Good news, everyone

[silvergreylion]

Hello, everyone

I just joined, but I wouldn't call myself a new member.
I was on the forum in 2008-2010, but left because the level of maturity back then
(both my own and that of others) .. left room for improvement.

Anyway, I've recently had a number of epiphanies, and I believe I've figured out how it all works.
There's not just one aether medium, there are two: An energetic one, and one that's structures of swirling energy.

It goes much, much further than that, and I've put it all together in a pdf,
but I want to make sure it's ok to post a link to it first.
It's five pages long, so I don't think it would fit in one post.
(also, is it ok to host it on dropbox, or are other services preferred?)
It has been tested for viruses and malware, but I will also suggest that people should do so themselves.

I thought about posting it in NIAMI, but it's consistent with EU theory, at least as far as I can tell, except for the slight difference,
that electrical fields are not themselves the cause of gravity, but instead their interaction with the aether and the light passing by.

So, assuming a pdf is ok, would NIAMI be the correct forum to post it in?

[silvergreylion]

Here it is:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/s4auvdnp ... w8ccu&dl=0

Password is my username.

It's been scanned for viruses/malware and whatnot, but feel free to do your own checking.

I'm still doing minor corrections, but it should be mostly complete and coherent/consistent.

Mind you, it's been written as plainly as I could, to make it understandable for as many as possible.

I will post newer versions when/if corrections make it pertinent to do so.
.

[Lloyd]

I've been mature the whole time I've been on here since 2007. And I don't remember the forum being immature back then either.

What was your username back then?

And why don't you post at least part of your findings here?

[silvergreylion]

What was your username back then?

Why do you want to know?

And why don't you post at least part of your findings here?

Because it's just that much easier, if people read all of it first, then ask questions here.

[Cargo]

Your defamation of TB Forum history notwithstanding, can you at least paste in the summary?

[silvergreylion]

Here is revision 0.76:
(has been scanned for viruses and malware, but do your own checking)

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wcefeybb ... pc9oe&dl=0

Password is my username.


I may do a summary of it after it's complete.

[crawler]

Here is revision 0.76:(has been scanned for viruses and malware, but do your own checking)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wcefeybb ... pc9oe&dl=0
Password is my username.
I may do a summary of it after it's complete.

In the following snippet u say that the energetic ether is always stationary.
Later u say that the ether streams in through the evons (that make the second class of medium which u call aether).
How can ether stream through if it is always stationary?

Dual-Medium Hypothesis( which will hopefully go on to become the Dual-Medium Theory = DMT )
I hereby propose, that there are two all-pervasive media in the universe: 1)
an always-stationary fundamental medium (except in one case, see Things to test), pervading the entire universe. I will coin it the energetic ether (and refer to it as the ether).This medium is basically pure energy, and is ultimately that, which powers everything in the universe, and to which, energy in other forms, always eventually returns. It may consist of this energy swirling, forming much finer structures than in the medium described below, but considering there to be even finer media of substructures would just complicate this unnecessarily. 2) This medium consists of structures of the first medium, on the Planck-scale (~6.6x10-34m). I postulate they are swirling, semi-enclosed vortices, similar to the next congregate structure I describe further down. I will coin these structures evons (ether vortex-ons). Fairly close approximations of these structures would be almost egg-shaped Rodin coils, wound clockwise or counter-clockwise, respectively. There are only two such Planck-scale structures, or evons; two different entities, which are mirror-images of each other. I will refer to them as A and B.They form four triplets similar to those described further down; ABB and BAA have equal, opposite charge. AAA and BBB have magnetic, opposite spin. Both are several orders of magnitude weaker and smaller than the avon triplets I describe later on. In the charge carriers,

energetic ether streams in through the first in the sequence, gaining either cw or ccw spin, which is then reversed in the next, and gaining more spin in the last, now swirling very fast, so exits spilling out radially, preventing this structure from becoming a closed loop. This structure and ether spin is what gives rise to charge, or has the effect of acting as a charge. Equal amounts of these evon triplets fill the entire universe as well, and I will refer to this medium as the aether. It can be thought of as a perfect fluid, with zero viscosity. It has permittivity and permeability, meaning it is electrically polarizable, and can be magnetized = it has magnetic dipoles, which can orient to an applied magnetic field. It is also nearly incompressible. This aether medium remains stationary away from matter, but is mostly entrained to follow along with moving matter, which itself is also a structure ultimately composed of this aether. It streams slowly through matter, in the opposite direction of travel. This aether is the medium, which light propagates through, both transverse and longitudinal light. The congregate structures of the evons form the base entities of matter; two mostly self-enclosed vortices, which also have an ovoid shape, with a "funnel" through their vertical axis. These two vortices are also mirror-images of each other, and roughly of size ~10-30m. I coin them avons (aether vortex-ons).

[silvergreylion]

In the following snippet u say that the energetic ether is always stationary.
Later u say that the ether streams in through the evons (that make the second class of medium which u call aether).
How can ether stream through if it is always stationary?

Thanks, that's actually a fair point, I should correct, and/or clarify that.
It swirls locally in the two vortexial patterns, but overall/generally, it's stationary outside of these two structures.

I will replace the word 'always', since there's also the superconductor exception,
and the swirling through the charge structures, and inside the spin structures.

[crawler]

In the following snippet u say that the energetic ether is always stationary.
Later u say that the ether streams in through the evons (that make the second class of medium which u call aether).
How can ether stream through if it is always stationary?

Thanks, that's actually a fair point, I should correct, and/or clarify that.
It swirls locally in the two vortexial patterns, but overall/generally, it's stationary outside of these two structures.

I will replace the word 'always', since there's also the superconductor exception,
and the swirling through the charge structures, and inside the spin structures.

Aether etc swirling/flowing into a particle/atom is also at the heart of the atomic theory of Krafft (USA say 1950) & Miles Mathis (USA say 2000).
My theory starts with what i call Praether, which makes my Aether, & my aether too flows into matter/mass/particles/photons/radio etc.
My theory too struggles with how a massless aether can produce force (gravity/inertia/charge/magnetism etc).
Still thinking.

[silvergreylion]

Aether etc swirling/flowing into a particle/atom is also at the heart of the atomic theory of Krafft (USA say 1950) & Miles Mathis (USA say 2000).
My theory starts with what i call Praether, which makes my Aether, & my aether too flows into matter/mass/particles/photons/radio etc.
My theory too struggles with how a massless aether can produce force (gravity/inertia/charge/magnetism etc).
Still thinking.

That would be because of the structure of the proton.
In my model, the proton ends up consisting of 4 c+, 1 c-, and 1 m↓.

The structure I built up from these, (and I tried many others, which didn't work) ends up being two triangles,
at a right angle to each other, each with one point at the center of the other triangle.
One center is the m↓, the other is the c- particle (each an avon triplet in my model).

That means, that the proton is itself an electrical dipole, and has an off-center magnetic spin, or dipole.
These two are also orthogonal to each other.
For this structure to move through the aether, it has to spin, but with the electric dipole almost orthogonal to the direction of travel.
One side of the magnetic dipole is tilted slightly forward, (and ofc the other slightly backwards).
As it spins, it is corkscrewing its way through the aether.

I didn't realize until after I'd worked out that it had to move in this way, that this proton spin also meant,
(because the electric dipole is spinning almost transversely to the spin axis),
that it would be giving off EM radiation.
I consider this to be the source of the microwave background radiation.

So, a longitudinal wave applies a torque to the proton, which responds by spinning, trying to corkscrew its way in the opposite direction, from which the longitudinal wave came, or from which it is the strongest.
Therefore, longitudinal EM waves have to be helical in nature.

[silvergreylion]

Here is rev. 0.77:

Password is my username.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/he609iyk ... dxfsf&dl=0

The pdf has been scanned for viruses and malware, but please do your own checking.

It has been updated with another prediction for the LIGO project(s):
There should always be a delay of approximately 1.7 seconds between the "gravity wave" they detect, and the burst of gamma rays or other EM radiation from an energetic event, because the "gravity wave" burst is generated locally; 1.7*c ~ 508,000 km away.

I wonder how many such events it will take, all seemingly at the same distance (according to their theory, due to the delay being the same), before realization sets in, that such "coincidences" are a wee bit unlikely

[silvergreylion]

And, here is rev. 0.78:

Password is my username.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/daeqhr77 ... neade&dl=0

Pdf has been scanned for viruses and malware, but please do your own checking.

Realized the proton spin from acceleration was the main factor in concepts of mass and inertia, so added that under Newton's laws.

Also added a very speculative prediction about a helical setup of coils.

[purplepete]

I think you'll find that Miles Mathis's charge field has the benefit of Occam's Razor and explaining numerous other phenomena. The Aether just pops out naturally from his model.
Note that the main differences with Miles's model and everyone else's is that his has a HUGE number of ultra-small particles constantly moving around and through EVERYTHING we call mass at the speed of light - this is what forms the Aether. The majority are spinning and form "layers" of spin to create photons, electrons, protons et al - so everything we can detect is made out of the same basic stuff. So it's not some "ocean" of relatively static particles or a squishy media.
This also explains the results of Martin Grusenick and Chris Machado that show whilst there isn't a huge amount of action with Aether flow parallel to the surface of the Earth, there IS in terms of flow coming OUT of the Earth (as many of the particles come in via the poles and are spun out especially around the Equator but from pretty much all surfaces on the planet thanks to centrifugal force). Similarly with the Dayton Miller ether drift experiments at Mount Wilson that also showed a result.
I've done my best to summarise the key points of Miles's model here and one day I'll do a video or three:
https://thehonestscientist.com/miles-mathis/

[silvergreylion]

I read though it. At first glance, it looks a lot like my model,
but it seems to suffer from a mainstream concept, which I understand can be hard to let go of.

Notably, a photon (in Miles' case a B-photon, whatever that is) being a particle.
Also a "charge photon", in similar vein.

Then, tries to explain AC as not being electrons moving back and forth.
I think he somehow forgot, that AC can be rectified to DC.

That wouldn't work, if AC was not electrons moving back and forth.

The skin effect for AC would be due to electric repulsion, as electrons per volume in AC are necessarily 'concentrated' as voltage rises sinusoidally, and the temporary excess negative charge has to be on the outside of the conductor.
As voltage falls, electrons per volume are 'diluted/rarefied', and they travel on the inside, with a temporary positive charge on the outside.

It doesn't seem like Miles explains what gravity is. My model does.
I also looked at the snp pdf, and the misspelling "The Solar Neutrion Problem" makes me think this was all written very fast, and not looked at ever since.
He does at least partially figure out, that one neutrino is part of an electron, but fails to realize the same is true for a proton.

I've not yet gone into neutrinos in my model, but it should be fairly obvious what they are, once you've gathered an understanding of it.

Miles "explanation" of beta decay; "in beta decay, the neutron doesn't decay at all.
It gets hit by a positron. The outer spins of both particles reverse, turning the neutron into a proton and
the positron into an electron. "

Come on, we know that a neutron consists of an electron and a proton, even though it is an unstable composite particle.
The above imaginary process would create one unit of negative charge, compared to the initial particles.

If the universe worked that way, if charge wasn't always in balance, everything would have been split apart to microscopic particles or smaller.
Stars, planets, moons, asteroids, would be impossible.

[crawler]

I think you'll find that Miles Mathis's charge field has the benefit of Occam's Razor and explaining numerous other phenomena. The Aether just pops out naturally from his model.
Note that the main differences with Miles's model and everyone else's is that his has a HUGE number of ultra-small particles constantly moving around and through EVERYTHING we call mass at the speed of light - this is what forms the Aether. The majority are spinning and form "layers" of spin to create photons, electrons, protons et al - so everything we can detect is made out of the same basic stuff. So it's not some "ocean" of relatively static particles or a squishy media.
This also explains the results of Martin Grusenick and Chris Machado that show whilst there isn't a huge amount of action with Aether flow parallel to the surface of the Earth, there IS in terms of flow coming OUT of the Earth (as many of the particles come in via the poles and are spun out especially around the Equator but from pretty much all surfaces on the planet thanks to centrifugal force). Similarly with the Dayton Miller ether drift experiments at Mount Wilson that also showed a result.
I've done my best to summarise the key points of Miles's model here and one day I'll do a video or three:
https://thehonestscientist.com/miles-mathis/

I am No1 re Grusenick. And Pearce. And Michelson Morley. And Miller Morley.
I did not understand Machado at all.
Anyhow, the Grusenick vertical MMX was a complete failure.