Relationship Between Gravitational and Kinetic Forces and Electrical and Magnetic Forces

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
There is a YouTube video published April 6, 2013 with some interesting conjecture presented at the end concerning gravity - that force that is poorly understood by science.

It is of a talk given at the Electric Universe Conference 2013 entitled "Relativity in the Light of GPS." The talk was given by Ron Hatch. Here is what the Description of the video states about his credentials:


Ron has worked with satellite navigation and positioning for 50 years, having demonstrated the Navy's TRANSIT System at the 1962 Seattle World's Fair. He is well known for innovations in high-accuracy applications of the GPS system including the development of the "Hatch Filter" which is used in most GPS receivers. He has obtained over two dozen patents related to GPS positioning and is currently a member of the U.S National PNT (Positioning Navigation and Timing) Advisory Board. He is employed in advanced engineering at John Deere's Intelligent Systems Group.


Here's a link to the video: "RON HATCH: Relativity in the Light of GPS | EU 2013."

Here are two screenshots that show Ron Hatch's conjecture and supporting evidence:





I'm interested in his ideas because he's talking about the concept of the ether, which I think needs to be returned to science.
edit on 04/07/13 by Mary Rose because: Wording




posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I personally found his slides to be gibberish. He never defines his terms, so I don't have a clue what he means. Why do you think the concept of the ether needs to be returned? Is there some current data or observations that the current physical models can't explain?



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Toromos
 


I believe that gravity is not explained by mainstream science. Math that works does not explain a phenomenon.

I think the ether needs to be returned because the vast majority of the universe is space - even the atom is 99.9% space - but space is not empty, and the concept of the ether best recognizes that fact.

Instead of focusing on dissecting matter, we should be focusing on what makes up space.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Thanks for the link to the video. Interesting stuff.

From what I've watched up to now, Rons main claim is that EM radiation is not affected by gravity. Subsequently he shows the consequences of this assertion. So all his further claims will stand or fall with it.

This will need some investigation and poring over some books on my side, lol. Any scientists here please stand up!



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Explanation: S&F!

Is Ron implying that Gravity is a Monopole?





In mathematics, a monopole is a connection over a principal bundle G with a section (the Higgs field) of the associated adjoint bundle. The connection and Higgs field should satisfy the Bogomolnyi equation and be of finite actionmonopole.


Personal Disclosure:

edit on 7-4-2013 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to fix broken bbcode for emoticons.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 


I like his practical work experience.
I'm always interested in what the engineers have to say about physics.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 
I have to say I liked the part right before the slides you have posted more. But that is maybe just because there is some "meat" to it, something to work with. The ending is a bit too much conjecture for me personally, hehe.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Good question!

I have been re-listening to what he said, and after saying no repulsion, he said but if there is an oscillation there is a plus and minus, inward and outward phase motion. He then goes on to say that he's proposing a morphing of kinetic and gravitational into gravity only and EM into electric only. Before I think he used the word "residual" and said electric is residual gravity, and that electric potential arises from the oscillation of the ether density.

So, is he replacing charge with phase motion?



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Toromos
 


I believe that gravity is not explained by mainstream science. Math that works does not explain a phenomenon.

I think the ether needs to be returned because the vast majority of the universe is space - even the atom is 99.9% space - but space is not empty, and the concept of the ether best recognizes that fact.

Instead of focusing on dissecting matter, we should be focusing on what makes up space.


I watched a documentary on this last night, they said scientists believe 70% of space consists of dark energy. I'm not sure if they have any proof of this, just like the 'higgs boson' they believe it is some sort of invisible field that holds space together and gives matter mass. I doubt they will ever find what they are looking for because it all hinges on a belief/theory/hypothesis. They could be going to all this trouble creating CERN and the likes only to find out they have been going down the wrong path, and that it was all for nothing.

As for the slides, I have to agree what someone said about these terms such as gradient, shear, etc. not being clearly defined. At least this guy is looking for idea's outside the box and not being a clueless sheep.

Space is a vacuum, is it not possible it contains nothing at all? They are all looking for substance to it but can't find any perhaps the answer is more simple than they realise. They picture it like cells in blood where cells are the planets and the blood is space, but perhaps it is just emptiness. In this dualistic reality there always seems to be two extreme's with a neutral area in the middle - light/grey/dark, good/neutral/bad, matter/non-matter/anti-matter?



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toromos
I personally found his slides to be gibberish.


Amen to that.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Really intelligent, specific, rational, intuitive, original and constructive.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Really intelligent, specific, rational, intuitive, original and constructive.


And true, utter gibberish. Just another made up pseudo-science post from a member with a long track record of spamming rubbish like this all over the boards.
edit on 6-5-2013 by Subterranean13 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Subterranean13
 




Okay.

Do you feel better now?



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Really intelligent, specific, rational, intuitive, original and constructive.


I applaud your appreciation of my simple statement. I'm glad you recognized that mental excrement of a theory as such.



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Uh, right!


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Amen to that.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eonnn
I watched a documentary on this last night, they said scientists believe 70% of space consists of dark energy. I'm not sure if they have any proof of this, just like the 'higgs boson' they believe it is some sort of invisible field that holds space together and gives matter mass.


But look, the evidence for the Higgs particle is mounting, with more measurements done at CERN, right? So far parts of this hypothesis really square out with observables.


I doubt they will ever find what they are looking for because it all hinges on a belief/theory/hypothesis.


Wrong, in the end in physics it all hinges on observation.


They could be going to all this trouble creating CERN and the likes only to find out they have been going down the wrong path, and that it was all for nothing.


That's always a possibility. Brilliant scientists have been known to pursue incorrect paths once in a while. With a little time and more measurement, we ultimately got a better picture of things. So far CERN has been tremendously useful for our exploration of the Microcosm. Can't wait to get back there in a few weeks



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Toromos
 


I believe that gravity is not explained by mainstream science. Math that works does not explain a phenomenon.


What else do you want as an 'explanation'? Math that describes predictive physical phenomena is what "works". I prefer "works" to "emotionally satisfying" myself.



I think the ether needs to be returned because the vast majority of the universe is space - even the atom is 99.9% space - but space is not empty, and the concept of the ether best recognizes that fact.

Instead of focusing on dissecting matter, we should be focusing on what makes up space.


Sure. Welcome to quantum field theory. You know it's past 1948 here.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Thanks for the link to the video. Interesting stuff.

From what I've watched up to now, Rons main claim is that EM radiation is not affected by gravity. Subsequently he shows the consequences of this assertion. So all his further claims will stand or fall with it.


OK, an actual physical prediction: that makes it simple. He's 100% wrong on that one.

Eddington 1918 eclipse showed aberration of starlight consistent with general relativity. 1950's-1960's: experimental demonstration of gravitational redshift for photons travelling out of the gravitational potential in UC Berkeley's clock tower with an extraordinary and famous experiment with sensitivity something like one part in 10^15. 1980's and on: overwhelming evidence for gravitational lensing from galactic surveys.

Einstein's general relativity, though subtle and difficult to test, has been tested experimentally. No failures, and GR has specifically beaten other proposed theories & extensions.

There has to be something correct about it.



This will need some investigation and poring over some books on my side, lol. Any scientists here please stand up!



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
The equations in GR have been shown time and again to be a very incomplete picture of a universe that does not exsist. Einstien himself never predicted many of the theoretical objects in our universe and states his theory is non represetative.

This is not debatable, he stated it.

Anyone hoping to grasp the concepts that current quantum physics and EU theorists propose need to look at 2 primary sources.

The first comes from a man know as gavin wince. You can google existics 101 to find his web page where he debates richard susskind one of the pillars of modern cosmology.

The other is is thunderbolts.info representing thr EU.

I think tge op is relating the space between masses that has been shown ti be filled with charged particles to the ole ether theories of the past. While they may sound similar in proposition they are not.

I apologize for tge syntax my phones keyboard is malfuntioning

I do not belive any of the members of the eu are trying to discredit gravity or partical physics (I'm sure they have at least 1 nut job tgat maybe but I don't recall any specific statments.

Eu is simple (r), more testable, and does not discount gravity.

Ric cannot = 0. An object divided by infinty does not = X DIVIDED BY 0.

Just try to imagine a universe where you coukd mathematicaly divide by 0.

# gets wierd
edit on 8-5-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by vind21
The equations in GR have been shown time and again to be a very incomplete picture of a universe that does not exsist


My GPS works fine, thank you. It does seem to exist all right. It's complete because it allows me to run errands of all sorts in a very efficient manner. Based on this and other observations, your statement does not have merit.



Anyone hoping to grasp the concepts that current quantum physics and EU theorists propose need to look at 2 primary sources.


Umm, interesting. Let's take a looksie:


The first comes from a man know as gavin wince.


Wait, is he "Gavin Wince" or is he simply known as one? Is he a NK spy? Please clarify.

I read his page and found things like:


Our story begins in a small village town resting along the boarder of Switzerland and France where a community of the World’s best Scientist conduct high energy experiments with the European Council for Nuclear Research, better known to the general public as CERN.


I lived in this area for years and this is bullsh!t. What "village town"? CERN's territory is separate from population centers in the vicinity. Never mind one needs to spell "border" right. It's not same as "boarder", you know. Unless you are a half-educated retard.


THE CONTROVERSY- Recently, experiments with the Large Hadron Collider, or LHC located at CERN, turned up results showing neutrinos apparently traveling faster than light.


The OPERA experiment is not related to the LHC. If a pompous fool decides to impress people, he/she needs to learn basic facts. Alas, they are too dumb for this.


THE COVER-UP- CERN announced that its controversial experimental data was the result of loose giggly wires.


And how do you know that this was a cover-up? Have you checked the wires? Would you know WHICH wires to check? By the way, there are two more falsehoods in this statement:
a) it was OPERA which announced the hardware fault
b) these were not "giggly wires", whatever this is supposed to mean, but a fiber optic cable.

If you want to travel with morons, please do so. And be laughed at all the way. If in doubt, check out this mumbling idiot:




edit on 9-5-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join