Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Electric Universe


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#41 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,593 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 March 2018 - 08:57 AM

The way I see it is, the leap was previously made to solid planets.   So from there, it looks like a leap.   The leap to solid was made when Newton made the assumption, without grounds, that the motion of a falling cannonball was because both the Earth and the cannonball were equal in terms of mass characteristics and dynamics.   Gravitational Earth, gravitational cannonball.   Heavy cannonball, heavy Earth.   From there on, most all inquiry was done with this image as the expected outcome.   There have been anomalous findings ever since, and mathematicians have had job security.


Edited by Alder Logs, 22 March 2018 - 08:58 AM.

  • whirledpeas likes this

#42 Plant

Plant

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 130 posts

Posted 22 March 2018 - 10:27 AM

EU scientists, like Otey and Thornehill I know for certain because I watched their videos, assert that modern gravity theory admits that the force of gravitation is so weak that it is virtually non-existent compared to electric force, but this seems like circular reasoning because if EU paradigm is right then the effect of gravity is electric- whatever you call it it's obviously there. What is the answer to my confusion?

Also, on a different note, I just watched a video about Russellian theory and it was overtly mystical, calling the magnetic force God, basically. Or at the very least the manifest power of God. If this is believed, then it seems logical that a devotee of Russell would believe A.I. is alive and maybe even God manifest. That creeps me out, as a Christian.



#43 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,593 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 March 2018 - 10:40 AM

Here are two illustrations of a Van de Graff generator:

 

van_de_graaff.jpg

 

van-de-graaf-generator-web.jpg

 

 

The Van de Graff generator's operation sets up a relative positive charge on the sphere or dome, which of course is insulated from ground.  In the first illustration we can see that the difference in electric charge makes it attractive to matter.   In the second illustration we see from the girl's hair which has become charged by her hand's contact with the charged surface, and here we must assume that she is ungrounded electrically (that would probably hurt about like a stun gun), that every strand of her hair is carrying a like charge. 

 

The action at distance here is due to charge differential.   The polarity in a small local area does not matter, only the differential.  In the first image, the ball on the string is pulled to the positively charged dome.   One could place the ball on the string in proximity to the screen of an energized CRT television or monitor and see a similar attractive pull.  A CRT screen carries a high potential negative charge, so we can see it is not polarity, but charge differential.    As I said earlier in this thread, the idea of 'positive' charge in all or our practical use of electricity would be accurately stated as "less negative," as this is the true difference of potential we work with and call, "volts."

 

One thing common to both the CRT's and the Van de Graff generator's attractive physical elements, both are hollow.   The generator's dome contains air, and the picture tube, vacuum, yet both exhibit a very gravity-like attraction for any form of matter having a mass.  

 

To the idea of a solid core Earth, where the attraction is a quality inherent in mass alone, as per Newton, if one were to do a mind experiment where one sees oneself at the very core of the Earth, four thousand miles down, and halfway through the planet, in which direction would all the Earth's attractive mass then be?

 

It would be omnidirectionally outward from our location, would it not?   Would not this mass's attractive force be pulling on us from every direction?   Would not this create a highly negative pressure at Earth ultimate core, with an average outward pull of one G of mass generated gravity?

 

You see, even the Newtonians must engage a double-think here, as they usually rely on the inward pressure of following the inverse square rule of gravity force far down into the Earth to mentally get the pressures they see as necessary to compress their imagined nickel/iron core into a crystalline solid to support their secondary assumption that the Earth's magnetic field comes from a solid nickel/iron core.  Yet, as I said in the previous paragraph, mass generated gravity would call for a vacuum at the center point.   And more than that, as one made their imaginary way into the Earth toward the center, with each unit of distance traveled, with every mile in, there would be another mile of mass generated force above to cancel the mass force still ahead.   Even by the mass equals gravity theory, gravity should begin decreasing as soon as there is mass above you.

 

So, if gravity is electrostatic force, we see the thinest shell of aluminum of a Van de Graff dome, or the very thin conductive phosphor coat of the inside of a CRT screen, is enough mass to support an attractive force that for all we can see, is exactly like what we call gravity, by way of its observed actions at distance.  

 

The patents of Thomas Townsend Brown have shown (and this has been repeated, and can be seen in many videos online) that a charged plate capacitor in parallel with Earth's surface, when weighed, weighs more when the (relatively) positive plate is down, and less when the negative plate is down, or toward the Earth, and can even produce levitating values of force.    Brown showed, when told his discovered kinetic forces were only "ion wind" (a motive force attributed to ions being emitted and pushing off of air molecules), by taking his experiment to France where he could set it up in a room-sized high vacuum chamber, that in high vacuum, the efficiency of the kinetic power displayed was highly increased, proving it was NOT ion wind, and that this would have great potential for space travel.

 

Earth's surface is a conductive plate, so much of note, that it is the model for the electrical component term, "ground," or "earth."  But, we can see by rubbing a balloon to a charged condition, or removing the plastic seal from a bottle or jar, that dielectric or non-conducting matter can also carry these electro-gravitational charges.   I would expect that the relative motion between the molten magmas and the inner side of the crust to likely be the zone of maximum charge, with the whole crust becoming an element akin to the spheroidal dome of the Van de Graff machine.     I highly doubt the magma would extend to the center of the Earth, or to be compressing itself into a solid at any point by downward pressure.  

 

I would expect the other side of the flowing magma belt to be another, inner, crust.  I would also expect an inner atmosphere and waters, and would not be surprised to find exposed rock or terra.  In line with what has become mythical imagery of an inner Earth, and with what astronauts have observed, that the top of the atmosphere is mirror-like in its reflectivity, that the interior of the crusty bubble model Earth has illumination.   

 

Any light occurring inside this hollow sphere would shine directly through a focal point at the center and on to the other side's mirror-like high atmosphere and reflect right back through that center, creating a standing light wave at that point.   An inner Sun, if you will.     So, yes, the inner Earth could easily be a place of life, including intelligent life.  And, if it is there, it would not very like be prone to mess with this trailer trash crowd on the outer surface (unless we started popping off nukes in our exalted wisdom).

 

Okay, friends a neighbors, there's a bit more to chew on.   When do I get my official Crackpot badge?


Edited by Alder Logs, 22 March 2018 - 11:51 AM.

  • Plant likes this

#44 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,593 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 March 2018 - 10:55 AM

EU scientists, like Otey and Thornehill I know for certain because I watched their videos, assert that modern gravity theory admits that the force of gravitation is so weak that it is virtually non-existent compared to electric force, but this seems like circular reasoning because if EU paradigm is right then the effect of gravity is electric- whatever you call it it's obviously there. What is the answer to my confusion?

Also, on a different note, I just watched a video about Russellian theory and it was overtly mystical, calling the magnetic force God, basically. Or at the very least the manifest power of God. If this is believed, then it seems logical that a devotee of Russell would believe A.I. is alive and maybe even God manifest. That creeps me out, as a Christian.

 

So many still think there is something to that mass=gravity idea, as to recite this is the only path to a degree in science.  

 

Thank you for sitting through the Russellian stuff for us.  I certainly got that religious feel, listening to Otey and friend.  Well, brothers and sisters, step on down to the Church of WTF?  Where life's big questions remain questions, and no dogma need apply.   

 

Think of flying saucers as mini-planets, using planetary dynamics, not the imagined planetary masses, to repel the charged ground.   We don't have any way to measure what true ground potential is, because, what is the potential volt charge, relative to what?   If we had a meter with leads long enough to touch another planet, we could only tell the charge differential between these two surfaces.  How do we sense the difference of charge between Earth center and Earth surface?   We ain't going to do it.  

 

So, instead of taking mass=gravity on faith, we can experiment with electric force=gravity.   I think it's already been shown that while, in no way except mathematically, can we find so "weak" of a force in manageable chunks of matter, we can actually manipulate weights and levitate measurable and manageable charged plate capacitors right now.   But, if we call Earth's charge (which we can't measure, by the way) one thing, and the capacitor's charge, something else, even though both seem to exhibit the same sorts of actions at distance with the same elemental matter, we likely will not be understanding very much.   That's kind of where we have been since Newton wrote that equation to represent gravity, and it became Law!

 

All the great minds since then have been struggling to integrate gravity with the attributes they observed in what they thought were other forces.   They all took Newton's pill, worshiped as his church.    Kicking out that one equation must change everything after.  How long will we stay stuck in the physics of the early 18th century, and thereby, stuck to Earth? 

 

How about this...

 

R.I.P.

 

gallery_131808_1351_1408.png

 

...where m1 is Earth, and m2 is a cannonball?   Doesn't this beg a question or three?


Edited by Alder Logs, 22 March 2018 - 12:04 PM.

  • Plant and Mushinist like this

#45 Plant

Plant

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 130 posts

Posted 22 March 2018 - 11:49 AM

[Direct Link]

This is the Russell stuff.


Edited by Plant, 22 March 2018 - 11:50 AM.


#46 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,593 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 March 2018 - 12:21 PM

[Direct Link]

This is the Russell stuff.

 

Well, thank you Robert Otey for making it all so clear and simple to understand.  

 

I will respond with Chapter One of the Tao Te Ching.

 

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.



#47 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,593 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 March 2018 - 12:45 PM

As a small child, my television repairman father/twenty year navy radioman, told me, "electricity is a force known only by its manifestations."

 

This hasn't changed much in the years since.  I don't expect it to change soon.   The complications ensued when the great minds of the past scientific revolution declared that electricity was half of a unitary thing they called, "electromagnetism."  They would say the two cannot be separated, as they watched the manifestations of electric currents in their laboratories.   They found little use for the electrostatic force, as they found many applications for their magnetics.  They made motors, transmitted power and information, and had a good old time doing it.   Electricity in potential wasn't much good to them until they did something they could see with it.  They needed to be pushing stuff around with it.  Stuff it seemed, was limited to certain relative velocities, and though these seemed a limitation, they found ways to rely on this limitation to create ever more applications.  

 

So, much as we earthlings found many ways to do tricks with our Newtonian understanding of "gravity force," putting cannonball-like objects into orbits around gravitors like planetoids, we found many ways to use electric current flows to manipulate the magnet field to do any number of stupid human tricks.   We generated electric charge only to discharge it, always at a cost.   This fit in nicely with the whole materialist mindset, and was another pathway to degrade the natural living Earth.   So, yes, why not call the electric potential, "God?"  I will sight here, a reading from the Christian trance channeler, Edgar Cayce, when someone was trying to get at what positive electricity actually was, and could possibly do:

 

From:

 

ETHER TECHNOLOGY: A Rational Approach to Gravity Control, by Rho Sigma (Dr. Rolf Schaffranke).

Here's an excerpt from that book where he quotes some Edgar Cayce readings:

 

The various documented experiments and test results described in this book, from the United States and countries in Europe, point to identical and characteristic attributes of the ether as a universal cosmic pre-atomic force. They are in unique agreement with a basic statement on the subject from another sphere of consciousness, a statement given by Edgar Cayce in a trance reading as early as 1931:

Each atomic force of a physical body is made up of its units of positive and negative forces, that brings it into a material plane. These are of the ether [emphasis by the author], or atomic forces, being electrical in nature as they enter into a material basis, or become matter in its ability to take on or throw off- 281-3

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

This fully confirms another trance statement, made previously (in 1930) by Cayce:

(Q-l 1) . . . "A mechanical device might be constructed where a vacuum even excluding ether could be drawn and maintained, developing thereby a levitating force; this similar to that force which exerts pressure upward when air is pumped into a steel barrel while submerged below surface of a medium such as water. This levitating force will be utilized in many ways, particularly in so-called heavier-than-air ships, with the result that air navigation will be possible without the use of wings or gas. "  Is this correct?

A-ll. This correct when the elements must be made so condensed in their form as to prevent the ether in its finer sense from being, or escaping through the various elements that are ordinarily used for creating of such vacuums . . . a container in which a vacuum may be made must be of such a CONDENSED element as to prevent ether from going through the atomic forces of the element itself, as is seen in that of an electric bulb—this is NOT a vacuum, only a portion! 195-70


The reading refers here to the partial vacuum of an electric light bulb, which still contains the ether!

This truly astounding reading was concluded with the statement:

"Then the vacuum may be made that would lift without being lifted, see?"


In the face of our professed frantic search for new energy sources and new modes of more efficient, energy saving transportation, the question arises then why the experiments listed in this volume, as well as the Edgar Cayce readings on the same subject, have been almost completely ignored for such a long time.

Perhaps the answer to this can be furnished by still another reading of the amazing Edgar Cayce, given in reply to the question of another seeker a few years later, who was already on the right track, so to speak:

Q-13: "Give the method of construction of an aircraft controlled by (a) positive electricity."

Cayce's reply in trance admonished the man:

A-12: "It is a long way to these—and there must be determined for what purpose these are used before ye may be given how, in what manner. For these take hold upon Creative Forces. Show thyself approved, first!"

The reading was then abruptly cut off with the words (in trance):

A-13: "We are through for the present."

We are faced with the fact that an outline of an entirely new, revolutionary method of propulsion is now evolving. Like fans generally, the proper jet-engines of present-day aircraft move the air of our atmosphere purely mechanically, the ether as the universal matrix of all elements, including of course the chemical elements which make up our atmosphere, can evidently be moved electrically, taking the surrounding air or the craft itself along for the ride.
 

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

Cayce asks us, why we want it? What will we do with it? Do we deserve it? I believe the answers to those questions tell us why we don't as yet have it.


Edited by Alder Logs, 22 March 2018 - 03:43 PM.

  • whirledpeas and Mushinist like this

#48 Plant

Plant

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 130 posts

Posted 22 March 2018 - 12:58 PM

I appreciate your contribution to the thread but I really have no interest in Cayce.

I found Wal Thornehill's mention of the importance of plasma in the flow of cosmic electricity and cosmic bodies. Is this plasma the ether in his model?



#49 Plant

Plant

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 130 posts

Posted 22 March 2018 - 12:58 PM

I appreciate your contribution to the thread but I really have no interest in Cayce.

I found Wal Thornehill's mention of the importance of plasma in the flow of cosmic electricity and cosmic bodies. Is this plasma the ether in his model?



#50 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,593 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 March 2018 - 01:13 PM

You'd have to ask Wal.

 

I will use any source available, including those that arise straight out of human consciousness, like Edgar Cayce.   I try to not shut doors to ways of understanding.  It was that reading of Cayce's that made me finally question our use of electricity and see that I/we never really considered that there could be a positive pole to electric force, other than in the relative degrees of negative charge we work with.   The true positive would be the stillness called up by Russel.   Again, the words any  of us use to describe physical reality will not be what is described.  

 

As Cayce said, "...these take hold upon Creative Forces."   Can we see the weight of these words?  Here the colloquial term, "gravity," really shows its meaning.  Are we going to be approved to start playing God?   We'd better have our hearts and minds right, if that warning meant anything.



#51 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,593 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 March 2018 - 03:52 PM

I appreciate your contribution to the thread but I really have no interest in Cayce.

I found Wal Thornehill's mention of the importance of plasma in the flow of cosmic electricity and cosmic bodies. Is this plasma the ether in his model?

 

I must make a comment on Wal Thornhill (whom I highly respect).   From what I see, his focus is predominantly on electric currents.   Like most, if currents are not playing, the view is treated as if nothing much is happening, while in my picture, the presence of potential is very real and having effects at possibly near, if not, infinite distance in near, if not, instantaneous time.  

 

Currents are what's happening, and potential is why.  

 

The ethers of space are brought into motion, and motion brings about form, and it is through the forms created after the potential has created them that the situations that give rise to the currents show themselves to our senses.   I would tend to posit that even the ethers arise from the same potential, whatever their actual being.

 

Electromagnetic waves are measured against time and space in frequency and wavelength.  The range of frequency is bounded on its ends by the value of infinite cycles per unit time on the micro end, and at the creative urging at the scale's macro end, one cycle forever.   The prime mover of all is still just getting going on that infinite cycle.   Is this, The gate to all mystery?


Edited by Alder Logs, 22 March 2018 - 04:00 PM.

  • Plant likes this

#52 whirledpeas

whirledpeas

    Mycotopiate

  • Free Member
  • 486 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 22 March 2018 - 04:29 PM

Reminds me of something someone i know was talking about in regard to the Egyptian Pyramids. Thoth, and a theory that the Pyramids were a technology used to power the whole area at least.  



#53 GORF

GORF

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 194 posts

Posted 23 March 2018 - 05:20 AM

If these forces cause planets to form spherical shells, what makes the stars collapse and create nuclear fusion?

I could be persuaded that electric forces create what we call gravity...but hollow spheres for suns ??

Like I said, not a good theory if it can't answer how stars can get hot and dense inside, but planets do not.
  • Plant likes this

#54 Plant

Plant

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 130 posts

Posted 23 March 2018 - 09:07 AM

@GORF I believe the theory posited by Thornehill was that the Sun isn't a dense object created by gravity, it is an electrical phenomenon.



#55 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,593 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 23 March 2018 - 09:19 AM

Stars are most likely hollow as well.  The thermonuclear furnace is just one theory.   You must see that all the theories are written to conform with the believed in Universal Law of Gravitation, that essentially used a cannonball to weigh the Earth, and then calculated the masses of everything based on the assumptions within that constraint.   It looks at where a planet is in relation to a star and assumes the mechanics conform to a projection of a "thought experiment" of Sir Isaac Newton. 

 

Newton made the assumption that simple inert mass was responsible for Earth's attraction to matter.   Science accepted this assumption and calculated the mass and force of nearly every unmeasurable thing in sight under that initial assumption.    The overestimation of stellar and planetary masses, and the underestimated electric forces at play, have created a calculated universe in which imaginary black holes and missing matter confound us ever more as more has been seen to act in anomalous ways.   From one assumption we get all this, in a universe where everything must wind down, as all the stars burn out, as if everything is disconnected and no longer an expression of its source of power.  The only way the anomalies go away is for the mathematicians to create new workarounds.   This is no problem for them, as they can even get Nobel Prizes for what are essentially Windoze 10 patches. 

 

The universe is not numbers and our quantifying of our image of it is not it.   We worship our story of it in every new form it takes, and call past images "primitive."  The mental images of anything are not it.   They can be the destroyers of careers, or the makings of wars, by way of our deifying what is really no more than opinion or supposition. 

 

The Sun appears to be incandescent on most of its surface, most of the time, which we can sense as a source of radiant heat.   Just below that surface is apparent blackness, as seen through sunspots.  This would tell me that what is below that surface is in and of a different condition than what is visible above.  What happens along the edges of sunspots appears to be electromagnetic perturbations of plasma-like substances.   I will not infer what the mechanisms for these observed phenomena might be.   I certainly will not make a single assumption and from there, pretend it is correct, in order to make further assumptions and treat them as known quantities.   

 

We have taken such a primary assumption as gallery_131808_1351_1408.pngand built very nearly the whole of physics and cosmology upon it.   Everything which came after this early 18th century assumption is treated by the Neil deGrass Tysons of the world as if these are known quantities.  They all  hinge on the correctness of whether cannonballs really have gravity, or if they are the mass model of this Earth.   It really is as simple as that.    If it's correct, then why so many anomalies?  If it's incorrect, then what of every computation that's been done with this equation within its base, whether recognized as such, or not?   Even the fact that G has not been able to be shown constant, should tell us this equation needs scrutiny.    But sadly, with science here performing as if a religion, it will likely not raise a question.  

 

In the beginning was the Universal Law of Gravitation...

 

Sagan, Hawking, and Tyson looked upon it, and it was good...


Edited by Alder Logs, 23 March 2018 - 10:49 AM.

  • Plant and Mushinist like this

#56 GORF

GORF

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 194 posts

Posted 24 March 2018 - 08:33 AM

Then how has science succeeded in creating fusion using heat and high pressure?

I'll stop now because it seems like I'm supposed to change my mind and not try to persuade you to change yours.

Peace my brothers,
I'll stick to other subjects while here.
  • Spooner likes this

#57 Myc

Myc

    El Jardinero

  • App Administrator
  • 6,789 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 24 March 2018 - 09:36 AM

Then how has science succeeded in creating fusion using heat and high pressure?

I'll stop now because it seems like I'm supposed to change my mind and not try to persuade you to change yours.

Peace my brothers,
I'll stick to other subjects while here.

 

That is the general attitude of science, at large, today. "We wrote the narrative. We teach it in school. Therefore, we're correct in our assumptions..........because we do stuff based upon those assumptions."

 

What Alder has been trying to point out is that all of this is hypothesis - imagination - mental masturbation - fantasy.

No person has visited the interior of a star to see whether it is actually hollow or not. WE DON'T KNOW.

All we have are thought exercises and it takes all of us to exercise thoroughly. Your leaving the discussion essentially robs us of your valued point-of-view. 

 

At one time, people thought a sneeze was the effort of a malicious entity to enter into our universe - thus, the phrase "Bless You" which is offered after a sneeze. Superstition sometimes dies a slow, lingering death. 


  • Plant likes this

#58 Plant

Plant

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 130 posts

Posted 24 March 2018 - 10:20 AM

The point made more than a few times in videos I have seen is that the images of the Sun and Sun spots show a dark interior for the Sun. Now, I know the pictures have to be darkened to be viewable to our eyes at all, but still, clearly it is much darker under the flaring surface.



#59 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,593 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 24 March 2018 - 10:36 AM

Then how has science succeeded in creating fusion using heat and high pressure?

 

And this bears upon the questions I have raised since this thread began how?  If fusion is created in a lab on Earth, this proves the Sun is a fusion reaction, how?   Because sensing devises indicate that a theoretically expected neutrino-like event was detected deep in the Earth, the Sun is a fusion reaction?  

 

Yes, we like to say we know what's what.   We hate to think we don't know.



#60 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,593 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 24 March 2018 - 10:41 AM

As a dumb kid I used to look at the Sun perhaps a little more than I should have, but when I saw sunspots, I just had to look.  Later I learned how to project the Sun's image for a better look.  I was also inside a solar observatory once, maybe at nine or ten years old.   Today we get to see the Sun in any number of ways, with magnification and varied types of filters.   So, look for yourselves and make what you want of what you see.   Some even say the interior of the Sun is cold.  That would not surprise me.   What is for sure, I don't know.

 

This site posts a daily short video of Sun's activity:

 

[Direct Link]


Edited by Alder Logs, 24 March 2018 - 10:44 AM.

  • Plant and Mushinist like this




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!