or repulsion would entirely overwhelm the opposite force and completely dominate the motions/structures/discharges in the system.

I think the idea is that the nature of matter itself is arranged( internally at the atomic level) so that there is a small bit of attraction (gravity) available to interact with other matter. If the environment is not neutral or the bodies of matter are somehow charged beyond their natural neutral state then the electromagnetic forces start to come into play and gravity, tho still present, might be overcome. Environments need not be neutral for gravity to exist.

mpc755,
I like your explanation of the double slit experiment with the moving particle and the associated aether wave. I always have more questions when I read about those experiments.
You say gravity is displaced aether pushing back on bodies. That seems to mean(to me) something like atmospheric pressure, but not gravity. ??? Care to further explain why bodies would move toward each other?

Jack

[Oracle_911]

My confusion seems to stem from that fact that since I've started learning about EU in general, everything I've read argues that our solar system is not in electrical equilibrium. Planets and the Sun as anodes and cathodes, cometary discharges, solar wind, etc etc... but if we're not a system in 'equilibrium', how come we measure gravity as the weak force we know and love, instead of things behaving dramatically differently under a greater degree of electrical stress?

So which is it? And/or, what am I missing?
Thanks in advance,
Michael

Just one thing equilibrium is not the same thing as neutrality.
For example Earth´s atmosphere is chemically stable but is not in equilibrium.
For example there is a semipermeable membrane separating 2 solution with he same concentration, after we add salt into one solution, the dynamical equilibrium of forces changes, and the membrane became concave, because the sum of solvents molecules changes on the sides, but the exchange rate of molecule didn´t. Its a similar process to formation of double layer.

[dusthurricane]

Will someone point me in the direction of the EU model - where in the model does it explain how magnetism is derived from electricity ??

All this EU talk of magnetism coming from electricity fails to recognize the simple definition of 'electric'.

[Sparky]

Will someone point me in the direction of the EU model - where in the model does it explain how magnetism is derived from electricity ??

All this EU talk of magnetism coming from electricity fails to recognize the simple definition of 'electric'.

I worked, thinking electricity was "electrons" for 1/2 century, then found out that no one knows what it is, just it's effects! If there is a "simple" definition of electricity, I sure would like to hear it...

Electrical engineering text books outline magnetism as an effect of electrical current. http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12 ... ame-first/

Electrical engineers and classical physicists have known for decades that only movement (flow) of electric charges causes magnetic fields. Electric current is the only cause of magnetic fields. Varying the strength and direction of those currents will move the magnetic fields around and vary their strength. Shutting off the causal electric current will cause magnetically stored energy to be released.

[dusthurricane]

I read what MR Donald Scott has to say. All i see is the attributing of a phenomena without explaining that phenomena.
Also, the information is misleading due to it starting 'half way down the road'.

Sparky:
I worked, thinking electricity was "electrons" for 1/2 century, then found out that no one knows what it is, just it's effects! If there is a "simple" definition of electricity, I sure would like to hear it..

Can't compete with 1/2 a century. My life passion has been magnetism i must point out.
All i am saying is the label of electric is incorrect. The magnetic field is itself a source of great energy with no need for electron flow ( electric )

If no-one knows what it is then how develop a transistor or capacitor or diode to exploit/control the flow of electrons.
Again the definition- Electric pertains to electron flow in a gas. Electronic pertains electron flow in a crystal / metal. If the EU model does not rely on electron flow then electric is a misnomer.

The electric field is required for the 'tranismission' of electron charges. Current is the oomph. Electric field is the channel. The magnetic field is different - the 'current' analogy is yet to be discovered. We have the flux but how
harness the 'current'. Magnetic fields constitue spinning vorticies which operate on a non-electrical basis. This is
observable and fact.

[jacmac]

There is much that I do not know. But we must be able to talk about electricity in space without knowing completely what electricity is. If we do not know what is a quark do we then stop talking about anything and everything until it is somehow revealed.

Jack

[dusthurricane]

jacmac,
There is much that I do not know. But we must be able to talk about electricity in space without knowing completely what electricity is. If we do not know what is a quark do we then stop talking about anything and everything until it is somehow revealed.

The response is logical. We do know what electricity is because we invented the term/definition.
And we invent devices to exploit these properties.

Electricity is a primitive method of electron transport without fully understanding the atomic nature.
This is why electricity is nothing special. Atomechanics or atomicity would spell true progress.

I will explain in as simple terms as possible.

The atom is like a mini solar system with the protons/neutrons ( mass ) in the centre like the sun.
All the electrons orbit the centre in bands or shells ( like planets ). Its is only the outermost electron band which
is taken advantage of in electricity/electronics. So the 'pluto' of every atom ( outermost orbit ) is the
reason for all our technology. Its all about moving these 'plutos' along a line of atoms via the outermost shell - which brings us electricity - without fully understanding the true nature of the entire 'solar system' or atom.

Quarks and any other elementary particle you care to think of - in my opinion are residual mutations of
the periodic elements.

[Goldminer]

jacmac,
There is much that I do not know. But we must be able to talk about electricity in space without knowing completely what electricity is. If we do not know what is a quark do we then stop talking about anything and everything until it is somehow revealed.

The response is logical. We do know what electricity is because we invented the term/definition.
And we invent devices to exploit these properties.

Electricity is a primitive method of electron transport without fully understanding the atomic nature.
This is why electricity is nothing special. Atomechanics or atomicity would spell true progress.

I will explain in as simple terms as possible.

The atom is like a mini solar system with the protons/neutrons ( mass ) in the centre like the sun.
All the electrons orbit the centre in bands or shells ( like planets ). Its is only the outermost electron band which
is taken advantage of in electricity/electronics. So the 'pluto' of every atom ( outermost orbit ) is the
reason for all our technology. Its all about moving these 'plutos' along a line of atoms via the outermost shell - which brings us electricity - without fully understanding the true nature of the entire 'solar system' or atom.

Quarks and any other elementary particle you care to think of - in my opinion are residual mutations of
the periodic elements.

Your current understanding of the shape extra-nuclear electrons of atoms needs an update IMHO. Research "electron orbits." Hint: the orbitals are not shaped like planets around the Sun.

Free electrons and protons have a monopole electric field surrounding each and a dipole magnetic field surrounding each. Consequently, at the sub atomic level, magnetic and electric properties coexist and are inseparable.

My visualization of electrons and protons is that they are a special type of standing wave, and there is no particulate entity at the center of either, just as there is no charge at the center of a hollow electrically charged sphere.