Best Astronomy, Physics, Geology & Chronology Models

[Lloyd]

Let's List Them
Which models make the most sense to you? And what do you think your favorites explain best? Describe the explanation/s, if you would.

Ethereal Mechanics
I'll start with this, because I just started rereading it and rewatching the videos yesterday.

Forum
http://www.etherealmechanics.info/viewt ... p?f=4&t=21

Papers
Anomalies and Paradoxes of CE (Classical Electromagnetism): http://www.distinti.com/docs/apoce.pdf
RD's (NE) New Electromagnetism: Introduction: http://www.distinti.com/docs/ne_intro.pdf
RD's NE (V3): http://www.distinti.com/docs/ne.pdf
RD's New Magnetism: http://www.distinti.com/docs/nm.pdf
Ocean Rift Magnetic Anomaly: http://www.distinti.com/docs/riftmaganom.pdf
RD's New Gravity: http://www.distinti.com/docs/ng.pdf

RD's Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyA7M23 ... jZQ/videos

Videos
D002: New Magnetism: Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sUP_iL6NIU
D003: New Magnetism Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgHfW8fqqXI
D004: New Electromagnetism Demonstration http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lxCeu6WgO4
emV000: Introduction to Ethereal Mechanics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuUTABLz1Vk
emV001: Ethereal Mechanics Introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sUe6SL22NA
emV004: Light 3/Comparision of Wave models http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUhw92_jKJ4
emV005: Olbers Paradox, Big Bang theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVHh-fkP01Y
emV012: Mass Paradox http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBVuBU3abI
emV014: Newton's 3rd Law is Bunk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC_AeO-x-cY
emV015: Inertia-Less Matter/Newton Wrap-up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWHDEzmuM7Y
emV018: New Electromagnetism V3/V4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Txd4G92Eno
emV020: New Ether Part 1: Reciprocal Thinking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTBISCAjh60
emV021: New Ether Part 2: Matter must consume energy to exist, The End of Science as we know it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTpytbccqgs
emV023: Ether Whirlpool model http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fljIP4l9lRM
emV024: The Earth and Moon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8m_oK_b1xE
emV025: Blood, Water, Oil and Granite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeFOjpQyVuM
emV027: DU4: The Sun: An Ether Dynamo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTLVAuvT7e4
emV028_part1: Planetary Orbits and Precession http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVmyczjVGs8
emV033: Ethons http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JForDy-xi4U
emV034: Pretons, The precursor of matter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHzUs4xzEkY
emV035: Electrogravity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMkrF6YKcUs
emv037: Electrogravity Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7quXzF6kdK4
emv038: Mass Murder http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb8ybAAZjic
emV040: Ghosts in The Ether http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JA0fBvVWPE
emv042: Ghosts in the Ether Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePClmCv9aK8
emv046: Michelson-Morley and the absolute reference frame http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bj4wUPegxM
emv047: E=IC^2 http://youtu.be/SBEuJ1VqGbE

Distinti explains a lot of things.
- Gravity is the same as Inertia and it's a push from outside of matter by ether as the matter consumes the ether.
- E=IC^2 instead of mC^2, because mass is an amount of matter and the amount doesn't change as the object approaches the speed of light. It's the Inertia of the object that greatly increases at near light speed.
- Magnetic fields are spherical, not toroidal. I'll have to review the video to understand that better.
- Ether has high density and matter has low density.
- Ether rounds orbits.
- Electrons are 1836 times greater in diameter than protons.

Anyone else have comments on Distinti's model?

[Michael Anteski]

The major problem with the Distinti model for the ether as I see it would involve how it could confront the time-honored standard theoretic objection to the ether, namely the result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) of 1887.

Michelson and Morley set up their experiment in order to detect an ether they expected to have inertial properties. They used optical light refraction measurements taken at different angles with respect to earth's plane to detect differences in the propagation of light beams when measured at various angles with respect to the earth plane. Their concept of an ether was that of an inertially acting ether that would show the property of a "wind" (the "ether wind") which would affect light propagation when examined at different angles. This effect wasn't found, the famous "null result" of the MMX. Ever since, mainstream scientists have used this result to dismiss all ether theories.

An ether theory like Distinti's which proposes that the ether displays inertial effects between the ether and matter wouldn't hold up against the null result of the MMX. Mainstream scientists will cite its disagreement with the MMX and dismiss the model out of hand.

My ether model (see my recent Thread "Ether the only path to unifying cosmic forces," on the other hand, proposes a model of an ether which is non-inertial. It proposes a model of Gravity based on non-inertial effects related to this kind of ether's contiguity between matter and space, both realms being composed of the same kind of ether units.

This kind of ether-model is not disproven by the null result of the MMX. Mainstream science can't refute this "contiguity" model on that basis because MMX can only be applied to an inertially acting ether, such as the Distinti type of ether. The contiguity ether still is possible.

[Lloyd]

Hi Michael.
I'll be glad to discuss aether theories with you, including yours.

Robert's Answer to the M/M Experiment
In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTBISCAjh60 at the 11' 40" point Robert explains that the Michelson/Morley experiment was set up to detect the aether only tangentially to the Earth, whereas his model has the aether coming into the Earth from a vertical direction. Do you have any comment on that?

Matter Consumes Aether
At the 6' 50" point earlier in the same video Robert gives some of his reasoning for concluding that matter consumes aether and aether motion is gravity. Do you have comments on that section?

Paradox?
Robert also has a whirlpool model for the aether to explain planetary orbits, but I pointed out earlier today on his forum at http://www.etherealmechanics.info/viewt ... p?f=4&t=70 that the whirlpool theory seems to contradict the aether consumption theory.

Here's what I said there:

- If gravity is a push from outside from all directions by the ether, due to matter consuming the ether,
- And if planets drag ether to form whirlpools (like in a bucket of water that is stirred) that cause circular orbits, instead of elliptical,
- And if the planets are then drifting in the ether in conformity with the Michaelson/Morley experiment,
- Then how can the ether around the planets push matter, such as meteors or skyjumpers, onto planets or planetoids?
- If a bug is floating in the bucket of stirred water next to a piece of wood, the bug is not pushed toward the piece of wood, like gravity pushes meteors to the Earth. Instead, the bug and the wood remain about the same distance apart indefinitely.

I suppose he could say that the planets should be thought of as being like trash compactors, i.e. they're ether compactors, so, if the driftwood in the bucket of water were a sponge, the bug would get drawn into it, like with gravity. Now I guess I'll have to add that to my post there.

Well, I look forward to discussion with you. Is there anything in Robert's model that makes sense to you?

[Michael Anteski]

Lloyd

I gather you are especially interested in the aether model of Robert, which views an aether acting directionally ("vertically") on "matter" ("matter" being his term for "solid bodies," I believe.) He proposes that such an aether directionality would distinguish it from the kind of aether Michelson and Morley tested for ("tangentially" as he says), and he apparently considers a different "motion of the aether" to be a key point that removes "his" aether from "Michelson and Morley's aether."

Lloyd, I don't want to get into a debate about whether there might be an aether that moves directionally, or whether Robert's aether model of "directed aether motion" is an important theoretic point vis-a-vis Michelson and Morley. -I don't think Robert's "directional aether" will hold up as far as changing the minds of mainstream scientists, who consider the Michelson Morley Experiment to be the gold standard, as to the existence of an aether.

I would stay with my opinion that the type of aether I propose, based on energic impulses transmitted contiguously from elemental aether unit-to-unit, resonationally, is the only kind of aether model that can hold up against the mainstream opinion that "the Michelson Morley result proved there's no aether," because it's the only really non inertial aether model.

[Lloyd]

Can you tell me if there's anything wrong with Robert's arguments in the first 5 minutes of this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTpytbccqgs

I don't think it's worthwhile to try to persuade the mainstream about any alternative models. I think we should be focused on whatever is true, rather than on what might persuade the mainstream.

[Zyxzevn]

Can you tell me if there's anything wrong with Robert's arguments in the first 5 minutes of this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTpytbccqgs

I have somehow problem watching those videos, because they are too low in scientific standard.
He does not get to the point very clearly, which makes it appear to me that he does not understand the
physics clear enough..

In the video, he states that in a static situation, a heavy object
(the cannonball) uses energy because it excites a force
on the platform (and stick) that he is carried by. But that is not energy.
Potential energy is not something that you use/consume, but is something that you can get if you
go to another point with a different potential energy.
He clearly does not understand the basics of physics.

He does make a point that ether might be an interesting model for Electromagnetism and Magnetics
and much more, but he fails in the basic understanding of physics.

Ether does not have a direction btw. The force can have a direction.
There have been many experiments about ether, some more difficult than the other.
These experiments all described a more relativity like behavior of light, and not
static ether nor moving ether.
I described some of it in my relativity thread.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=15370

Wiki describes something about aether..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

One interesting measurement is the speed of light through moving water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment

Generally current science is not opposed to having something that vibrates to transmit
light or energy to other places. The string theory is based on that.
Instead of æther, one might consider a medium that is different from a 3D system.

And I personally would prefer to start off with quantum physics instead.
I'll go further about this on the ether tread..
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=15513

[Lloyd]

Zyx said re http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTpytbccqgs: In the video, he states that in a static situation, a heavy object (the cannonball) uses energy because it excites a force on the platform (and stick) that he is carried by. But that is not energy. Potential energy is not something that you use/consume, but is something that you can get if you go to another point with a different potential energy. He clearly does not understand the basics of physics.

Hi Dirk. I think you're misunderstanding him (Distinti). He was showing that just as his body has to burn energy to maintain the canonball at a constant height above the Earth (giving the canonball a certain potential energy) and just as a little helicopter also has to burn energy, in the form of fuel, to hold the canonball at the same height, a wooden column also must be burning energy to hold the canonball at that height. And, since the wooden column obviously isn't losing any mass, the energy must be in some hidden form, which he says is an aether. He concluded that matter must burn or consume aether in order to maintain its state or form. In the example it's the wooden column that must consume aether in order to maintain the canonball's height (which determines its potential energy. But the potential energy isn't the energy he was talking about being burned. He was talking about the energy his body has to burn and the energy the helicopter has to burn to keep the canonball at the same height).

[Michael Anteski]

Can you tell me if there's anything wrong with Robert's arguments in the first 5 minutes of this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTpytbccqgs

I don't think it's worthwhile to try to persuade the mainstream about any alternative models. I think we should be focused on whatever is true, rather than on what might persuade the mainstream.

Lloyd,

What you say might be true in an ideal world, but the practical fact is that funding for research goes entirely to the mainstream Establishment scientists.

I have a possible field test to demonstrate the existence of an aether, but it would be expensive to do, and I haven't been able to find a financial backer for it.

The test would involve generating a selectively-aetheric force-field, and measuring materials inside the test system for a predicted decrease in density. -No known form of energy produces that effect. (I got the design for the test from an obscure outside source.)

[Zyxzevn]

Hi Dirk. I think you're misunderstanding him (Distinti). He was showing that just as his body has to burn energy to maintain the canonball at a constant height above the Earth (giving the canonball a certain potential energy) and just as a little helicopter also has to burn energy, in the form of fuel, to hold the canonball at the same height, a wooden column also must be burning energy to hold the canonball at that height. And, since the wooden column obviously isn't losing any mass, the energy must be in some hidden form, which he says is an aether. He concluded that matter must burn or consume aether in order to maintain its state or form. In the example it's the wooden column that must consume aether in order to maintain the canonball's height (which determines its potential energy. But the potential energy isn't the energy he was talking about being burned. He was talking about the energy his body has to burn and the energy the helicopter has to burn to keep the canonball at the same height).

Burning energy [Joules] means it has power [Watts].
The force to hold something is [Newton].
Somehow these are mixed up in the talk, and in your explanation.

There is no energy being burned by the wooden stick. [no Joules]
Our biological body uses a bit of energy [Joules] to maintain a force [Newton],
that is because our muscles are flexible. If I would set down on a strong chair
and someone would stand on my legs. It does not cost me any energy [Joules]. I only
need to maintain the balance.
A non-biological body does never use any energy to maintain a force [Newton]
One can even use magnets to keep a certain object in the air [Newton], without using any energy [Joules].

You use energy if the force moves an object.
[Joules]= [Newton]*[Meters]
So lifting a ball of a kilogram one meter, needs a force of (G*1[kg]) [Newton]= 9.81 [Newton]
Over one meter = 9.81 [Joules]

Maybe it is confusing for Americans because they don't use the metric system so much?

[Zyxzevn]

This video discusses the problem with entanglement,
and proposes a model.
Quantum Entanglement - the physical interpretation
The Rope Hypothesis.

Current mainstream physics, does NOT have a model for the entanglement.

In my own model, I assume that the connection is a multidimensional connection, of which
the rope hypothesis is a simplification.

[Lloyd]

Dirk said: There is no energy being burned by the wooden stick. [no Joules]. Our biological body uses a bit of energy [Joules] to maintain a force [Newton], that is because our muscles are flexible. If I would set down on a strong chair and someone would stand on my legs. It does not cost me any energy [Joules]. I only need to maintain the balance.

Dirk, I understand what you're saying and I'm sure Distinti and his readers generally understand it as well, but I admit that it's helpful to point out what you're saying for other readers. Distinti's point seems to me to be that the structure of matter that holds a weight has to be burning energy somewhere in order to hold up that weight, even if the weight is part of the structure. The energy appears likely to be burned within or between atoms in the structure. And, since the mass of the structure or the mass of a weight on the structure isn't being lost, the energy must be coming from a hidden source, namely a/ether.

Distinti could also have said that a hydrogen- or helium-filled balloon could replace the helicopter to hold up the brass canonball. The implications of that seem much more complicated, but I'll try to bring it up in our chat on Sunday. I'd like to see if Robert has an answer to that as well, but I assume the energy being burned there would also be in the forces between atoms and molecules and subatomic particles. The chat is scheduled for Noon ET on the topic of Distinti's Ethereal Mechanics at http://us20.chatzy.com/16614436382543.

[Michael Anteski]

Hi Michael.
I'll be glad to discuss aether theories with you, including yours.

Robert's Answer to the M/M Experiment
In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTBISCAjh60 at the 11' 40" point Robert explains that the Michelson/Morley experiment was set up to detect the aether only tangentially to the Earth, whereas his model has the aether coming into the Earth from a vertical direction. Do you have any comment on that?

Matter Consumes Aether
At the 6' 50" point earlier in the same video Robert gives some of his reasoning for concluding that matter consumes aether and aether motion is gravity. Do you have comments on that section?

Paradox?
Robert also has a whirlpool model for the aether to explain planetary orbits, but I pointed out earlier today on his forum at http://www.etherealmechanics.info/viewt ... p?f=4&t=70 that the whirlpool theory seems to contradict the aether consumption theory.

Here's what I said there:

- If gravity is a push from outside from all directions by the ether, due to matter consuming the ether,
- And if planets drag ether to form whirlpools (like in a bucket of water that is stirred) that cause circular orbits, instead of elliptical,
- And if the planets are then drifting in the ether in conformity with the Michaelson/Morley experiment,
- Then how can the ether around the planets push matter, such as meteors or skyjumpers, onto planets or planetoids?
- If a bug is floating in the bucket of stirred water next to a piece of wood, the bug is not pushed toward the piece of wood, like gravity pushes meteors to the Earth. Instead, the bug and the wood remain about the same distance apart indefinitely.

I suppose he could say that the planets should be thought of as being like trash compactors, i.e. they're ether compactors, so, if the driftwood in the bucket of water were a sponge, the bug would get drawn into it, like with gravity. Now I guess I'll have to add that to my post there.

Well, I look forward to discussion with you. Is there anything in Robert's model that makes sense to you?

Lloyd,

I viewed Distinti's video which started with his example of how a solid body acts inertially using different inertial reference points. Then he takes the observed variations in inertial gravitational behavior of the body and goes from that to formulate a theory of the aether and how it acts in the universe "energically."

I can't follow the rationale here at the beginning of his model, and since the rest of his theory is based on that, I don't even know how to debate it specifically. -I see gravity as being aetheric but mine is not a "mechanical aether model" like his. My aether model is basically non-mechanical and based on the concept of an aether that acts via contiguous transmission of energic impulses.

[Lloyd]

Michael, can you give the link for the Distinti video you're referring to?

There's a chat room discussion about to start (Jan. 4 at noon Eastern Time) at http://us20.chatzy.com/16614436382543.

[A Chang]

Let's List Them
Which models make the most sense to you? And what do you think your favorites explain best? Describe the explanation/s, if you would.

Ethereal Mechanics
I'll start with this, because I just started rereading it and rewatching the videos yesterday.

Forum
http://www.etherealmechanics.info/viewt ... p?f=4&t=21

Papers
Anomalies and Paradoxes of CE (Classical Electromagnetism): http://www.distinti.com/docs/apoce.pdf
RD's (NE) New Electromagnetism: Introduction: http://www.distinti.com/docs/ne_intro.pdf
RD's NE (V3): http://www.distinti.com/docs/ne.pdf
RD's New Magnetism: http://www.distinti.com/docs/nm.pdf
Ocean Rift Magnetic Anomaly: http://www.distinti.com/docs/riftmaganom.pdf
RD's New Gravity: http://www.distinti.com/docs/ng.pdf

RD's Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyA7M23 ... jZQ/videos

Videos
D002: New Magnetism: Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sUP_iL6NIU
D003: New Magnetism Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgHfW8fqqXI
D004: New Electromagnetism Demonstration http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lxCeu6WgO4
emV000: Introduction to Ethereal Mechanics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuUTABLz1Vk
emV001: Ethereal Mechanics Introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sUe6SL22NA
emV004: Light 3/Comparision of Wave models http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUhw92_jKJ4
emV005: Olbers Paradox, Big Bang theory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVHh-fkP01Y
emV012: Mass Paradox http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBVuBU3abI
emV014: Newton's 3rd Law is Bunk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC_AeO-x-cY
emV015: Inertia-Less Matter/Newton Wrap-up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWHDEzmuM7Y
emV018: New Electromagnetism V3/V4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Txd4G92Eno
emV020: New Ether Part 1: Reciprocal Thinking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTBISCAjh60
emV021: New Ether Part 2: Matter must consume energy to exist, The End of Science as we know it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTpytbccqgs
emV023: Ether Whirlpool model http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fljIP4l9lRM
emV024: The Earth and Moon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8m_oK_b1xE
emV025: Blood, Water, Oil and Granite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeFOjpQyVuM
emV027: DU4: The Sun: An Ether Dynamo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTLVAuvT7e4
emV028_part1: Planetary Orbits and Precession http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVmyczjVGs8
emV033: Ethons http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JForDy-xi4U
emV034: Pretons, The precursor of matter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHzUs4xzEkY
emV035: Electrogravity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMkrF6YKcUs
emv037: Electrogravity Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7quXzF6kdK4
emv038: Mass Murder http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb8ybAAZjic
emV040: Ghosts in The Ether http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JA0fBvVWPE
emv042: Ghosts in the Ether Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePClmCv9aK8
emv046: Michelson-Morley and the absolute reference frame http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bj4wUPegxM
emv047: E=IC^2 http://youtu.be/SBEuJ1VqGbE

Distinti explains a lot of things.
- Gravity is the same as Inertia and it's a push from outside of matter by ether as the matter consumes the ether.
- E=IC^2 instead of mC^2, because mass is an amount of matter and the amount doesn't change as the object approaches the speed of light. It's the Inertia of the object that greatly increases at near light speed.
- Magnetic fields are spherical, not toroidal. I'll have to review the video to understand that better.
- Ether has high density and matter has low density.
- Ether rounds orbits.
- Electrons are 1836 times greater in diameter than protons.

Anyone else have comments on Distinti's model?

Hi Lloyd,

Distiniti offered a very good insight on views of ether mechanics. And there are many of us working on this for a long while.
I fully agree some of the ideas he argue against modern school taught physics and ideas which I had never thought before. I am very thankful for his contribution.

But there are few things need to be addressed first:
1, The cause of superconductor able to held the magnet in one place. I think this is the key to explain matter, how you are able squeeze and pull matter which stay intact after the process. ( I am still waiting for Distinit's explanation on superconductor, which is very crucial).
2, Rotational inertia and it's relationship to ether mechanics. We don't know if the object is travelling or not, but we sure will know if it is rotating or not by means of measuring the internal centrifugal stress. So following Distinit's logic, assuming inertia and gravity is both based on same ether principles, the ether is "splashing out" just like the way ether causing "pulling" going toward earth, the matter is reduced.

I had ideas of ether of my own, that matter is just another form of ether. As heart sutra said, void is matter, matter is void.

[kevin]

IMHO,
The ether is consciousness that inrushes into enabling creation.
It operates at all scale in a dual rotational vortex that is heart centred.
I very much concur via dowsing what this Robert Distinti is offering.

The ether inrushes as well as outrushing, in this planets case at a ratio of 55 over 34.
The net difference is used to enable the creation of whatever , and creation is a compression of consciousness into 3D matter that then becomes mass.
Kevin