Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricity?

[nick c]

To me the answer is obvious but there are multiple reasons.

1) denying the role of electrical effects is kind of a "dark path" situation where everyone learns the "false" gravity path and thus learning in general is stifled and slowed as anyone interested must first overcome all the lies before they can begin learning anything useful.

2) Electrical ideas demonstrate connection where gravitational ideas demonstrate isolation. Demonstrations of connection bring people together, and like it or not, give credence to the possibility of some religious ideals (i,e the soul), and this goes against the current divide and conquer strategies and materialist ideals.

I like that they fear electricity in the cosmos.

[crawler]

What electrical ideas? What electrical effects?
What is electricity? Is it the flow of electrons & anti-electrons. The flow of protons? The flow of ions?
Is electricity Ivor Catt's Heaviside signal of E by H energy current?
Is gravity some kind of manifestation of electricity?
Is false gravity Einstein's bending of spacetime?
Does electricity involve photons?
Does electricity involve aether?
What governs the speed of electricity? Is Einstein involved?

[Cargo]

Einstein is a fraud. Perhaps the greatest of all time.

[Michael Mozina]

Einstein is a fraud. Perhaps the greatest of all time.

I personally think it's very unfortunate that the EU/PC community has such a huge chip on their shoulder toward GR theory and Einstein. It's certainly possible that Einstein was wrong about various concepts, but blaming Einstein or GR theory for the sins of LCDM "dark magic" that plague astronomy today is like blaming Alfven for magnetic reconnection models. Their mathematical formulas have simply be kludged and butchered by modern day hacks who wouldn't know a real science experiment if it hit them in the face.

There's nothing inherently incompatible between EU/PC theory and basic GR theory without all the space expansion and dark magic mumbo jumbo. Likewise there is nothing inherently wrong with using MHD theory to model the behaviors of plasma in certain scenarios.

One of the ways that mainstream tries to "add an air of credibility" to their dark nonsense is to attempt to ride the coattails of GR theory, but GR theory isn't dependent upon space expansion, dark energy, dark matter, or infation. These are all irrational 'metaphysical kludges" that are typically stuffed into a GR formula, or more correctly a "LCDM model". Einstein's not at fault for the misuse of his mathematical models anymore than Alfven is responsible for the misuse of MHD theory today.

It bothers me that our community allows the mainstream to claim the GR high ground. They have no right to do so. By "distancing" ourselves from GR theory, we only make it easier to "believe the BS" related to LCDM models.

I think you're right about both points you made in the OP. The intentional misinformation about EU/PC theory is obviously an attempt to *confuse and befuddle* any new students from actually thinking for themselves or embracing empirical physics as it relates to various topics in astronomy. It's also obvious that astronomy has become an almost "evangelical" atheistic community that fears any concept that even hints at the electrical inter-connection between wide areas of spacetime. It's a pity.

The universe is far more "understandable" than the mainstream would like it to be. They don't want anyone to figure out that it can be understood by the use of ordinary empirical physics. They "want to believe" in dark magic because it's become their surrougate "god of creation" figure, without "God" of course.

[Sci-Phy]

Mainstream has no idea what gravitation is and mainstream has no idea what electricity is.
Choice between two is obvious. Much easier to hide something between tensors.
And another reason could be that electricity is completely undeveloped phenomenon in physics. There is no even definition of electric current. "The flow rate of charges" is good only for the first look. If you dig any further, you realize that electric current in conductors is NET flow of charges i.e. the sum of positive and negative charge carriers. Try to apply this to electrolytes and you going to fail - NET current in electrolytes is ZERO and carriers of only one sign is accounted for current in electrolytes. Such contradictions are endless.

[Cargo]

Einstein is a fraud. Perhaps the greatest of all time.

I personally think it's very unfortunate that the EU/PC community has such a huge chip on their shoulder toward GR theory and Einstein. It's certainly possible that Einstein was wrong about various concepts, but blaming Einstein or GR theory for the sins of LCDM "dark magic" that plague astronomy today is like blaming Alfven for magnetic reconnection models. Their mathematical formulas have simply be kludged and butchered by modern day hacks who wouldn't know a real science experiment if it hit them in the face.

You're right, I apologize for the misstatement. Perhaps what I should have said, is that Einstein's work (right or wrong) is used for fraud. I think the huge GR chip is on their shoulders, not ours. After all, 100% of mainstream uses Einstein as their god sword to strike down anything counter to their dark magic theories. Therefore, I find it easier to discount Einstein completely at the get-go. This helps shine light where it is truly needed. In my feeble humble opinion.

[crawler]

duplicate............

[crawler]

Mainstream has no idea what gravitation is and mainstream has no idea what electricity is.
Choice between two is obvious. Much easier to hide something between tensors.
And another reason could be that electricity is completely undeveloped phenomenon in physics. There is no even definition of electric current. "The flow rate of charges" is good only for the first look. If you dig any further, you realize that electric current in conductors is NET flow of charges i.e. the sum of positive and negative charge carriers. Try to apply this to electrolytes and you going to fail - NET current in electrolytes is ZERO and carriers of only one sign is accounted for current in electrolytes. Such contradictions are endless.

Yes. Thats why i wrote my first posting above. It brings us back to Catt's Heaviside signal of E by H energy current.

[crawler]

You're right, I apologize for the misstatement. Perhaps what I should have said, is that Einstein's work (right or wrong) is used for fraud. I think the huge GR chip is on their shoulders, not ours. After all, 100% of mainstream uses Einstein as their god sword to strike down anything counter to their dark magic theories. Therefore, I find it easier to discount Einstein completely at the get-go. This helps shine light where it is truly needed. In my feeble humble opinion.

Yes. Einstein's work is miss-used. But he (she really) was a fraud anyhow. And re right or wrong, its wrong, the only bit thats half right is the bit about light being slowed near mass (which is universally ignored)(funny that). Scientists ignore the one good bit (half good anyhow), & form into an orgy of a frothy orgasmic speaking in tongues cult over the silly bits.

[Aardwolf]

..the only bit thats half right is the bit about light being slowed near mass...

Strictly speaking light is being slowed near high gravitational potential. Whether that's directly caused by mass or not is another story.

[crawler]

..the only bit thats half right is the bit about light being slowed near mass...

Strictly speaking light is being slowed near high gravitational potential. Whether that's directly caused by mass or not is another story.

No, that is wrong. It is not gravitational potential, koz gravitational potential is a nett effect, whereas what i am talking about is a gross gravitational potential, not nett. Here u havta add the escape velocity of every bit of mass. Not the nett escape velocity.
Photaeno drag is due to gross gravitational potential, not nett.

[Aardwolf]

..the only bit thats half right is the bit about light being slowed near mass...

Strictly speaking light is being slowed near high gravitational potential. Whether that's directly caused by mass or not is another story.

No, that is wrong. It is not gravitational potential, koz gravitational potential is a nett effect, whereas what i am talking about is a gross gravitational potential, not nett. Here u havta add the escape velocity of every bit of mass. Not the nett escape velocity.

Whatever you want to call it my point is there's no direct proof it's caused by mass. You are automatically assuming mass causes gravity, therefore assuming mass causes the slowing of light.

[crawler]

..the only bit thats half right is the bit about light being slowed near mass...

Strictly speaking light is being slowed near high gravitational potential. Whether that's directly caused by mass or not is another story.

No, that is wrong. It is not gravitational potential, koz gravitational potential is a nett effect, whereas what i am talking about is a gross gravitational potential, not nett. Here u havta add the escape velocity of every bit of mass. Not the nett escape velocity.

Whatever you want to call it my point is there's no direct proof it's caused by mass. You are automatically assuming mass causes gravity, therefore assuming mass causes the slowing of light.

Yes there are many ways that the nearness of mass could slow light, & there are ways that mass might fool us into thinking that mass slows light.

And i believe that other things slow light too, eg the nearness of charge, eg the nearness of electricity, eg the nearness of a magnetic field.

In fact i reckon that charge & electricity & magnetism have mass, & i believe that they slow light due to their mass, plus some slowing due to some of their other intrinsic factors (which is probly what u mean)(as probly proven by the Faraday Effect). However i haven't studied the FE, i dont know whether we can rule out mass (ie the mass of the magnetic field)(yes i know that ordinary mass aint vectorial, & the FE is vectorial, but a magnetic field is due to photaenos & photaenos hav mass & photaenos are vectorial & their mass is vectorial)(its difficult to explain).

And i reckon that a part of the answer is that light has mass, proper mass, of both kinds (proper mass & inertial mass), I dont think there is any need to call a photon's mass virtual mass or rest mass or mass equivalence as some do.

Ok here is another way of explaining. The slowing due to the nearness of mass is the same as the slowing due to the nearness of charge electricity magnetism. The slowing due to a mass is due to the charge & electricity & magnetism of that mass. But due to the gross charge electricity magnetism. Whereas what we call charge electricity magnetism should more properly be called the nett charge electricity magnetism. But both slow light, ie gross, & nett, they both slow light, see?

Same goes for mass. Its the gross mass not the nett mass. Its the gross gravitational potential, not the nett gravitational potential. For example the slowing of light due to a binary of 2 stars measured in between the 2 stars aint zero, no, the slowing is twice the slowing due to one star on its own, see?
And all of that slowing is due to charge electricity & magnetism, gross plus nett.

There is a theory that electrons or free-range electrons can slow light more effectively than can protons & neutrons etc. Due to harmonic feedback or something. Thats ok. It wouldnt be difficult for me to cater for that effect within my basic photaeno-drag theory if i put my mind to it. I did say above that there were other intrinsic factors.

[crawler]

..the only bit thats half right is the bit about light being slowed near mass...

Strictly speaking light is being slowed near high gravitational potential. Whether that's directly caused by mass or not is another story.

No, that is wrong. It is not gravitational potential, koz gravitational potential is a nett effect, whereas what i am talking about is a gross gravitational potential, not nett. Here u havta add the escape velocity of every bit of mass. Not the nett escape velocity.

Whatever you want to call it my point is there's no direct proof it's caused by mass. You are automatically assuming mass causes gravity, therefore assuming mass causes the slowing of light.

Gravity is due to mass. There are other forces that might add to gravity or mimic gravity, but these forces are not gravitational.

Gravity is due to the bulk acceleration of aether flowing into mass where aether is annihilated. And everything has mass (eg charge). Except that gravity duznt hav mass (Einstein's gravity, ie the bending of spacetime, does have mass i think he said)(not important).

The flow of aether carries light with it, ie light propagates at c in the aether. But that there c is slowed near mass, which is the crux of my comments in my previous posting above.

Therefore light propagating into a black hole is accelerating koz the aether inflow is accelerating, & at the same time the speed of the light c is slowing due to the presence of the black hole. And when the speed of the aether inflow equals c at that event horizon then at that same time that there speed c iz zero kmps. If u think about this u will realize that that is an impossibility. That event horizon karnt exist. The real event horizon is a different animal & it exists at a radius where the speed of the aether inflow V equals c, ie when V & c are both about 150,000 kmps. Hencely a black hole need not be super massive.

So, mass affects the speed of the aether (V) , & mass (& other things) affect the speed of light in the aether (c).

[Aardwolf]

Gravity is due to mass.

Sorry but this is an inferred assumption. There is no proof or experiment that confirms mass is the cause of gravity. And because science has led us down this rabbit hole we now have numerous anomalies to deal with and virtualy no astronomy progression for a century.