Ever wonder why mainstream science discredits electricity?

[Webbman]

well that went off the rails quick lol. Even got the obligatory einstien drama.

might as well roll with it.

lets say that mass does result in gravity. Obviously the earth has gravity and mass. Does that mean it isnt electrical in origin? I dont think so.

the way i see it, and i only see it the stranded way, is that we have a complex energy movement machine which draws ( like a heater draws current) from its surroundings. Gravity is just the physical manifestation of this phenomena.

[Aardwolf]

lets say that mass does result in gravity.

I don't think that is a safe assumption and leads to dead ends. Just looking at the mass/density distribution accross the solar system throws up serious oddities.

Here's a table of the rocky planets in order of distance from the sun and their derived densities (g/cm3);

Mercury-----5.43
Venus--------5.24
Earth --------5.51
Mars----------3.93
Ceres---------2.16
Pluto----------1.85

Here's a table of Jupiters large moons in order of their distance from Jupiter and the derived densities;

Io--------------3.53
Europa--------3.01
Ganymede----1.94
Callisto--------1.83

Notice anything strange? Why are the densest bodies orbiting closest?

There are 2 scenarios here.

1) Gravity is based on mass and it's just a huge cosmological coincidence that satellites organise themselves based on their density (irrespective of their actual physical size/mass) or;
2) Derived density calculations are garbage as all the satellites are quite obviously the same "SOLID ROCK" and the estimated surface gravites (which densities are derived from) are actually driven by the orbiting distance from the sun/planet.

I know which one I prefer.

[Cargo]

Lest we forget the God Einstein and that Energy equals Mass, and vice-versa. But we're not allowed to bring up that Energy is defined as a unit of Electricity.

[crawler]

Gravity is due to mass.

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

Proof confirmation evidence support. Why not just go with the best looking theory, untill bettered. And the best theory is Ranzan's contractile aether annihilation inflow acceleration theory.

Mass aint the cause of gravity.
Gravity is a force attracting all quantum things towards other quantum things. Quantum things is just another words for everything we can see or feel (except gravity). It includes photaenos & free photons & confined photons.

Re mass there is no such thing as mass.
Mass is the inertia of gravity. Mass is a measure of how much aether is annihilated. Mass is allso a measure of the kind of annihilation, there are at least 3 kinds. Photaenos annihilate aether, whilst propagating at c or more than c. Free photons annihilate aether whilst propagating at c. Confined photons annihilate aether whilst self-orbiting (looping) at c whilst moving along at V kmps. Each kind of annihilation has a different effect. A confined photon (eg electron) results in aether flowing in along streamlines converging in 3 dimensions (gravity is proportional to 1/RR). Photaenos & free photons result in aether flowing in along streamlines converging in 2 dimensions (gravity is proportional to 1/R). In the nearfield the 1/R effect is muchmuch weaker than a 1/RR effect. Hencely when a free photon becomes confined & forms an electron etc its mass in effect increases.

We know that gravity does not repel, it is only an attraction.
However aether is being created near the center of each cosmic cell, & this creation must create an aether flow & praps an aether acceleration, & that acceleration might create a gravity force, a force not directly associated with any nearby object or mass, & that force might be in effect repulsive with respect to that center, or it could be attractive.

Anyhow, all mass is inertial, or at least the only way of measuring mass is inertial, yet we see scientists going orgasmic when they prove equivalence to umpteen decimals, when all they are proving is that inertia equals inertia. Wankers.

[Zyxzevn]

There is too much talk about gravity not correct.

Here is a video that shows how you can make a gravity experiment by yourself:
Can a ROCK and FEATHER Fall at the Same Speed?

You can make one yourself and experiment with magnets or charged objects.

You can also follow the tracks of satellites that move around earth.
It would be very easy to see if their path is affected by electric or any other forces.

Generally it seems that, from all the obvious evidence, that gravity is related to mass.
Where mass is the kinetic mass of an object.
That way any object can fall or orbit at the same speed,
independent of the material it is made of.

This kind of debunks the idea of magnetic, electric, or di-electric attraction.

I do think that these forces can have some additional effect.
This means that they are an addition to the force of gravity.
And so can have influence the place and stability of the orbit of an object.

[Cargo]

I know this is a very far reach across the bridge, but entertain the reference to Einstein here.
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/07/1 ... eep-state/

[crawler]

There is too much talk about gravity not correct.

Here is a video that shows how you can make a gravity experiment by yourself:
Can a ROCK and FEATHER Fall at the Same Speed?

You can make one yourself and experiment with magnets or charged objects.

You can also follow the tracks of satellites that move around earth.
It would be very easy to see if their path is affected by electric or any other forces.

Generally it seems that, from all the obvious evidence, that gravity is related to mass.
Where mass is the kinetic mass of an object.
That way any object can fall or orbit at the same speed,
independent of the material it is made of.

This kind of debunks the idea of magnetic, electric, or di-electric attraction.

I do think that these forces can have some additional effect.
This means that they are an addition to the force of gravity.
And so can have influence the place and stability of the orbit of an object.

There are lots of serious articles & papers out there that say that mass might depend on substance.
And some that say that mass depends on velocity (Conrad Ranzan has a recent paper or 2 in his DSSU website).

Me myself i hav offered a theory re faux-gravity which is a kind of gravity effect due to the centrifuging of aether, created by all spinning or orbiting bodies. This increases g near the equator, & decreases g near the poles.
Its not the same thing as the well known ordinary centrifugal forces found on Earth, but it arises from these ordinary forces. I detail this faux gravity stuff elsewhere.
And i think it might mean that spinning bodies behave differently near mass, ie spinning bodies fall to earth more slowly or faster (karnt remember). Aktually it depends on the direction of the spin axis. Which reminds me of Depalma's theories. And i seem to remember that the Japs found a dependence on the direction of the axis (i should look into all of that)(i am the only fellow who kan explain that stuff).

[Zyxzevn]

There are lots of serious articles & papers out there that say that mass might depend on substance.
And some that say that mass depends on velocity (Conrad Ranzan has a recent paper or 2 in his DSSU website).

But you probably agree that gravitational mass and kinetic mass are the same,
as this balances the orbits of satellites and planets..
The balance is nearly perfect, and we see only very long-term changes for these objects.

The substance-mass as defined by protons/neutrons are different from atomic mass.
I did see an atomic model that used sub-quarks to construct a different model, where
the amount of sub-quarks did indeed relate to the mass.

If the gravitational mass depends on speed, it must also affect kinetic mass in the same way.
This is to ensure the orbit-stability.
Does your source use it for absolute or relative speed?
This should give different orbits for fast moving objects.

General relativity cheats a bit by using acceleration instead of a force.
So their gravitational mass is always equal to kinetic mass.
But with quantum mechanics you can also give a similar acceleration, using
the Heisenberg relationship. It just means that mass is related to a vibration.
Theoretically one can define some kind of relative aether that carries those vibrations.

I agree that we should investigate further into the workings of gravity.
But it would help to setup something like a test to check if the idea is actually
working in all cases.

[crawler]

There are lots of serious articles & papers out there that say that mass might depend on substance. And some that say that mass depends on velocity (Conrad Ranzan has a recent paper or 2 in his DSSU website).

But you probably agree that gravitational mass and kinetic mass are the same,
as this balances the orbits of satellites and planets. The balance is nearly perfect, and we see only very long-term changes for these objects.

I prefer the idea that mass (gravitational mass)(ordinary mass) is intrinsic & absolute & fixed. I believe that mass is a measure of two things, (1) the amount of annihilation of aether, ie the rate, & (2) the kind of annihilation.

Re (1), the annihilation is fixed (ie constant), ie per electron, per quark, etc. In which case the mass (ordinary mass) can be measured by simply counting the numbers of elementary particles. But this mass is of little use. What we feel & measure is inertial mass, however at the macro level this is in effect equal to ordinary mass (but not at the micro level)(i can explain).

Re (2), there are three kinds of annihilation, (i) in confined photons (with vel = V), (ii) in free photons (with vel = c), & (iii) in photaenos (em radiation)(with vel = ??c).

Anyhow i think this means that gravitational mass equals kinetic mass. Hencely orbits depend on velocity not substance.

I dont see how orbits can change in the longterm (except of course due to other nearby bodies)(& due to changing shape of the Sun). There might be a change due to Lorentzian length contraction & consequent wobble & consequent shape-tides of say Earth due to the changing size & direction of Earth's aetherwind during each annual orbit (& during each daily revolution).

But orbits can change due to say the Earth centrifuging aether (in at Equator, out at Poles). A kind of Depalma thing. This is faux-gravity, & hencely creates a faux-mass (faux-gravity-mass). I guess that this might give rise to a faux-kinetic-mass (faux-inertial-mass). The two fauxs might be equal. But i aint sure. I think the fauxs are vectorial (whereas proper mass aint vectorial).

The substance-mass as defined by protons/neutrons are different from atomic mass. I did see an atomic model that used sub-quarks to construct a different model, where the amount of sub-quarks did indeed relate to the mass.

If the gravitational mass depends on speed, it must also affect kinetic mass in the same way. This is to ensure the orbit-stability.

See above. I think gravi-mass allways equals kinetic-mass. But centrifuging might introduce a vectorial faux-mass.

Does your source use it for absolute or relative speed? This should give different orbits for fast moving objects.

In my theory absolute vel is the aetherwind, & it duznt affect proper mass (but affects faux-mass). Conrad Ranzan too uses absolute vel, but his theory says that intrinsic mass reduces with speed, & becomes zero at c kmps.

General relativity cheats a bit by using acceleration instead of a force. So their gravitational mass is always equal to kinetic mass.
But with quantum mechanics you can also give a similar acceleration, using the Heisenberg relationship. It just means that mass is related to a vibration.
Theoretically one can define some kind of relative aether that carries those vibrations.

I dont understand Einstein Heisenberg quantum stuff. But most aetherists i think believe that gravity is due to the bulk acceleration of aether. Which probly means that, re vibrations of aether, these vibrations give rise to a similar gravity effect at the micro level. In other words all electric & magnetic forces are a kind of gravity. (Unification complete).

I agree that we should investigate further into the workings of gravity. But it would help to setup something like a test to check if the idea is actually working in all cases.

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.
Likewize measure the wt of a mass near poles & equator.
A fairly simple experiment that could be done at any university.

[Aardwolf]

There is too much talk about gravity not correct.

Here is a video that shows how you can make a gravity experiment by yourself:
Can a ROCK and FEATHER Fall at the Same Speed?

You can make one yourself and experiment with magnets or charged objects.

The problem is how do you charge the whole object. You can only really affect the surface which is a tiny fraction of the whole object at the macro sized feather/rock scenario. However, where objects are nano sized and the ratio between the mass and the surface is not so large there is evidence that mass is irrelevant. It’s how clouds/fog is able to “levitate”. It’s why the atmosphere doesn’t separate. It’s why heavy mercury molecules will evaporate into a room and stay evaporated even though the molecules are 13 times heavier than the surrounding air. So when you critically look at that scale electricity probably dominates.

You can also follow the tracks of satellites that move around earth.
It would be very easy to see if their path is affected by electric or any other forces.

This doesn’t help your point at all as satellites are actively steered with thrusters to maintain their positions. If you let them be they almost certainly do NOT follow predicted paths using gravity calculations. Also they are almost certainly affected by Earth’s electromagnetic field which is why NASA experimented with space tethers.

Generally it seems that, from all the obvious evidence, that gravity is related to mass.
Where mass is the kinetic mass of an object.
That way any object can fall or orbit at the same speed, independent of the material it is made of.

First of all your point is factually incorrect because objects do not fall at the same speed. That is just the specific scenario where one body is the size of a planet and the other 2 incredibly small by comparison. In reality the planet will also be attracted to the objects as well, so it will be attracted towards the larger of the objects faster than the smaller.

Secondly, I still don’t see why your point “proves” it’s mass causing it and why would the material matter?

This kind of debunks the idea of magnetic, electric, or di-electric attraction.

Please explain why this debunks an electrical affect? No reason why an electrical affect wouldn’t apply to all the matter present just like the existence of its mass. What difference would be expected if it were electrical?

I do think that these forces can have some additional effect.
This means that they are an addition to the force of gravity.
And so can have influence the place and stability of the orbit of an object.

There is no stability. Orbits are impossible to predict using formula which is why we have the n-body problem. There are numerous unexplained flyby anomalies. Galaxy rotation anomalies. Pioneer anomalies. The list goes on. Mass based gravity was debunked decades ago, it’s just that the scientific establishment keeps inventing ludicrous dark bolt-on theories to salvage it.

[crawler]

First of all your point is factually incorrect because objects do not fall at the same speed. That is just the specific scenario where one body is the size of a planet and the other 2 incredibly small by comparison. In reality the planet will also be attracted to the objects as well, so it will be attracted towards the larger of the objects faster than the smaller.

Yes in a lab 3 balls must fall faster than 2 balls, 2 faster than 1.

And Depalma showed that a spinning ball falls faster than a non-spinning ball.
And the Japs showed us that the falling depends on the orientation of the spinaxis.
And i said that spinning & orbiting make a faux-gravity & a faux-mass. And that these are not scalar.

[Solar]

well that went off the rails quick lol. Even got the obligatory einstien drama.

It doesn't take much

Anyways: The title of this thread is incorrect:

Nonneutral Plasma: Still my absolute favorite, just start finding one’s way around for all the Plasma Electrodynamics one can stand

Goggled: Space Plasma: Follow links, papers, and referrals with wild abandon

Google Astrophysical Plasmas: Reams upon reams of of Plasma Electrodynamic goodness all over the place.

Google Plasma Wave Instrument:: Attach the name of any given space probe that has a plasma wave instrument and its possible to funnel one’s way directly to published papers for said instrument.

Googled: Astrophysical Plasma Filaments

It is incredibly easy to find all sorts of Plasma Electrodynamics books and papers related to spacefaring with absolutely no need of access to journaled documents behind paywalls whatsoever. There also exist:

Google Astrophysical Chemistry

Here is a very nice looking, albeit expensive, book:

Electric currents are fundamental to the structure and dynamics of space plasmas, including our own near-Earth space environment, or “geospace.”This volume takes an integrated approach to the subject of electric currents by incorporating their phenomenology and physics for many regions in one volume. It covers a broad range of topics from the pioneers of electric currents in outer space, to measurement and analysis techniques, and the many types of electric currents. - Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond: Andreas Keiling (Editor), Octav Marghitu (Editor), Michael Wheatland (Editor)

This is a question of where someone directs their focus. Astrophysical Plasma Electrodynamics (which obviously involves electricity) can be Googled. Then try and apply some of its principles to the observations.

[Solar]

In contrast though, there is this:

The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. [1, p. 75]

(...)

A point of space at a point of time, that is, a system of values, x, y, x, t, I will call a world-point. The multiplicity of all thinkable x, y, x, t systems of values we will christen the world... Not to leave a yawning void anywhere, we will imagine that everywhere and everywhen there is something perceptible. To avoid saying "matter" or "electricity" I will use for this something the word "substance". - Hermann Minkowski

[neilwilkes]

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

I think that is grossly unfair to be honest. There are issues with GTR and STR that are quite well known but nobody can ever take away from Einstein that he effectively showed how matter is condensed electromagnetic energy & electromagnetic energy is dispersed matter

[Sci-Phy]

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

I think that is grossly unfair to be honest. There are issues with GTR and STR that are quite well known but nobody can ever take away from Einstein that he effectively showed how matter is condensed electromagnetic energy & electromagnetic energy is dispersed matter

Would you mind to provide a link to "effectively" showing connection between matter and ensrgy?