Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricity?

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby Sci-Phy » Tue Jul 23, 2019 7:53 am

Electricity and gravity should be connected.
Maxwell in his paper "On Faraday's Line of Force" mentioned that the motion in central force inversely proportional to the radius could be described by the motion of uncomressible fluid. He also mentioned that heat could be also described by the same motion. "we have only to substitute source of heat for centre of attraction, flow of heat for accelerating effect of attraction at any point, and temperature for potential, and the solution for attractions is transformed into that of a problem in heat".
The orbiting under force inversely proportional to the square of distance is unstable, there is no returning force for any perturbation. Someone could argue that it is pretty stable on hundreds of years time frame, but you could not say so about Saturn rings. Just try to model.
I believe that Descartes was right about cosmic whirl rotating the planets. In such theory the "gravity" only exist between Sun and planets, no gravity between planets. And such whirl is not possible without aether sink.
Any "field" does not exist unless it's a real field like aether property. Why mainstream is not consistent on this, I don't know. Introducing field, you should disregard Newton's third law "for any action, there is opposite and equal reaction". The field exerting the force on the body, but where is reaction?
Gravitational mass is due to aether sink into planet. Inertial mass is due to exactly same phenomenon - when the motion of the body just started it is equivalent to situation when body is at rest, but aether flows.
I just don't understand, there are too many manifestation of aether: gravity, electricity, probably heat - Is it the same aether? Could be mix or maybe even deeper - aether constructed from something more tiny - where is the limit?
Sci-Phy
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:47 am
Location: Canada

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby MotionTheory » Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:06 am

Sci-Phy wrote:...
I believe that Descartes was right about cosmic whirl rotating the planets. In such theory the "gravity" only exist between Sun and planets, no gravity between planets. And such whirl is not possible without aether sink.

Thereby required source(s). Can't just eat w/o cook :lol:

Any "field" does not exist unless it's a real field like aether property. Why mainstream is not consistent on this, I don't know. Introducing field, you should disregard Newton's third law "for any action, there is opposite and equal reaction". The field exerting the force on the body, but where is reaction?
...

A field is movement of something, aether field included. Movement=motion=force, which must comply with Newton 3rd Law of Motion. I am referring to the 'force' itself. While force exerting on an external body involves 2 or more pairs of [action+reaction]. Inertia and momentum are undefined by current physics but all use & derived from them = undisciplined scientific principal. The physics emperor is naked.

I am well aware futility of this subject matter. Here is my video mocking Newton 3rd Law of Motion, where this law doesn't address the force itself, hence flawed - https://youtu.be/RQexQq7spR8
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby Sci-Phy » Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:46 am

MotionTheory wrote:
Sci-Phy wrote:...
I believe that Descartes was right about cosmic whirl rotating the planets. In such theory the "gravity" only exist between Sun and planets, no gravity between planets. And such whirl is not possible without aether sink.

Thereby required source(s). Can't just eat w/o cook :lol:

You are welcome.
https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/thoug ... itings.pdf
Sci-Phy
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:47 am
Location: Canada

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby ja7tdo » Tue Jul 23, 2019 5:32 pm

In the 17th century, when Newton discovered universal gravity, electric attraction and repulsion were unknown.Newton took up only the attraction, ignoring the questions that the astronomers of the day had-why the planets didn't collide.Kant denied Newton's universal gravity. Also, no one has proved that space and terrestrial gravity are the same. but a century later Cavendish experimented to prove that mass produces gravity. However, 50 years after that, Faraday proved that the lead used in the experiment was a diamagnetic substance. Fifty years later, Einstein who did not know Faraday's diamagnetism described gravity as a bend in space.

Mass produces gravity, and the gravity of the universe and the earth is the same. No one has ever proven these two. Rather, we should think that mass does not generate gravity, and that gravity in space and on earth is a different force.
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby Sci-Phy » Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:41 pm

[quote="Mass produces gravity, and the gravity of the universe and the earth is the same. No one has ever proven these two. Rather, we should think that mass does not generate gravity, and that gravity in space and on earth is a different force.[/quote]

In the first place - why we are here? I mean on this forum? Don't we trying to challenge mainstream science?

Mass do not create a gravity. Here are few points out of many:

1. instantaneous action not explained and not physical.
2. The failure of Isostasy theory. For example Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly
but it is rising.
3. The rings of Saturn could not be explained by Newtonian gravity.
4. Some Cavendish like experiment showed that gravitational constant depend on body's composition.
Could nor find article, somewhere in "Physical Review" around 1916.
5. Absolute irregularity of tides.
"THE TIDES IN THE MIDST OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN." A STUDY BY ALEXANDER BROWNLIE.
6. NEAR Shoemaker mission failed to establish orbit around Eros.
7. HAYABUSA-one and MINERVA Itokawa landing mission failure.
8. Kepler's third law does not holds. Moon is a good example. Semi-major axis varies by 5500 km. The explanation is the influence of the Sun. According to Kepler's law orbiting period should vary by 14 hours.
In fact period vary by 5 hours with period of 14 synodic month.

"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room,
especially if there is no cat."
Sci-Phy
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:47 am
Location: Canada

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Jul 24, 2019 2:33 pm

crawler wrote:I have an idea for a test. Measure the ticking of a clock near the poles & equator of a spinning disc. I predict an effect on ticking.

What kind of clock?
The strength of gravity on the equator is lower (due to Earth's rotation).
Do you think that it affects your clock?

[quote=]This doesn’t help your point at all as satellites are actively steered with thrusters to maintain their positions.[/quote]
Other than positioning themselves, the earth's gravity is dominant and gives quite a stable orbit.

Please explain why this debunks an electrical affect?

With that I mean that gravity is a force on its own,
not directly related with electromagnetism.

When the objects are large enough, gravity is directly related to mass.
This means that a car or satellite falls with the acceleration of gravity.
Maybe Mercury and Saturn's rings are charged, and follow slightly different
orbits due to that.

Fog and clouds are a different thing. I also think that the electrical nature of water
plays a huge role in it. There are also dynamics, as certain clouds are continuously
falling, dissolving in air, and regenerating on the top or side.
Even the particles that come from space/sun matter in the formation of clouds.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby crawler » Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:16 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
crawler wrote:I have an idea for a test. Measure the ticking of a clock near the poles & equator of a spinning disc. I predict an effect on ticking.
What kind of clock?
The strength of gravity on the equator is lower (due to Earth's rotation). Do you think that it affects your clock?
Podkletnov used a quartz clock. Depalma used a quartz clock. I think a modern quartz clock would do the trick. Just use a fixed modern wave analyser (quartz) linked to a transported modern resonator (quartz).

Earth's spin can be ignored if the spinning disc ticking tests are made quickly. But i dont know how strong the ticking dilation will be. If very weak then u would need to be carefull re the nearness of mass (eg Igor).

Re ticking near Earth's Equator, this of course will vary during each day & season. But measuring this change as a separate experiment is fraught, koz the resonator & anyalyser are both affected equally. But for the spinning disc ticking X the resonator is moovd form disc equator to axis above to axis below etc etc, hencely there will be a measurable difference.
Re the spinning disc ticking X, the disc should be tested at various axis angles.
crawler
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby crawler » Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:25 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:When the objects are large enough, gravity is directly related to mass. This means that a car or satellite falls with the acceleration of gravity. Maybe Mercury and Saturn's rings are charged, and follow slightly different orbits due to that.

Fog and clouds are a different thing. I also think that the electrical nature of water plays a huge role in it. There are also dynamics, as certain clouds are continuously falling, dissolving in air, and regenerating on the top or side. Even the particles that come from space/sun matter in the formation of clouds.
Gerald Pollack in book & youtube explains EZ water & charge & wind & weather & clouds etc.

The formation of rings (& spiral galaxies etc) can be explained using my centrifuging of aether theory. A spinning or orbiting body creates a circulation of aether, in at equator out at poles, a circulation. Clearly such a circulation over time can make satellites form into an equatorial disc.
crawler
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby ja7tdo » Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:34 pm

crawler wrote:The formation of rings (& spiral galaxies etc) can be explained using my centrifuging of aether theory. A spinning or orbiting body creates a circulation of aether, in at equator out at poles, a circulation. Clearly such a circulation over time can make satellites form into an equatorial disc.

aether has never been observed. Same as dark matter. It is the same as the space and the field of relativity. We must explain in real terms.
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby crawler » Wed Jul 24, 2019 6:14 pm

ja7tdo wrote:
crawler wrote:The formation of rings (& spiral galaxies etc) can be explained using my centrifuging of aether theory. A spinning or orbiting body creates a circulation of aether, in at equator out at poles, a circulation. Clearly such a circulation over time can make satellites form into an equatorial disc.
aether has never been observed. Same as dark matter. It is the same as the space and the field of relativity. We must explain in real terms.
Every proper measurement of the aetherwind has detected the aetherwind. A 100% record.

I have at home downloaded all of the original papers & lots of modern stuff. I reckon its best to start by googling Reg Cahill's stuff, about 40 papers, most re old MMX's or modern MMX's. He lists old papers. He has also done an optical fibre MMX & a co-axial cable quasi-MMX, & a zener-diode faux-MMX.

Praps the best is Demjanov's twin media (air-carbondisulphide) 1st order MMX done 22 June 1970 at Obninsk. He measured an aetherwind that varied tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps each sidereal day measured in the horizontal.
His error was 1000 times less than the oldendays MMXs done by Michelson Morley Miller & Co.
Probly the best X ever in history.
crawler
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby ja7tdo » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:43 pm

crawler wrote:Praps the best is Demjanov's twin media (air-carbondisulphide) 1st order MMX done 22 June 1970 at Obninsk. He measured an aetherwind that varied tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps each sidereal day measured in the horizontal.
His error was 1000 times less than the oldendays MMXs done by Michelson Morley Miller & Co.
Probly the best X ever in history.


Your claim is the same as elementary particle science. Although quarks have been observed, they can not be manipulated. If you include the inoperable existence in the theory, you will not be able to handle nature forever.

please read my articles.
https://etherealmatters.org/article/nev ... -not-exist

also this is for you.
https://etherealmatters.org/article/practical-physics
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby Solar » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:51 pm

crawler wrote:I have at home downloaded all of the original papers & lots of modern stuff. I reckon its best to start by googling Reg Cahill's stuff, about 40 papers, most re old MMX's or modern MMX's. He lists old papers. He has also done an optical fibre MMX & a co-axial cable quasi-MMX, & a zener-diode faux-MMX.


Crawler

Since I'm familiar with the works of Mr. Shnoll, R. Cahill, Roland DeWitt and others you know what makes me very curious (you're probably the only one who would understand this question) - do you think LIGO, if its capable, could've ignored or eliminated the fractal, "foam"-like qualities that the work of Mr. Shnoll appears to have detected in the "fine structure" of the histograms?

For those who are unfamiliar:

Shnoll Effect

“These synchronous observations at different attitudes and longitudes reveal a stunning and beautiful picture of the world” - Simon Shnoll on the Gordon Show 2003: Courtesy of Gene Selkov’s YouTube Channel.

Turn on Closed Captions (CC) and enjoy the series.

Basic Summary: Over the course of some 50 years Mr. Shnoll and colleagues have been conducting experiments regarding “the "scattering" of measurement results obtained from absolutely different types of processes chemical and biological reactions, noises in electronic systems, thermal noise in a gravitational wave antenna, and also many different kinds of radioactive decay.”

In other words “stochastic” fluctuations of the supposed “randomness” encountered when measuring a variety of reaction processes began to reveal patters of synchronization. They discovered:

“… a fine structure which builds up over time instead of cancelling out as in the case of a typical random or Poisson distribution.” - Dynamical 3-Space: Observing Gravitational Wave Fluctuations and the Shnoll Effect using a Zener Diode Quantum Detector - David P. Rothall and Reginald T. Cahill


What does this mean?

Mr. Shnoll confesses that he was uneasy about the results but the data, the precious data that comes from doing science, revealed synchronizations with cosmic periods. The Poisson probabilistic distribution would “smooth” the data such that a more graceful curve of the data would have been presented. When done this way everything would look normal as traditionally expected. However, “Such fitting criteria cannot “sense” the fine structure of distributions.” - S. E. Shnoll

Instead of finding random unorganized background noise the data began showing consistent patterns in the “fine structure” of the reactions. This was unexpected. No matter how hard Mr. Shnoll and other colleagues worked to find causes for the patterns, from a certain point of view (the“scientific”), the nature of the fine structure patterns only began to make things worse.

Why?

The patterns began to show synchronizations with Cosmic relationships “Sidereal Time” - “Briefly, sidereal time is a "time scale that is based on Earth's rate of rotation measured relative to the fixed stars" -Wikipedia

The patterns in the "fine structure" of "noise" also began to show synchronizations with the Sun-Earth relationship, and Earth-Moon relationship, as well as the Lunar Day, Lunar Month, the period of Lunar Evection, the Stellar Year, and a rather recent “palindrome effect”. In other words: different “scattering” processes on Earth were synchronizing with Cosmic periods. Thus, the title of the book is called “Cosmophysical Factors in Stochastic Processes”. (Currently reading this book) Mr. Shnoll and colleagues have been conducting these test all over the world for over 50 years now consistently getting the same results.

Changes in the fine structure of stochastic distributions as a consequence of space-time fluctuations: Simon E. Shnoll

General Relativity Theory Explains the Shnoll Effect and Makes Possible Forecasting Earthquakes and Weather Cataclysms: Dmitri Rabounski and Larissa Borissova (Do make note of the Cosmic Synchronizations)

Dynamical 3-Space: Gravitational Wave Detection and the Shnoll Effect: David P. Rothall and Reginald T. Cahill

The Roland De Witte 1991 Detection of Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves: Reginald T Cahill

Shnoll Lab: The laboratory of cosmic physical factors in the earthy processes
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby crawler » Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:40 pm

Solar wrote:Crawler Since I'm familiar with the works of Mr. Shnoll, R. Cahill, Roland DeWitt and others you know what makes me very curious (you're probably the only one who would understand this question) - do you think LIGO, if its capable, could've ignored or eliminated the fractal, "foam"-like qualities that the work of Mr. Shnoll appears to have detected in the "fine structure" of the histograms?
Good question. I dont think that Shnoll actually says what kind of Hertz might be the cause of some of his "scatterings". I dont think that Cahill actually says what kind of Hertz are involved in Cahill's Gravity Waves (fluctuations in dynamic space)(a reverberation of some kind)(involving dynamic space & quantum foam)(ie aether & aetherwind).
I am thinking that some of the Hertz for Shnoll & Cahill might be in the 100 Hertz area, ie a pain in the bum for LIGO.

A continuous continual steady sidereal (1/86,400 Hertz) & seasonal change (1/31,536,000 Hertz) in the background aetherwind is no problem for LIGO. But Cahill's GWs (if say 100 Hertz) might be a problem.

I dont understand how LIGO can negate some Hertz in real time (eg earthquakes) by auto inputs to the mirrors, & negate other Hertz later by filtering their data, leaving just their target CHIRP. If u deduct everything that aint a chirp then u might be left with a chirp. But i dont understand that stuff.

One question is whether a Cahill GW can result in a LIGO chirp. We know that Cahill's GWs travel at 500 kmps. LIGO's suppozed Einsteinian GWs travel at suppozedly 300,000 kmps. Yes i know that Einstein didnt believe in Einsteinian GWs but i will call them Einsteinian anyhow. Anyhow a Cahill GW might take 4/500 sec to go the 4km of a LIGO arm. But that time aint crucial. What we need to know is how long a Cahill GW lasts, & how long before the next. I dont remember Cahill ever saying. But i get the impression that a Cahill GW is a 1/1000 sec event, & the interval tween might be 1/100 sec.

And what is the strength of a Cahill GW. The strength is i suppose the simple change in the kmps of the background aetherwind, eg if it suddenly jumps from 490 kmps to 510 kmps (going from south to north throo Earth). Which might be a simple change, or might be more complicated (eg a kind of turbulence)(Cahill calls it a turbulence).

And what causes a Cahill GW. If Shnoll is correct then the cause has an Earthly or Moonly origin, or is due to the other planets, or due to the Sun. And-Or is due to some interaction tween solar system & our part of the Milky Way. What could cause such a change in aetherwind.

The only thing that i can think of that might do the trick is my own centrifuging of aether (by spinning & orbiting bodies). This creates a faux-gravity, which is non-scalar. This faux-gravity is not turbulent, but the resulting gravity-beams hav a hardish edge. Now, what happens is that a location on Earth passes throo a beam, giving a strong sudden change in aetherwind, a turbulence effect, even tho the beam is steady. There are two changes, one when entering the beam, & a 2nd when exiting (plus a possible more gradual 3rd change while inside).

This process is complicated, & i can explain. There are 2 kinds of beam, axial outflow (strong), & equatorial inflow (weakish). Every spinning-orbiting body has these beams. And during planetary alignments equatorial beams can add or subtract.

So, can LIGO get a Cahill GW chirp. I think they can. If the aetherwind blowing along an arm changes then we hav a Lorentz length contraction of the say 40 mm LIGO laser, & a LLC of say one of the 4 km arms, hencely a signal. If that signal happens to be in the 100 Hertz range for a part of a second, & if the strengths of the signals mimic an Einsteinian GW chirp, then LIGO have a problem.

One more thing. LIGO aint an MMX, koz LIGO has vacuum. An MMX needs gas (eg air)(Cahill)(Demjanov). More exactly, a vacuum LIGO is indeed an MMX, but it iz merely a weak 3rd order MMX (Cahill didnt tell us that)(i am telling us that), ie much less sensitive than the oldendays 2nd order MMXs (which themselves were very weak). However LIGO is they say very very very sensitive, hencely mightbe LIGO can easily detect a 3rd order signal. And an MMX signal is of course due to a change (or difference) in aetherwind blowing along the 2 arms of an MMX.
crawler
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby Sci-Phy » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:38 am

Hi,
I think everything is much more simple.
LIGO suspension intended to isolate device from the earthquake and such.
It is a system with negative feedback. The purpose is to maintain the distance between mirrors at constant value during external excitation. All devices with negative feedback have their transfer function and certain response to the input step function. I don't think the schematic of two LIGO instruments were designed by different companies, moreover even circuit boards were most likely manufactured by the same company. That means that their responses would be the same.
The isolation works pretty good actually. If you take a look at registered signal you could noticed that the amplitude of "registered" signals is always within 1-2 bits of device resolution.
The signals are just responses of the system to some perturbations. If you have two systems with random noise, then some of the chirps will happen exactly at the same time. Filtering prestidigitation could do the trick.
Sci-Phy
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:47 am
Location: Canada

Re: Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricit

Unread postby Sceptical lefty » Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:33 am

To address the topic of this thread ...

To recognise the presence and effect of electricity in space is to concede the possibility that the current gravity-centric view of the universe is wrong. This would mean that some of the 'giants' of modern cosmology have totally cocked up, that their Nobel Prizes and other awards were essentially unmerited and that the greater part of the contents of cosmology courses in institutions of higher learning is worthless. There is a 'knock-on' effect in other branches of science, not the least of which is the politically sensitive subject of climate.

The cosmologists have effectively painted themselves into a corner. Electricity in space is the spawn of the anti-Christ and no concessions can be made. Reputations, careers and pensions are at stake. Under the circumstances, objective scientific truth is nigh irrelevant. Don't hold your breath waiting for a general epiphany: any move in this direction will be strangled at birth by the guardians of orthodoxy.
Sceptical lefty
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 5:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests