122 replies to this topic

[Plant]

I recently discovered a whole new theory of the physics of the universe. I always thought the whole "quantum" thing was absurd, and notions of time travel and such concepts as Schrodinger's Cat . I am not educated in physics and don't claim to understand it, but the Electric Universe concept actually makes perfect sense. I will post a couple videos and see what the members think.

[Direct Link]

[Plant]

[Direct Link]

[Plant]

I recommend watching the second one first. The top is just audio, the bottom is a seminar or lecture I guess you would call it.

[Alder Logs]

Welcome to my world.  I haven't watched yet but will.   I am all into electric universe, but to come to the understanding I have of it, all of the old materialist science has to be shitcanned going in.    And by that I mean Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, which assigns the forces of celestial mechanics to the idea that inert mass creates these dynamic forces of attraction only.   This idea has made nearly every science into an endless string of workarounds.  It's made, by way of calculation, big bangs, black holes, dark matter and energy when we look outward, and forced the invention of the strong and weak nuclear forces, and a solid nickel/iron planetary core, when we look inward.

[Plant]

You hit a whole bunch of the points I got from the videos I posted. It all just makes so much sense. A hundred years and they still can't find gravity as a force and measure or manipulate it. It just doesn't add up. It all seems so clear, as you say, all these forces and strange science fiction phenomena that no one can find, but they claim exists because of math.

[Alder Logs]

At six minutes into Wal Thornhill's talk, probably a version of quite a few of his talks I have heard online over the years, and I had to pause and come back to post this link to a post I did on the day Stephen Hawking died, before it was announced.    You might like to see it.  Then you can find where I have been writing about this stuff on and off since I landed here in the spring of 2012.   Problematically, the posts are scattered far and wide in the million or so posts that are here. 

 

https://mycotopia.ne...-7#entry1359720

[Alder Logs]

Oh, that link was the fallout of this post from the previous page.

 

https://mycotopia.ne...-6#entry1359669

[Alder Logs]

 

[Plant]

I would like to state for the record that I do not believe the flat Earth nonsense, not the hollow Earth nonsense. Electric Universe theory is separate from those, but may have been used by them.

[Direct Link]

[Alder Logs]

I have to look into this guy in the video.  I have been on this for a long time too, and Viktor Schauberger is a hero of mine.   I was greatly influenced by him, as I found I was on a similar tack, though he was miles ahead of me.   I used what he was doing to make another leap into creating charge and motion via setting up motion in vacuum.   Let materialist scientists wrap their brains around that idea.   Henh.

[Alder Logs]

...not the hollow Earth nonsense.

 

And why is a hollow Earth nonsense?

[Plant]

Because we have had thousands of years on this Earth and mankind would know by now, also it is obvious that there are volcanoes that spew up molten rock from deep in the Earth, also we dig deep for oil and other stuff. The oceans go down extremely deep also. It is self evidently nonsense man.

[Alder Logs]

The deepest hole drilled to date is eight miles. 

 

The only reason Earth has a solid core is because it has been 'weighed' with calculations from the mass equals gravity equation of Newton.    This is one huge assumption that created gravity to start with, failing to see the dynamics identified as 'gravity' could have been electrostatic force, a force whose attributes so closely resemble those of what's called gravity.    If the attractive force that holds matter to the surface of Earth is in fact electrostatic force, and the Earth is in fact a spinning vortex with reciprocal relationship of centripetal motion to electric charge, and fluid vortexes have their highest densities within their centripetal whorls, and have their lowest pressures in their cores, often high vacuums, is not the hollow electric Earth worth some consideration?    Are not all the visible celestial spheres then subject to a recalculation of their masses via a means other than the Universal Law of Gravitation?   

 

This is the problem I find even with brilliant electric universe theorists, is that they still think there is this thing called gravity that is an actual force attributed to inert mass.   No, it's all electrostatic force, but being inside the field, is not measurable.    We are as fish, not knowing what water is. 

[Plant]

I don't see why you think Electric Universe theory is inextricable from hollow Earth concept.

[Alder Logs]

It's because there is no evidence convincing me of the extreme masses of planet, and I see planets as vorticular constructs, which accounts for their electric charges.   As Wal Thornhill pointed out, the electric force is close to, if not, instantaneous over distance.   If it were not, and only could propagate at light speed, the solar system could not stay together as it does.   Gravity/electrostatic force is dynamic.   I posit that electric force can be seen in a hard vacuum where matter is all but totally absent.   Since the core of an ether vortex is even a more rarefied environ than the space which makes up most of atomic structure, and yet carries a dissimilar charge from the vorticular whorls of the quark or electron, why would everything be so different when similar forces act on the macro scale? 

 

When we see a spiral galaxy, we see the image of a suction vortex.  So, even going up the scales of material creation, it is in the condensing forms of motion, that what is the physical expression of the creative force are bringing the material universe into form.   I don't see an explosion.  I see implosion, just as Schauberger did before me. 

 

Here is a good book to start from:

 

Edited by Alder Logs, 20 March 2018 - 01:11 PM.

[Alder Logs]

[Plant]

So you think the Earth is hollow because it was formed by electric forces that you believe would cause it to be hollow because of the way the current flows ? Is the gif you posted the planet forming current you are talking about?

[Alder Logs]

That is what was called the,  "ultimate physical atom, (or UPA)" by Charles W. Leadbeater and Annie Besant, the discoverers of this form, later likely shown to have been the image of the quark, by Stephen M. Phillips, Ph.D. (physics), in his book, Extra-Sensory Perception of Quarks.

 

It sits comfortably with me that the microcosm is the model of the macrocosm, and most likely the forces playing at each scale are similar.   How like fractal images the idea of scales repeating is.   I can't say I know, but I can say I wouldn't be surprised if it were so.

 

 

Clairvoyant Science

How Mystics Beat Orthodox Physics to the Punch on Micro-Psi and String Theory

 

Edited by Alder Logs, 20 March 2018 - 04:07 PM.

[Plant]

The question is, what keeps every little packet of energy in that contained little current? Whether particles or electricity the notion that the tiniest components don't run out of energy to maintain their own existence is strange to me.

[Alder Logs]

In 1887, Michelson and Morley did their famous interferometer experiment to prove, or disprove, the existence of a stationary ether in space.  Their device produced phenomenal data that indicated to them and the scientific world that there was no stationary ether in space.   What was not put forth as a possibility to my knowledge was, could the ether of space have been spinning in parallel with the surface of the planet on that day in Altadena, CA?  

 

My postulation is, the ether spins the planet, as part of a reciprocal relationship of motion and charge.  The whole universe, as I see it, is the outcome of electric charge, not currents, which propagate at light speed, but electrostatic force (mistaken for gravity here on this planet's surface) which propagates at or near instantaneous velocity.    

 

 

The question is, what keeps every little packet of energy in that contained little current? Whether particles or electricity the notion that the tiniest components don't run out of energy to maintain their own existence is strange to me.

 

I'm going to start speaking here as if my hypotheses are facts, just for my own ease of communications.

 

The ether is a non-, or pre-, material fluid of a strictly energetic substance.  Being a fluid, it flows.   It flows according with what can be seen to be following, or flowing according to, fluid dynamics.   In other words, it will never flow in a straight line, unless forced.   When forced, much energy is lost in friction and heat.  When it can flow into a vortex, the temperature cools and its velocities increase within the centripetal whorls of the vortex, coincidentally, a highly negative electric charge arises in this same motional region, in comparison to spaces in the fluid both without and within from the fastest flowing whorls.  The charges without are somewhat positive, electrically, than these fastest centripetal whorls.   The charge within the low pressure calm center of the vortex are of even a higher difference of potential than that relative positive charge outside the whorls. 

 

All of space is permeated with ethers of an energetic, motional, and electric potential.  It is the fluid of energy which appears as matter when it finds itself involved in the motion field we know as a vortex.   Every fluid will have a certain density.  For each density of a fluid, there will be a resonance.   The resonant vortexial motion field in the first order of ethers beyond the gaseous, will likely be that of the quark/electron scale in size and charge.  For each density of physical fluids, such as gaseous and liquid, there will be a resonant scale as well.  The scales of these vortices will also find resonances at higher and lower levels of harmonics.   Hence, the coilon Besant and Leadbeater saw in the UPA's structure, and possibly, what we see when we look at galaxies, reveals these harmonic scales of vortexial resonance.  

 

I will look for relative values of vacuum, and/or voids, at the cores of all these motion domains called vortex.   I will not expect any solid planets, stars, or galaxies.

 

==============

 

I am at time: 55:55 of the Wal Thornhill video.  Gotta finish this thing today!

Edited by Alder Logs, 20 March 2018 - 05:04 PM.