Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Lew Paxton Price's Challenge to Mainstream Physics

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
So, he's saying gravity is actually incoming ether . . .


I follow the posts of independent researcher Jason Verbelli. On his Facebook page he linked to a book that he has uploaded to Scribd. It was written in 1979 and it is entitled Gravity Is a Push by Walter C. Wright.

I guess Price would agree, since an incoming ether to earth would be a push.
edit on 01/23/13 by Mary Rose because: Add




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I follow the posts of independent researcher Jason Verbelli. On his Facebook page he linked to a book that he has uploaded to Scribd. It was written in 1979 and it is entitled Gravity Is a Push by Walter C. Wright.


And I just noticed that someone commented on the link with a link to a KeelyNet article entitled "Wright's Push Gravity."

In the article I see this by Jerry W. Decker of KeelyNet which was written in 1998:


Push Gravity as I understand it is not a pushing force FROM MATTER.

Instead it is based on Aether/ZPE being omnipresent in the universe yet having varying densities in space and near matter.

In my view, matter is essentially a hole in the energy density of space. Aether/ZPE functions as a highly pressurized fluid that flows INTO these holes.

When aether/zpe flows in this fashion, we call it 'gravity'. The volume of aether/zpe which flows into mass, produces what we call 'weight'.

In its flow, aether/zpe precipitates into and PUSHES mass together, not only to sustain the physical form, but also to hold us onto the surface of the earth, much like insects being pressed against a screen (the earth surface) by a high wind.

In my opinion, we can alter these aether flows into mass by deflecting it around a mass, preventing it from entering mass, or cancelling its flow in a given region.

This can be done by phase conjugation (meaning there is a frequency involved) or by high energy discharges in the form of spikes that interfere with the flow. These energy discharges can be electrical, magnetic or even sonic.

Time will tell the truth of it by discovery and implementation of aether/zpe tapping to develop new technologies for practical use in our daily lives.


Much food for thought and very stimulating, I think.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
And I just noticed that someone commented on the link with a link to a KeelyNet article entitled "Wright's Push Gravity."


From the above link:


Wright's basic idea -- which he says is borne out by his experiments and calculations -- is that gravity doesn't emanate from the earth's core, it comes from the sun.


There is alternative science regarding the earth's core, as well. There was an expedition led by Dr. Brooks Agnew planned for next month regarding the hollow earth theory, the North Pole Inner Earth Expedition. But checking the website, I see there are complications. Not surprising, considering the subject matter.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by ImaFungi

en.wikipedia.org...

You make the mistake of equating the frequency attribute of a wave with the wave itself. Notes have pitch, but to state "notes are frequency" is false. My height can be measured but I am not "height".


I only meant it was a similar phenomenon to the wave/particle duality of QM ( everythings related mannnnn).

Wave/particle duality appears similar only due to your misconception of waves and their attributes.


I have been trying to comprehend this for a bit... waves dont actually exist then? they are just mathematical terminology to describe the probability an energy level will be at a specific point in space and time, some distance away from the source of such an energy emitting event? and the 2d wave diagram correlates with the wavelength as the speed of propagation ( intensity too maybe) and the frequency, as how often it (oscillates) in a given interval?


This Wikipedia article has a very comprehensive primer for understanding waves: en.wikipedia.org...


I have read over that article a few times prior.. I will admit I do not have the best understanding...

does particle/wave duality only exist because of motion and time? all things are quanta/particles.. but because time exists... some quanta/particles behave, or propagate space in a wave function? For example, if we pressed pause on the universe, we would expect to find, an exact location of the total quantity of energy/matter? but no i think that is wrong, because we would not be able to calculate all of the kinetic and potential energy we would be ignoring from the true motion of the universe ( if energy cannot be created or destroyed does that mean there is always infinite potential energy?)

So let me try this example then... Lets say we have a kiddie pool in a vacuum ( and for some reason.... the water does not freeze) and the water has no where to evaporate. and is completely motionless and still... so there is an exact amount of H20 molecules in the pool...these can be viewed as particles? and would that mean this system would have an exact,quantity of quanta energy,the sum of the mass of the protons, neutrons, and electrons, of every atom in the pool? then I am mission impossibly slowly hoisted over the kiddie pool,,, I take my finger, and poke the surface real quickly... the energy of the waves in the pool are proportional to the mass of my finger and the force at which i poked... is this similar with all energetic waves in nature? where there is a system with a specific quanta of energy, and a relation ship with it self (H20),,, and the disruption of this system, (breaking it out of equilibrium), jolts the system as, in these cases an oscillation, or a "passed on" vibration.. and the energy diminishes as the system is final able to "cushion" all the energy that entered it? I know thats a confused and crappy, potentially irrelevant concept, and I kinda maybe lost where i was going, but... yea..

do sound waves exist as waves? literal crest and trough waves? For example, the act of a finger plucking one guitar string, is a force of friction ( or something similar, ) which causes the tense string to vibrate or oscillate? the sound is caused, by the vibrating string, sending vibrational (?) energy into the surrounding air atoms? Does the sound wave travel in every direction equally or are there physical variables which determine a more strong direction of sound propagation? any way.. is the sound wave not, the vibration of the string, causing the atoms of the air to vibrate in a "mirroring" manner?
edit on 23-1-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.


do sound waves exist as waves? literal crest and trough waves?

Yes. You can break any sound down into a series sine waves aka pure tones, which are the sinusoidal crests and troughs you see in most diagrams. The crest and trough phase of the wave relate to the forwards and backwards oscillation of the wave. Think of a speaker cone moving and out to produce sound waves, it is exactly the same thing.


For example, the act of a finger plucking one guitar string, is a force of friction ( or something similar, ) which causes the tense string to vibrate or oscillate? the sound is caused, by the vibrating string, sending vibrational (?) energy into the surrounding air atoms?

The string vibrates, causing the air molecules around to vibrate. They are essentially just bumping into each other. This isn't the same as, say, a breeze of air as the key difference is the oscillating motion causing the wave.


Does the sound wave travel in every direction equally or are there physical variables which determine a more strong direction of sound propagation? any way.. is the sound wave not, the vibration of the string, causing the atoms of the air to vibrate in a "mirroring" manner?

The short answer is "it depends on the source and frequency". For something like a speaker, lower frequencies will propagate omni-directionally whereas higher frequencies propagate like a specular ray. This of course ignores things like edge diffraction but we're really going down a rabbit hole here so I'm going to leave it at that.

But I said earlier "frequency isn't a thing, it's an attribute" so let me clarify. Periodic waves have a frequency. This in turn can be described as wavelength (distance of crest and troughs). A non-sinusoidal wave (i,e. everything else) is composed of partials (which you can think as multiple sinusoidal waves of differing phase, frequency and amplitude summed together). For periodic waves, these partials have a mathematical relationship of which many are pleasing to the ear which we call "musical". It is why a piano and guitar playing the same note which in turn are the same pitch but they sound different. The fundamental (usually the lowest in frequency) partial of these instruments is what gives us the same sense of pitch (which will be a specific frequency) but their different partial content is what gives them their different timbre. Playing with the pitch and partial conent of musical notes can lead to interesting auditory illusions such as Shepard Tones (see below).

Going back to the speaker, it is these partials that make up the complex waveform (from the speaker cone moving back and forth) that will take different paths around the room, hence "it depends on the source and frequency" (i.e. in this instance, the source is a speaker cone oscillating back and forth and the frequency is the frequency of the partial being propagated). Some partials of low enough frequency will create standing waves between the boundaries of sufficient size and mass in the room. Some will ricochet off walls and arrive late (the "destination" here being your ears). Some will hit head on and cancel out to silence. Some will combine and reinforce together. This is why sounds sound different in different spaces. Ever wonder why speaking in your bathroom sounds different from speaking in a corridor or in a field? That's why.

The partials compositing a wave can be described as it's spectral/frequency content, which in turn can be evaluated with a Fourier Transform (again, deeper down the rabbit hole so we'll end that there). This particular topic will take some reading to wrap your head around but if you can grasp the relationship between the time domain (the sound wave itself) and the frequency domain (the partials that make up that waveform) everything will make sense.

Sound "in the wild" is rarely periodic. Speaking of it having a single frequency doesn't make much sense when dealing of non periodic waveforms. But such waveforms still have spectral content (every sound has spectral content) which in turn can likewise be described as the sum of various sine waves of differing frequency, phase and amplitude (partials).

Waves, partials, etc visualiser.:
www.falstad.com...

Harmonic Series:
en.wikipedia.org...

Shepard Tone:
soundcloud.com...

Frequency Spectrum:
en.wikipedia.org...


Your questions have a knack for touching on complicated and involved topics which aren't easily reduced to a simple one post explanation (if even possible at all). I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that my answers might confuse you further as they're really slices of information that don't make a great deal of sense in isolation. The closer to the bottom of my post the more it goes off topic but hopefully it will shed some light on the wider topics that answer your questions more directly. Food for thought, at least.
edit on 23-1-2013 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Thank you very much, your answers and time put forth in writing them is very helpful and appreciated..

One thing I have to ask..I think its related to partials, ( which I think if i understand you, is one aspect of the energy equivalent, of the force causing the vibration, the timbre/composition/denisty( all sorts of things about what it is that is vibrating,, its qualities), and the resistance of the medium... when an event occurs that produces a sound.. the partial, or sound wave... is the immediate interaction of the vibrating mass, contacting surrounding atoms? and because a taught, guitar string for example will oscillate a very high number of times in a second even, ( last longer then a second sure) before after some time it begins to lose energy... the pattern or imprint of the vibrating guitar string,,for that period of time, and quantity of oscillations.. is "bumping" the surrounding atoms,, which in turn bump the atoms that bump the atoms that bump the atoms....

so then I must ask,,, is "sound", the interaction of a vibrating/"moving" mass with air atoms? so after the initial and immediate relay of vibrational energy from the mass to the surrounding air atoms... the sound it self, is all about the interaction of the air atoms? I know you cant have one without the other, so maybe its equal parts... But I guess what im asking is... do I hear what a guitar string sounds like? or do I hear what a guitar string, bumping atoms bumping atoms sounds like?

Now I think im pretty wrong with that way of thinking,, I think it may be more, that the frictional energy between my thumb and finger when i snap for example,, at the tiniest level, can be viewed as very precise set of physical information..and with the medium, that information translates from the point of existence (my fingers snapping) to the surrounding medium, which carries that energetic informational event...my only thoughts as to why, because that energy has to go somewhere... ( now we get to this problem again, and im sorry to bring this up but) Is that not similar to how we manipulate radio waves to carry informational content? ( I know EM radiation doesn't require a medium) But, the snapping of my fingers is an atomically interacting energetic event... an atomically interacting energetic event of a grater force and magnitude can be known to produce EM radiation/waves...( That is a whole another topic I would love to talk about, why EM radiation doesnt need a medium,,, and how its wave particle duality is envisioned and actual..... Does the fact EM radiation doesnt need a medium to propagate mean that space is a superconductor?... sorry I dont know much technical aspects of that area as well, only bits and pieces



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Actually, I'm not interested in engaging in a debate about mainstream vs. alternative science.

I'm only interested in analyzing alternative ideas with others who are interested in the same thing.

So, I have nothing to say to you. I'm not going to spend my time on the debate you want to have. Maybe others will be interested in spending their time that way.


If you are serious about wanting to discuss only "alternative" (i.e. nonfunctional) science without the pesky inputs from others who know a bit about the real thing, why'd you post this under "science and tech" instead of some place no one will care about reality, like skunk works or paranormal?

Science and tech is - sciencey. If you want to discuss vortex tachyonic magneto-scalar quanto-aetheric field theory or whatever StarTrek technobabble pseudo-science topic's of interest this week, you're less likely to be pestered with reality in any of a number of other forums. (fora?)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
so then I must ask,,, is "sound", the interaction of a vibrating/"moving" mass with air atoms?


Yes, sort of.

You'd typically associate it with air, although you can do the same thing with, say, a solid or liquid medium as well.

Sound is a longitudinal compression wave in a medium.



so after the initial and immediate relay of vibrational energy from the mass to the surrounding air atoms... the sound it self, is all about the interaction of the air atoms? I know you cant have one without the other, so maybe its equal parts... But I guess what im asking is... do I hear what a guitar string sounds like? or do I hear what a guitar string, bumping atoms bumping atoms sounds like?


Worse, after it gets to your ears, it's broken down by a clever little Fourier analyzer called your cochlea, then further dissected by any number of stochastic processing systems in your brain. So you're hearing a multiply processed Fourier analysis of air molecules jostling a bio-mechanical impedance matching system made up of your middle ear. It's way more indirect than you'd think, and lots of it gets tossed, which is why you can do things like MP3s.



( now we get to this problem again, and im sorry to bring this up but) Is that not similar to how we manipulate radio waves to carry informational content?


Not so much. There are any number of ways to manipulate EM to carry information. From simple AM to trellis coding.



( I know EM radiation doesn't require a medium) But, the snapping of my fingers is an atomically interacting energetic event... an atomically interacting energetic event of a grater force and magnitude can be known to produce EM radiation/waves...( That is a whole another topic I would love to talk about, why EM radiation doesnt need a medium,,, and how its wave particle duality is envisioned and actual..... Does the fact EM radiation doesnt need a medium to propagate mean that space is a superconductor?... sorry I dont know much technical aspects of that area as well, only bits and pieces


Sound and EM are totally different. There's not much that's common between them.

Sound is a wave of compression and rarefaction in a somewhat elastic medium, like a gas. It's longitudinal, which means if you could see it, you'd see waves of compression and rarefaction coming toward you something like waves in a Slinky.

EM is a wave of magnetic and electric fields. They generate each other. It's transverse, which means that one component of it is at 90 degrees to the other, and if you could see it, it would look sort of like a wave on a clothesline, one component going up and down, the other going left to right. Note that this is horribly inexact because I'm having to use bad analogies here.

However, it's relevant in terms of aether. If you had 'luminiferous aether', as Mary is so fond of, then it would propagate EM as longitudinal waves, like air with sound. There's just one issue with that - you can't polarize a longitudinal wave. That's why you can't polarize sound.

You can polarize a transverse wave, though. And you can polarize EM. Since EM is polarizable, it can't be propagating as a longitudinal wave. Bye bye aether. At least Tom Bearden knows this, and if you bring up the subject during one of his aether tirades, he has a # fit and runs off stage screaming about cur dogs.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   
From "THE VORTEX":


THE DYNAMIC ETHER VORTEX

Although largely ignored by theoretical physicists, there is a question that has not been satisfactorily answered regarding the mass-energy equation usually attributed to Einstein. The question is: Why is the mass-energy equation E = mc2 while the kinetic energy equation is Ek = mc2/2 ? If energy from the annihilation of mass is truly energy, then it should be kinetic in nature. Yet, it is double the amount of the kinetic energy that one would expect it to be. Why isn't the mass energy equation E = mc2/2 instead of E = mc2 ? The following provides an answer to this question and links the heretofore mysterious world of subatomic matter and energy to our macroscopic world of mass and kinetic energy.

In a universe of dynamic ether, a vortex would be formed of this ether. . . .



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Sound is a wave of compression and rarefaction in a somewhat elastic medium, like a gas. It's longitudinal, which means if you could see it, you'd see waves of compression and rarefaction coming toward you something like waves in a Slinky.


Thanks for the response.. "something like waves in a slinky".. but more like millions of slinkies? or one giant slinky composed of the totality of vibrating air?




However, it's relevant in terms of aether. If you had 'luminiferous aether', as Mary is so fond of, then it would propagate EM as longitudinal waves, like air with sound. There's just one issue with that - you can't polarize a longitudinal wave. That's why you can't polarize sound.

You can polarize a transverse wave, though. And you can polarize EM. Since EM is polarizable, it can't be propagating as a longitudinal wave.


Does this have to do with wave/particle duality? How do you envision a Photon ever being a particle? What is EM radiation and how can it be composed of electric magnetic field if it is not a charged particle? Since we are not completely familiar with what space is, why would you compare it to air? What exists where there are no atoms.. and when EM radiation travels through air, does it travel "in between atoms" or via atoms?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Also to the people originally upset with me for mentioning my thoughts on the potential similarities between music/sound.. and perhaps the nature of particles/energy waves...

could it be that all the different particles discovered of the standard model ( what are there 60's or 100's by now),, are like ( can at least be related to) different "notes/pitchs" played on the "universal instrument" ( which i guess would be the total manifold of the universe; space-time,energy/matter)... similar to how on an instrument,, there is one constant variable.. the instrument, and the non constant variables are different variations and energy levels of intensity, as well as (guitar for example) different "lengths of string?" cause a different pitch or vibration .... Im guessing the differences in length of string have a mathematically proportional variation,, which at proportionally correlating lengths,, "notes", that are in scale or harmony can be created... ( i know i messed up a bit with my example, with ignorance of word choice, and lack of complete understanding of what im trying to express and how, but only an inkling of an idea that there may be relevance with what im trying to express).. likewise,, energetic particles are naturally grouped, and detailed, in proportion to one another, in terms of varying levels of mass/energy,,, and im sure other traits, which most likely stem from their mass/energy and the circumstances of them being brought into existence... any way, I conclude in stating that there may be a relationship between musical notes/pitch/harmony/ octaves ( the way different vibrations/wave patterns interact with one another to form other wave patterns, depending on physically group-able mathematical variables ) and the way fundamental particles/quanta of energy "moves/waves" and interacts with the particles/quanta surrounding it...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Thanks for the response.. "something like waves in a slinky".. but more like millions of slinkies? or one giant slinky composed of the totality of vibrating air?


One giant slinky. Again, the analogy isn't precise, but a longitudinal wave looks like that. There's probably a nice animated graphic somewhere if it's less than clear, I generally have to resort to drawing things IRL. Hard on this computer with just a mouse, though.




Does this have to do with wave/particle duality? How do you envision a Photon ever being a particle? What is EM radiation and how can it be composed of electric magnetic field if it is not a charged particle? Since we are not completely familiar with what space is, why would you compare it to air? What exists where there are no atoms.. and when EM radiation travels through air, does it travel "in between atoms" or via atoms?


a) not so much - you have to consider the wave aspect though for polarization
b) it's either one you like, sort of like a shmoo. If you want to solve problems in the particle domain, then particle solutions are what you get. Same for waves. It's a bit like solving problems in frequency, continuous time or discrete time domains - the answers are the same, the methodology is different. Sometimes it's easier one way than the other.
c) EM radiation is a transverse wave composed of alternating E and H fields at right angles to each other propagating through space. The fields are not attached to charged particles. EM is not a stream of charged particles. Photons carry no charge.
d) You can understand aspects of things without understanding each and every final detail of it. This is what I call the ATS "we don't know everything, therefore magic" fallacy. I can machine you a very nice fitting without having to understand the final details of gluon interaction in the metal's atoms, for example
e) If there were a luminiferous aether (and there's not), it would propagate EM like air propagates sound - as a longitudinal wave. EM is not longitudinal, as it can be polarized. Therefore, no aether.
f) vacuum
g) it interacts with atoms to some degree, to what degree depends on the atoms and the frequency of the EM. This gets into plasmon phenomena, which is beyond the scope of this discussion



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
From "LIGHT AND ELECTRON SPIN":


Introduction to Light

The product of Planck's constant, "h", and frequency, "f ", equals the energy in a photon. Planck's constant is the kinetic energy, Ek, in the passage of one wave of light. However, the correct quantum for light is the half-wave rather than the complete wave which is composed of two half-waves. This is because a photon is composed of transverse waves caused by an electron reversing directions regularly and thus creating opposing accelerations in the ether. These accelerations move outward at the speed of light. Each acceleration is created by a reverse in the electron's direction which reverses the rotation of the incoming ether. Two adjacent acceleration reversals create one light wave.

It is the electron's reversals in direction during the production of a "photon" that creates the energy in the photon. . . .



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
From "PLANCK'S CONSTANT":


I have been criticized for using the word "photon" for light when I believe light to be a series of waves. "Photon" is the term given by particle physicists and relates to the theory known as "quantum electrodynamics" or "QED". I use the term "photon" because it is the popular word allowed in light theory and the only way I can communicate to most people regarding what is actually a wave packet of light.

The unit kilogram may be considered either mass or force which creates a certain amount of confusion when working with it or in communicating.

The use of the number one (as we use it in our one second denominators) also creates problems because in an equation, the number one is essentially invisible.

Max Planck started quantum theory by showing that radiant energy is proportional . . .

. . . However, if Planck's constant were considered to be energy, in the first instance it would be equal to 6.757704 x 10-35 meter kilogram, and hf would be h(n/t) which is power. This, in my opinion, is where much of our trouble in physics lies today. Because a second is always used and is equal to one, it does not show up in numerical values obtained by experiment and could either be a multiplier or a divisor without anyone being the wiser. . . .
edit on 01/26/13 by Mary Rose because: Add



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   
From "INTRODUCTION TO MAGNETISM":


Magnetism has become one of the best proofs of the existence of an ether even though its effects have been masked by the brainwashing process of most college physics classes. Perhaps the most dramatic example of ether existence was placed in Scientific American back in the days when it was still a very good magazine. The article was on high intensity magnets and it described how there was pressure inside an electromagnet that caused the magnet to explode when the magnet was of a very high strength. There was no way to avoid the pressure exceeding the tensile strength of the material of which the magnet was constructed. Such magnets could remain intact, however, if the DC current creating the magnetic field were pulsed very briefly so that the inertia of material of which the magnet was made could hold the magnet together for this short period of time.

Apparently, this explosive tendency was not in accord with current theory which stated that there was nothing inside the magnet to cause it to explode. So a more recent article in the same magazine implied that the magnet only exploded due to the heat of the current weakening the coils. Of course, the magnet still exploded violently from the inside out, but this was a fact that was ignored.

Actually, a high intensity magnet explodes because the nether (dynamic ether) is compressed inside the magnet. . . .



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
saw this in another thread and thought it relates to what i was thinking...



sound waves are a form of energy... they can be classified by pitch,frequency, wavelength etc...

the matter in the universe... quarks, electrons, and other various manifestations of these things... are also, in ways thought to be waves, or oscillations of energy... I think that video probably is similar to what goes on in an atom, in terms of standing wave patterns of quarks, and electron orbitals/configurations depending on quantities of waves and quanta in an atom...

the tricky areas in my mind at least and for me,, is comprehending why and how quarks formed protons, and neutrons... why and how electrons formed and why and what makes them so fundamentally different then quarks/protons/neutrons... I know the big components are mass and charge, and other qualities such as spin...
but how well is charge fundamentally comprehended? why it exists, and what the actual components, meanings and mechanisms of charge are...

Now they label particles like the tau and muon as particles that can exist and are distinct... but if the only difference between these particles and the electron is their mass.... then are these particles not just an electron with greater velocity? they only last for 'minute' amounts of time ( i think).. I could be wrong in my assessment but id like to hear why..



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Regarding particles, I agree with the point that is made in an article from Scientific American that Price quotes in "INTRODUCTION TO ADVANCED ETHER (DARK ENERGY) THEORY":


"As accelerator techniques advance, physicists will undoubtedly continue to discover new subatomic entities. The proliferation will raise deep, unsettling questions. Are the kinds of quark limited in number? If there are six, why not 12? If there are 12, why not 24? And if the number of kinds of quark is large, does it make any sense to call the quarks elementary? The history of science suggests that the proliferation of physical entities is a sign the entities are not elementary. The chemists of the 19th century reduced the apparently infinite variety of chemical substances to some 36 elements which escalated over the years to more than 100. As indivisible, ultimate constituents of matter the chemical elements simply proved to be too many. In the 1930s it was discovered that all elements were made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons. After World War II, these particles were joined by dozens of others: pions, kaons, lambda particles and so on. Again there were too many. Then it seemed that all of these could be reduced to three quarks. Now experiments indicate that a fourth and fifth quark exist. Are they also too many? Will simpler structures from which quarks are made soon be proposed? Is it possible that there are no elementary particles at all, that every entity in nature has constituent parts? Or will the ultimate simplicity that most physicists believe in, be lodged in the mathematical groups that order the particles rather than in truly elementary objects?"


I don't think particle physics is giving us the answers we need. I think things can be divided into infinity.

Regarding charge, I checked Price's menu to see whether there's a section on Charge, but I don't see one. Are you checking out what he has to say at all? Maybe you could check the menu to see whether there is a category that would address charge: Link

I would like to comment from my own knowledge about charge, but I don't have it; I'm just exploring the works of people who I find to be the searchers who are not bound by constraints placed on them.

edit on 01/29/13 by Mary Rose because: Wording



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Gradually more and more is coming to light demonstrating that our understanding of things like gravity is stunted, if not flawed, and that our ancestors knew better than us. Take the Aztec sunstone, for example. It was designed based on the concept that Saturn and Jupiter have a tangible influence on other objects in the Solar System including the Earth and the Sun. Our laws of gravity say that can't be, yet I have reconstructed over 50 earthquakes obtaining from the sunstone a qualified description of the event and its epicentre within one degree by matching the positions of the sun, Saturn and Jupiter with the stone's symbols. A theory of gravity sleeves has been suggested and a connection between Saturn, Jupiter and solar activity loosely formed, but the Jovian planets causing storms and earthquakes here?

Having research him in great depth, I can frankly say that even Newton was aware at the start of "gravity's history" that certain sequences of planetary alignments could be potentially destructive to Earth, yet failed to disclose it because it contradicted in part the laws he developed. It wasn't alchemy he was practising in his latter years, it was astronomical physics and the interaction between the planets which share the same symbols as the base metals. Newton's search for a date for the apocalypse took him quite rightly in that direction. Newton's secret knowledge was most likely passed on to the Freemasons.

For some reason certain knowledge about the nature of the universe has been witheld, probably by those who would dominate it. Think what would happen if everyone could read the sunstone or knew the true simple nature of the universe. Instead we are blinded by "rocket science" and are actually being deceived by it. Science is the Serpent; 666 are the numerals of the constant of gravity, G which we are now learning might not be the right number after all.

Thanks for raising the topic! The Truth will out, slowly but surely.
See my YouTube channel, DanielToTheEnd if you are curious.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I follow the posts of independent researcher Jason Verbelli.


I was checking out his Facebook page again this morning and noticed this post:


This Universe contains 1 energy and it's electricity. There is an inward push which is mislabeled "pull" and an outward push.
"Light doesn't travel." -- Walter Russell
Light and magnetism are no different.
Magnetism and gravity are no different.
There is no "speed of light."
There have been other theories for over 100 years, but they're ignored because people would rather put Einstein on an infallible pedestal than study the more accurate theories.


I think that it is true that there has been a censorship of other competing theories over the years and that this is not scientific.

I have read a little bit about what Walter Russell meant by light does not travel. I think what he was saying is that rather than traveling from point A to point B like a car or a person walking, the light waves reproduce themselves. I guess that would be like a chain reaction.

I think it's interesting that Jason says there are two pushes - inward and outward - in the universe but no pull.

I guess Jason is saying that light, magnetism, and gravity are the same thing. And there's one energy: Electricity.

And I guess Jason's theory that there is no pull just push would correspond to Price's theory that gravity is actually incoming ether.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I think the problem in universities is that the power structure that controls funding tailors what is taught in order to maintain that power structure for itself. There would be no fame in debunking mainstream physics; mainstream physics is the way it is because it suits those in control.

.

i think you do have something there in a nutshell.
btw nice thread





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join