Why Einstein's relativity theory is plain wrong

[replaced]

(1) I am an Electrical Engineer

(2) Einstein says electricity does not exist

(3) So what can I say? It is that basic!

Give me the exact quote of Einstein saying that electricity does not exist.

Electricity is just a term used to describe a process. The process of negative ions losing electrons to positive ions.

This is why I wrote the "Theory of Anti-Relativity". It is in the thread "Peter whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?" It will make any Einsteiner's blood boil, you can rest assured of that. To quote Nikola Tesla; "Todays scientists substitute mathematics for experiments and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Such is the "Theory of Relativity".

If you do not accept Einstein's theory of relativity then physicists from a hundred years ago knew more than you do. The mathematics for experiments line up perfectly with the experiments carried out. So it's not just all math backing up the theory of relativity. We see real effects of time dilation in the planet mercury, our satellites, particle accelerators, and many many other experiments carried out ALL support the theory of relativity.

So choosing between your "Theory of Anti-Relativity" article and thousands of scientists with hundreds of experiments. I think I'll go with Einstein.

[t-rex]

Self Explanatory

(1) I am an Electrical Engineer

(2) Einstein says electricity does not exist

(3) So what can I say? It is that basic!

This is why I wrote the "Theory of Anti-Relativity". It is in the thread "Peter whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?" It will make any Einsteiner's blood boil, you can rest assured of that. To quote Nikola Tesla; "Todays scientists substitute mathematics for experiments and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Such is the "Theory of Relativity".

[nueview]

ok i know this does not probably belong here but then were would i put it?

i had a strainge dream last night and when i woke this morning two things kept going around in my head i think i must have heard about this at some time in math but can't seem to remember maybe it was part of the dream.

so here goes if a fine glass buble is made and all the air evacuated will it float in the air such as a bubble of hydrogen will?

the other was pure math problem if 1^2=1 and 2^2=4 the difference is always 1+2=3 look again 8^2=64 and 9^2=81 8+9=17 81-64=17 what is this about i have played with this all day and it works with any number i choose.

but why the question about the bubble?

any thoughts would be appreciated.
Martin

[lamare]

Had another email exchange with José. He also rejects Einstein's relativity theory, BTW:

Ing. José Miguel Ledesma

The following exposition shows how the suppression of logic has destroyed the most elemental kinematic. That is the reason why, today, several pseudo sciences and magic proliferate with total impunity. If doctor of physics -intelligent as they are- accept and support the constancy of the speed of light, then the rest of the population is ready to accept any ridiculous inconsistency.

José also has a page on the Michelson-Morley experiment:

Ing. José Miguel Ledesma

Through this experiment, this two physicists aspired to measure the Earth's absolute velocity, an aspiration opposed to the relativity principle that made evident they did not comprehend this concept. The expectations (and prior deception) of these two physicists and their contemporaries, showed that the general validity of relativity was not inside the skull of anybody. Newton’s physics had been buried alive eighty years before the interferometer was sketched, because the idea of accepting a universal medium for light propagation first, and afterward, for electromagnetism, means that Newton's paradigm had been disallowed. In Maxwell equations, electric and magnetic fields exists in a universal medium and the electromagnetic wawe propagates in it at a constant speed, a fact that denies the concept of relativity and contradicts Newtonian mechanics. Lost in confusion, everyone fails to notice the contradiction between classical physics and the aether; between the assumption that their calculation were within the frame of classical physics and a confronting idea in the calculation.
We can understand the origin of this nonsense: relativity was too big an idea for those time (and it still is); so big that its significance was never appreciated, not even by his author, who never abandoned the idea of absolute space. When, at the beginning of the 19th century Fresnel, Arago, and young, among others, established the wawe nature of light, undulatory properties were attributed to the absolute space, and thus, the aether acquired, in the collective mind of humanity, the fictitious existence that has been mantained to present times, disregarding the meaning of relativity. Here it is the mistake: Galileo-Newton's relativity does not deny that light, as a wave, implies a medium for its existence and propagation from the source to the infinite but that medium should be unique and universal. The idea that every body is the centre of a particular system may help to understand this concept. Light should propagate at a constant speed though not in a universal medium but in its own propagation medium, i.e. the system in which its trajectory originated without interferences.
Were there any interference, the light would propagate in the reference system of the interference. This is a logical consequence necessary to satisfy the relativity principle. Surfaces where light reflected or transparent bodies passed through by light, for instance, are examples of trajectory origins. This automatically explains the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment; light traveled at the speed already known by Michelson in the cristals and mirrors' coordinate system of the apparatus.

In this article, he also rejects the existence of the ether:

Notice that aethereal denominators still enjoy a status they do not deserve, denying the already confirmed relativity. The expression on the left is a consequence of an unspecified contraction because... How much is our absolute velocity V?...And both indicate a higher value for T1 and T2 also unspecified for the same reason. What are those equations for? Logic has been sacrified to justify a prejudice, the existence of absolute space.
It is not true that Einstein has eradicated the aether from physics, since Lorentz's transformation, based on aether, are part of his theory; what actually occurred was that Einstein, without realizing it, made a modification to Lorentz's aether that, thought it does not account for reality, left the whole world in a catatonic state for the century

So, that is where we clearly differ in opinion.

BTW, Thierry De Mees pointed me to his book on gravity theory:

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/ebooks/De-Mees-Gravitomagnetism-and-Coriolis-Gravity-new.pdf

At first glance, his theory looks interesting, because he comes up with a description of gravity that includes a rotational component. And he seems to have made a good analysis of the MM experiment that may help to further understand that one. Apparantly, this experiment is considered to be important, so I guess I better study it....

Anyway, this is what José mailed me:

Relativity means that there is not any reference system, the movement just exist between the bodies.

As relativity principle is well supported by experiments, then, aether, aristotle space, space-time and Higgs's field are wrong hipothesis.

And my reply:

What I'm saying about the classic theories is that these consider the forces to be static, while in actual fact we are dealing with dynamic forces.

What we are looking at with the classic view of relativity, as first described by Galilei (see my previous post), is a simplification of the real physical situation which gives the correct results at a macroscopic level, because the interactions of "a body" with the medium are balanced out very quickly, resulting in "the body" having steady-state (but dynamic!) interactions with the medium.

When "a body" moves with respect to the natural reference frame tied to the medium, it appears to be moving drag-free trough the medium, while in actual fact there is a continuous dynamic interaction with the medium, whereby the "atoms" that make up "the body", which can be considered to be "ether pumps", actually take energy from the medium (ZPE) and use that to "propel" "the body" trough the medium.

I know this is very hard to understand and I must admit it is only a hypothesis, but what I mean to say is very similar to what happens with a "cage of Faraday". Whenever you apply an electric field to a conductor, for a moment a current flows, until the charge in the conductor is such that no resulting electric field remains inside the conductor. In other words: the dynamic vortex structure the conductor is made up of changes in such a way that an externally applied electric field is nullified to a large degree when considered from a "static" point of view, while in actual fact the ether is very dynamic and flows all over the place.

In other words: the dynamics going on "under water" are invisible to a very large degree, because our "bodies" adjust their internal vortex structure to such a degree that at a macroscopic level you can describe the phenomenon taking place perfectly well when neglecting all the dynamics going on.

So, what I meant with saying "you have a problem with" is that, as far as I understand, you don't want to abandon "classic" relativity because it is well supported by experiments.

What I'm saying is that these experiments are all being performed at a macroscopic level, where you can neglect the interactions with the ether, which is tied to a natural reference frame, and therefore at a macroscopic level the "classic" relativity theory gives the correct results.

However, that does not mean you can apply "classic" relativity at a cosmic scale, nor at (sub)atomic scales, because at those scales you can no longer neglect the dynamic interactions "bodies" have with the ether with its single natural reference frame.

And I pointed once again to Jenny's Cymatic video's:

Let me also point you to the video's I was talking about in my article:

"Subsequently, the work of Hans Jenny is very interesting. He published a number of breathtaking videos which show what you can do with sound waves, eg in a bowl of water (parts 1, 2 en 3). He shows that many kinds of geometric shapes can be formed using standing sound waves in the fluid, whereby matter flows together naturally to certain areas and stays away from other areas. And that's also what happens in the ether. So, gravity is simply an electrostatic phenomenon caused by longitudinal standing waves in the ether, which determines the geometry of the solar system, our galaxy, and so on. Everything is connected to everything through these standing waves. "

Cymatics - Bringing Matter To Life With Sound (Part 1 of 3) - YouTube
Cymatics - Bringing Matter To Life With Sound (Part 2 of 3) - YouTube
Cymatics - Bringing Matter To Life With Sound (Part 3 of 3) - YouTube

What these give you, is a visualisation of the kind of phenomena that are taking place in the ether, which illustrates very nicely that we are talking about very complex and very dynamic phenomena. The description of these phenomena in terms of "static" physics can get you a very long way, but at some point you can no longer ignore all the dynamics that are taking place.

And his reply:

Don't think I don't understand you. I know these ideas; they are very old and mistaken (I'm sorry). Really, you can find them in a book published in 1907: 'The evolution of matter' written for, very famous these years, Dr. Gustave Le bon (born in 1841). These ideas are mistaken because, at least, the Michelson-Morley experiment well demonstrated: there is not aether, a universal mean as transmitter of wave of light; then, light participates of interferometer’s crystals and mirrors inertia. By the relativity principle is deduced: magnetic, electric and gravitational fields are not events that occur in one universal medium, named aether, space-time, etc, but these fields are inherent to its sources, the body that supports them. In accordance with the relativity principle, the bodies and theirs fields are the same system. The vacuum is behind them. But, if you fell in love of your point of view, go on.

This book can be found here:
Gustave Le Bon: The Evolution of Matter --- Complete text
The Evolution of Matter : Gustave Le Bon, F . Legge : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

[lamare]

After I posted some emails about my article, I got some questions/remarks by José, who makes a very interesting point I had to think hard about before being able to shed some light on that one:

Einstein is wrong because the einstenian relativity has nothing to do with the relativity.

You and Einstein are in the same side. Why?

Because: What is the 'space time' (and also the Higgs's field) but a universal and real entity (like your aether) where all the bodies of the Universe are immersed? Relativity principle is valid only if the space is nothing, if behind the bodies and theirs fields is the vaccum.

Let's first take a look of what I think matter is and how it is present in the ether, or medium, as I posted at thunderbolts:

Thunderbolts Forum - General Relativity "slightly" Wrong?

Q: What are fields caused by?

A: Now THAT is a very good question. The problem is that there is no way to really know this from an Engineering point of view, because all we know is that everything that exists in the ether is:

1. steady state flows;
2. longitudinal waves;
3. vortexes.

All that is [physical], is a combination of these three phenemenon taking place in a substance called ether, with fluid-like properties in terms of the way it behaves with regard to electrical phenomena taking place.

This is all we really know about it's properties from an Engineering point of view:
A Dissident View of Relativity Theory by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D. :

"Given that the nothingness of a perfect absolute vacuum is bestowed with the physical properties of a permittivity, e_o 8.854 pF/m, a permeability, m_o 4p x 10-7 H/m, and a characteristic impedance of 377 ohms, is the concept of an aether really that outlandish?"

Now the problem is that the only way we can interact with the ether is trough electro-magnetic phenomena in all the various ways these occur. So, how are we going to know what the ether is like, if we can only investigate it's electro-magnetic properties?

[...]

Now what to make of the slit experiment, used to show the wave-particle duality principle?

As far as I can tell, you cannot have transversal waves in a fluid-like medium, but you can have vortexes. That means that all wave phenomena we call "transversal EM waves" must consist of some kind of vortex structure, where you have an electric component which is either steady state or a longitudinal wave, and you have a magnetic component, which is the rotational (vortex) component. So, all EM waves consists of some kind of localized structure consisting of a number of vortexes. And that is what photons as well as particles are.

Depending on the specific configuration, you get a resulting steady-state flow, the electric component which is one and the same as gravity, or no resulting steady-state flow. Depending on the geometry this steady state flow takes, you either refer to this resulting steady state flow as "gravity" or "charge". If there is no resulting steady state flow, you get a neutral (not charged), mass-less "particle".

Also depending on the specific configuration, you get a resulting rotational component, the magnetic field. When you have two counter-rotating vortexes, the rotational components can cancel one another out, and you get a non-magnetic material.

What I think happens in the slit experiment, is that the rotational component, which is part of the "internal" structure of a photon, gets removed. So, at the other side of the slit, you are left with the electric component: a longitudinal electric wave, which gives you the interference pattern.

(also see the pics at the TB forum)....

So, as far as I can tell, the difference between the "particle character" and the "wave character" regarding the "wave particle duality principle" is the presence of a rotational, magnetic component. Particles are some kind of structure consisting of vortexes interacting with one another. In the situation where you see the "wave character", the rotational component is removed by the very thin slits and you are left with a longitudinal "sound" wave, which gives you the interference pattern.


All right.

So, on the one hand we have a medium, defined with three characteristic properties in Electrical Engineering terms:

1. the permittivity,
2. the permeability,
3. the characteristic impedance.

And on the other hand we have the "classic" Galilean relativity:

Galilean invariance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity is a principle of relativity which states that the fundamental laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. Galileo Galilei first described this principle in 1632 in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems using the example of a ship travelling at constant velocity, without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary.

And now to your statement:

Relativity principle is valid only if the space is nothing, if behind the bodies and theirs fields is the vaccum.

If Einstein, or you, are right, then, the relativity principle is wrong. The relativity principle, well supported for a lot of experiment, needs the vaccum (not an aether, spacetime or a Higgs's field) between the bodies.

As far as I understand, your are saying that Galilean/Newton relativity, which is well supported by experiments, is also wrong if there is no empty vacuum, and you apparantly have a problem with that...

Let's first take a look at what I wrote here:

Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

we need to realise that the nature of these fields is dynamic and not static. In the old Newtonian model, we consider the voltage across an impedance to be the cause for a current to occur, which in our fandoor anology would be the pressure that the door "feels" being enacted by the airflow on its surface, while in reality it is the airflow (the electric) field that acts upon the door and not the pressure itself. In other words it seems like the "pressure" the electric field enacts on our components is static, hence the name "static electric field", while in actual reality this force is a dynamic force, something flows along the surface that creates the pressure. Tesla already realised this in [1892]:

"There is no doubt that with the enormous potentials obtainable by the Use of high frequencies and oil insulation luminous discharges might be passed through many miles of rarefied air, and that, by thus directing the energy of many hundreds or thousands of horse-power, motors or lamps might be operated at considerable distances from stationary sources. But such schemes are mentioned merely as possibilities. We shall have no need to transmit power at all. Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason; it has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus [Antaeus], who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain — then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature."

So, the electro-magnetic field is a dynamic force. And as I said elsewhere, there is no such thing as gravity. Gravity is one and the same phenomenon as the static electric field, it is a steady-state flow of ether. Now read this, from the same article as just above:

Any charge continously emits an energy field, an electric field, spreading with the speed of light, which is the real energy source that makes our circuits run. This energy-field, generated by the charges in our wires, is not created out of thin-air. Since there is a continuous flow of energy out of every charge, there also is a continuous flow of energy going into every charge. And that is where the energy eventually comes from, right from the vacuum itself. For our purposes, it doesn't really matter how the energy that ends up in the electric field is being taken out of the vacuum. It may be ZPE, it may be a "virtual partical flux", it may be anything. It doesn't matter, because we don't need to know.

All we need to know is that somehow, some form of energy flows into each and every charge in the universe and this energy flow is continuously converted into an outflowing electric energy field by each and every charge in the universe, 27/7, 365 days a year, for free.

All right.

So, Galilean invariance, or Newtonian relativity, says that Newton's laws hold in all inertial frames. However, in the Newtionian model, the forces are considered to be static, while in actual reality we are dealing with dynamic forces. Something flows around trough space, which gives rise to the forces that appear to be static. And the bodies we are dealing with, are not solid at all, but are made up of some kind of structure consisting of vortexes, which are like "ether pumps" that one the one hand draw energy from the ether and on the other hand influence the flow of ether around them. So, any "material" we call "mass" actively interacts with the medium at all times.

So, in essence, any "body" is some kind of dynamic structure, consisting of various vortexes in the ether, that is able to dynamically interact with and react to the ether it is immersed in. Now when a "body" is accelerated with respect to the ether it is immersed in, the ether will enact a force on the accelerating "body", which gives rise to what is known as inertia, which is also being considered to be something "static":

Inertia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest, or the tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion. It is proportional to an object's mass.

However, since the forces are actually dynamic and since every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction, what really happens IMHO is that the "body" reacts to the changes it experiences in the way the ether flows around it. It will realign it's internal structure such that it's internal "ether pumps" align with the (speed and direction) of any ether flows it finds itself in. In essence, it becomes a self-propelling structure that draws energy from the ether, a.o. in order to propel itself trough the ether such that it moves at a constant speed with respect to the ether automagically.

In other words: The dynamic interactions of any dynamic structure known as "body" with it's environment, the ether, are such that they quickly reach a steady state, which makes that the forces that occur appear to be static, while in actual fact they are dynamic. And that is why Galilean/Newtonian relativity holds in practice.

But at the fundamental levels we are talking about when considering the electro-magnetic field and the fabric of matter itself, it is no longer valid, IMHO.

[Aether84]

Tesla Misunderstanding

OK I'll bite and I'm a little confused.

So are the hertz waves refered to the same as Transverse Electro Magnetic waves ? Theoretically.

So is it impossible for hertz waves to actually exsist ?

Then what powers my lights ?

When we use wire's do hertz waves travel the border between the wire and the air or the insulator.

The border of two media, water and air or wire and air. seems maybe even two layers of air of different densities, or metals.

Are two layers of air of different density considered different media.

Then can somebody describe the nature of the electricity that is flowing to my house from the grid system ?

Lets not get ahead of ourselves and make any rash deciscions here.

Makes me wonder how Tesla's system could be so different if there is no EM to be different from.

Cheers

tesla never said EM waves dont exist he just said they dont exist in free space or a vacuum because maxwell's aether was a solid

so EM waves do exist on wires - circuits - antennas but not once they leave a physical structure - ie radio waves or suns rays

there is no solid aether only a gaseous aether so only Longitudinal waves can exist in the air - free space or the vacuum

[lamare]

Posted this here:

Weekly Geopolitical News and Analysis20111024: Private "trading platforms" have been shut down in preparation for new financial system


Comment by darylluke on October 25, 2011 @ 7:48 am

"Lamare and Winiwin, regarding space being emptiness and therefore can’t have properties, what about dark energy and dark matter and what Lynn McTaggert calls The Field and David Wilcock calls The Source Field? I think that based on our limited knowledge about “space,” it is premature to conclude that Einstein was wrong."

My conclusions are not derived from the idea that space is emptiness and therefore can't have properties. However that is very simple to understand and it is also what Nikola Tesla said, so it is a very good illustration of how simple it really is to see that relativity cannot be correct.

What I did was go back to the fundamental theories of Electrical Engineering which are based on observations. Then I disvovered that a mix-up of cause and effect has been made in the formulation of the Maxwell equations, the fundamental mathematical descriptions of the electro-magnetic fields, which forms the basis for most of current Electrical Engineering theory. When you correct for that fundamental thinking error, really the floor drops from underneath the whole relativity theory. If you are interested to understand this fully, you will have to check out Meyl and Thornhill, referred to in my article.

Now to black matter and gravity. I posted this elsewhere:

http://www.energeticforum.com/163726-post74.html

<snip> Just take a look up in this thead...


All right. Now because some fundamental cause-and-effect error has been made, which lead to the disposal of the ether theory BUT introduced a "chicken and egg" problem, AND we still regard gravity as something completely different from the electro-magnetic domain, you basically have created a Swiss cheese with all kinds of holes in it you cannot explain, because your basic assumptions are incorrect. Matter is caused by the fields and not the other way around!

Take for example the difference between "near field" and "far field" regarding antenna's:

http://www.energeticforum.com/146809-post19.html

So, in essence, Tesla did not realise that there was such a thing as a near field and a far field. And actually, modern science literally makes "things" known as "virtual photons" up in order to hide the fact that they don't have the slightest idea what they are really talking about:

"In the quantum view of electromagnetic interactions, far field effects are manifestations of real photons, while near field effects are due to a mixture of real and virtual photons. Virtual photons composing near-field fluctuations and signals, have effects which are far shorter range than do real photons"

Yes, that's what it says. Near field effects are due to a mixture of something real and something completely made up aka "virtual", which is literally another word for "imaginary" or "not real".

And as a matter of fact, when you return to the old ether model, you don't need all this literally made-up stuff to straigten things out. See for example Paul Stowe:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Paul_Stowe/The%20Cause%20of%20Gravity,%20EM,%20&%20QM%20-%20Paul%20Stowe%20-%20Mountain%20Man_s%20News%20Archive.pdf

The aether model has a lot going for it including:
- derivations of Planck's constant, elemental charge, Boltzman's constant, Rydberg's term, Permeability, Permitivitty from standard fluid properties
- Derivation of Newtonian Gravitation and a definition of the physical properties that create the gravitational constant G
- A foundation for Quantum Mechanics and a simple link to gravitation
- An explanation for the pure transverse nature of light
- Derivation of the 2.8 degree K background radiation
- A consistent framework for all physical phenomena
- An explanation for the distorted rotation profile of galaxies without invoking "dark matter"
- Explanation of Galvantic potential

And does so from a simply, single common basis. These are not pie in the sky descriptions but full mathematical derivations and definitions. So its kind of hard to argue with math since these a not arbitrary. Two "isolated" (that is to say no attempt is made in this post as to explain their origin) examples are illustrated below.

So far, so good.

Now I don't know McTaggert, but what Wilcock calls the source field, clearly connects to what Walter Russel (also referred to by Wilcock) was writing about:

Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

Man is omnipotent when he but knows his omnipotence. Until that day he is but man. Voltaire said that man could never comprehend God for man must be God to comprehend Him. Man is God and therefore God is within the comprehension of man. Man is Mind. Man is matter. Mind and matter are One. God is Mind. This is a universe of Mind, a finite universe, limited as to cause, and to the effect of cause. A universe of limitations cannot be infinite. There is no infinite universe. A finite universe, in which the effects of cause are limited, must also be limited as to cause; so when that measureable cause is known then can man comprehend and measure all effects.

The effects of cause are complex and mystify man but cause itself is simple. The universe is a multiplicity of changing effects of but One unchanging cause. All things are universal. Nothing is which is not universal. Nothing is of itself alone. Man and Mind and all creating things are universal. No man can say: "I alone am I."

There is but One universe, One Mind, One force, One substance.


[...]

There is no power in this universe other than the energy of thinking Mind. Thinking is the cause of motion and the periodicities, or states of motion, caused by thinking Mind are registered in light which man calls "matter." Matter is light. Nothing is which is not light.

Now back to my free energy article:

Based on my analysis of the systems built and demonstrated by Gray, Meyer and Puharich, I came to the conclusion that the basic principle is that you decouple load circuitry from driving circuitry in an unusual way, using a rectified carrier wave. By making sure that any frequencies the load circuitry may create are much lower than the carrier frequency, you separate the frequency bands wherein driving circuit and load circuitry are operating. Once you have done that, you can use a simple high pass filter to completely decouple load circuitry from driving circuitry in that sense that virtually no current goes back and forth between driving circuitry and load circuitry. So it's in essence a separation in the frequency domain combined with a high-pass filter trough which only the HF electric field from the carrier wave can pass. No charge carriers are actually exchanged between driving circuitry and load circuitry.

What this shows is that you can create a situation, whereby you have multiple more or less independent phenomena taking place, each within their own specific frequency band. This is the same thing as we do with radio engineering. Each radio channel does it's magic in a specific frequency band and you can select one out of several channels on your reciever, without noticing what is going on on the other channels. So, in a way, you can consider frequency as an extra dimension in our understanding of space and time. If you're into Wilcock and such, that should ring a bell.....

Another very interesting document is this one:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Heterodyning_and_Powers_of_Phi.pdf

Phi possesses the strange property of being able to automatically generate its power series when heterodyned successively with its own next-higher or lower powers! I believe this fact is a key to many fascinating areas yet to be discovered. As far as I can tell, this trait is not shared by any other number.

This connects the mixing of frequencies to the golden ratio, Phi. That means that for all the diffent frequency bands that exist ("radio channels"), some kind of connection exists, that interlocks specific frequency bands with one another, those that are a factor of Phi away from one another.

It seems that any information contained in these "radio channels" is "copied"/"shared" by all these interlocked frequency band "radio channels". So, you basically have the same radio program on lots and lots of different channels.

So, it appears that the source field basically is "the radio program" continuously transmitted over an infinite number of (Phi heterodyning) interconnected "radio channels" that all transmit the same program...

[nueview]

Lamare
i agree with what you are saying but it took me a while to understand that the fields within what would be termed matter the old timers called Aether and the fields external and free moving in the space between they called Ether it came to me because of a paper were tesla was talking about energy and he used the two terms in a sentance were there was no way they could be the same as " i shall use the ether and the aether reaction to derive my power".
it opened so many doors and made me reread so many papers but it was well worth it.
Martin

[lamare]

Poste this over here:

VES theory: Gravity depends on distance through object

Very interesting subject. Gravity. I wrote some on that in my article disproving Einstein's relativity theory:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Ruins 96 Years Einstein Relativity

"Subsequently, the work of Hans Jenny is very interesting. He published a number of breathtaking videos which show what you can do with sound waves, eg in a bowl of water (parts 1, 2 en 3). He shows that many kinds of geometric shapes can be formed using standing sound waves in the fluid, whereby matter flows together naturally to certain areas and stays away from other areas. And that's also what happens in the ether. So, gravity is simply an electrostatic phenomenon caused by longitudinal standing waves in the ether, which determines the geometry of the solar system, our galaxy, and so on. Everything is connected to everything through these standing waves."

As an Electrical Engineer, I consider reality based on what I know from physics. I have been on an interesting journey, during which I studied quite a lot of material on free energy and Tesla technologies.

Over the years, it became clear to me that it is entirely possible to create energy in abundance, as much as we like, basically for free. This is because the electric and magnetic fields emitted by each and every charge carrier in the Universe contain energy. Literally a flow of energy pours out of each and every particle in the Universe. A flow of energy that we can use and is free for the taking.

No more burning fossile fuels, no more pollution, no more nuclear power. All that by making use of an invisible energy source that already powers all the electrical systems that have ever been used or will ever be used in the Universe. It's just that we don't know about it, as Lt. Col Thomas E. Bearden (retd.) says it:

Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

"For more than a century, our misguided engineers have thus used a type of circuit that takes half of the energy it catches, and uses that half to destroy the source dipole that is actually extracting the EM energy from the vacuum and pouring it out of the terminals for that power line to "catch" in the first place! The other half of the "caught energy" in the powerline is used to power the external loads and losses."

From all this, I became interested in ether Physics and discovered the site of the late Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill, who explains where and when science went bazirk for over a hundred years:
Dr Charles Kenneth Thornhill

With ether physics and the understanding of the nature of the electric and magnetic fields, we can describe the whole Universe in terms of simple fluid dynamics within a medium we used to call ether, or aether, with fluid-like properties. That's almost all you need. You also need to throw vortex fluid dynamics into the equation, because matter is some kind of localized wave in the ether. Matter is a dynamic structure in the ether, which rotates, and has a number of vortices going trough the center. This structure can occur in many variations, but it can be described with fluid dynamics.

Now if there is a real, physical ether after all, gravity would be nothing other than the electric field. It's one and the same thing! Both "static" forces are a steady-state flow of ether, the DC component in Electrical Engineering terms. And gravity can easily be overcome with high voltages, as proven by TT Brown.

So the point is:

THERE IS NO GRAVITY!

IT DOES NOT EXIST!

ALL THERE IS, IS VORTEXES, WAVES AND STEADY STATE (DC) FLOWS IN A FLUID

GET IT?

[MonsieurM]

This eventually lead to the erroneous relativity theory, as is proven in this article. It is therefore no exaggeration to state that the scientific establishment is going to have a religious experience.

Amen started reading it ....

[lamare]

I now have a translated version of my article in English up:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Ruins 96 Years Einstein Relativity

Please feel free to spread it whenever and wherever you can!

[lamare]

FYI: I have published an article on this subject on my website and a pretty big alternative news site (in Dutch):

Tuks DrippingPedia : Puinhopen 96 Jaar Einstein Relativiteit
De puinhopen van 96 jaar relativiteit

Today, an interview with me was published in TC Tubantia, which is read by about 308.000 people in the area where I live, according to their website:

Verspreidingsgebied en bereik De Twentsche Courant Tubantia

My site is mentioned in the article, which might help to eventually bring this subject to a wider audience. We'll just have to wait and see.

[nueview]

part of the einstien formula is always omitted as it is assumed to be universally understood the formula as i was shown is E=mc^2/L and assumes that the speed ofthe fields actions cannot excell by the mass greater than the speed of light but that the field propagation through the mass can

this leads to tacions or faster than light energys and slower than light particles so i am told.

Martin

[lamare]

Do you dare challenge Albert Einstein?

Just re-discovered this article, which

Do you dare challenge Albert Einstein? « Physicsof2012's Blog

Albert Einstein – 1879 – 1955. He is considered one of the greatest minds there ever was in physics. His theories are considered some of the greatest achievements in human thought. His theories have been apparently rigorously proven and reproved, cornerstones of western physics. He is an idol to many, and most people would refuse to think otherwise solely based on the fact that everyone loves to follow the crowd. Not many will give this article fair consideration because emotions will cloud logical thought, however there will be some that dare to question the norm.

The magnitude of a scientific achievement can be graded on its impact on the world, the REAL world. What does Einstein have to offer anyone besides theories. What has he done for the world? He only has theories. He did not even actually invent the atomic bomb. All he did was “discover”, “describe” and somehow “revolutionize” . You would expect the greatest minds to have made an impact on the way we live – our quality of life. Tesla invented AC, the current that runs through your house. Tesla invented the AC motor, powering a large percentage of motorized equipment. Tesla developed efficient power distribution systems that feed your homes today. Tesla even developed radio communications. He envisioned television and indirectly discovered phenomena such as X-rays on his path. Yet he doesn’t have half the credit Einstein has. But Why? Has society been brainwashed into thinking Einstein’s theories are actually useful? It’s actually quite sad. All they do lately is repeatedly “prove” Einstein’s theories over and over again. Are they in denial? Shouldn’t a theory at some point stop being “proven” and be put to use – if it has a use… There are so many paradoxes in Einstein’s theories that its a miracle that its become so entrenched in physics today, let alone survived superficial scrutiny. This is probably because most members of the scientific community are blind followers of what their superiors preach.

First we will take a brief look at what exactly his theory actually entails. For some this will be the first time they ever understand what Einstein was trying to say since they took his supposed intellect and theories for granted since everyone else was doing the same. These are just some of the paradoxes in his theories.

According to Einstein a body will shorten in the direction of movement as it increases in speed. He also said that mass increases with speed. This presents an interesting paradox. At the speed of light a ball is then supposed to have zero thickness and infinite mass. This is not physically possible therefore that statement is incorrect.

Einstein also stated that time could be slowed down and sped up. Time does not have physical reality. It is a concept to keep track of a sequence of events, nothing more. You cannot slow down or speed up something that does not even exist in the first place, therefore his theory is incorrect again. If this is not convincing enough then think about the steps needed to create a time travel device with multiple levels of detail so that an actual model can be built and engineered. One will come up with nothing (maybe more theories) because it’s not physically possible. With time travel we could violate the laws of conservation of energy by shuttling energy from the past to the present.

Note:

Many free energy inventors believe that they can violate the laws of conservation of energy. The is untrue. We really live in a sea of energy and their devices tap the kinetic energy of the ethers or tap into the sea of electrons in which we live. Violating the conversation of energy laws means that something can come from nothing which is impossible since they are opposites.

Einstein said that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe. Why? Did anyone bother to ask why? Well someone did and the answer was that mass was infinity at the speed of light so nothing could go faster. That doesn’t solve anything. All it does is shift the focus to a new problem. Now I ask why does mass increase with speed? No answer. Also, if something has infinite mass at the speed of light then why does light itself not have infinite mass. Our daring physicists have come to the rescue by saying that light has no mass! If light had no mass then it would have no inertia. If it had no inertia, then it would not be able to displace electrons as per the photoelectric effect or even bounce off a surface. Therefore a photon does have mass. Anything that has mass obeys the fundamental laws of mechanics. His concept is incorrect here again and there should be no reason something can not go faster than the speed of light.

Einstein said that light’s velocity is an independent value. This means that if I shone a torch, those photons would be going the same relative speed as the photons coming from a torch in a moving vehicle. This violates the fundamental laws of mechanics and suggests that light is disconnected from the phenomenon producing it. This violates Newton’s laws of action and reaction, a fundamental universal law. Therefore this statement is incorrect too.

It was ironic that Einstein denied the existence of an ether since the transverse theory of light depends on it. A wave is a disturbance pattern in a certain medium. Light can travel through space so what medium exists there? No air or water as a medium to carry a wave, but an ether!

Einstein stated that E = MC^2. This is apparently one of his greatest achievements since the atomic bomb makes a really big bang so it must be right. Wrong!. To understand why the E = MC^2 equation is incorrect we must first understand what energy and mass are. Mass is physical matter, occupying 3 dimensional space. Energy is motion of mass. That’s why E = 1/2.M.V^2. How can mass become motion of mass? That’s like saying apples can become bananas. They are completely different things.

One of Einstein’s most illogical propositions was the existence of spacetime. Space is nothingness and time is not physical so its like saying he proposed the existence of “nothing-not-real”, while insinuating it was completely real. How did he keep a straight face? He said that the shape of this spacetime affected a wide variety of things. How can nothing have a shape? Space is a vacuum, a vacuum cannot have form or shape since only matter can have shape. It would be impossible to imagine otherwise. Spacetime or “nothing-not-real” is also somehow holding us to the surface of our Earth. If it is then why can we not detect it with simple experiments. If it interacts with matter, then by the law of action and reaction, matter should be able to easily interact with it.

The reason Einstein’s theory has stood the test of time so long is because it has been apparently reproved so many times. Multiple interpretations can be placed on all of those results. When a person wants to believe something so badly they will be convinced by anything. In order to realize a better physical understanding Einstein’s illogical concepts need to be immediately abandoned. They have done nothing for the real world and won’t be doing anything anytime soon.

My comment over there:

“Einstein said that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe. Why? Did anyone bother to ask why? Well someone did and the answer was that mass was infinity at the speed of light so nothing could go faster. That doesn’t solve anything.”

Someone else also did. Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill:

Dr Charles Kenneth Thornhill

According to Thornhill, Einsteins theories are based on a fundamental error. EM waves are described by exactly the same wave equations as sound waves trough a liquid. In order to describe such waves from the point of view from an independent observer, one has to make a coordinate transform that expresses the relative position / movement of the observer with regard to the observed phenomenon, the wave.

Now if you ditch the idea of an eather, you have no independent reference frame, so in order to make a general applicable description of the phenomenon, you need a special transform, the mathematically correct Lorentz transform, which only works when the speed of light is fixed.

So, the question is: why oh why do we use two different kind of transforms to describe the same kind of phenomena (waves) depending on the medium?

And, we *know* the speed of light is not fixed, that is why prisms and lenzes work. And scientists have been able to slow down light to a crawl, so it is actually very far fetched to maintain that the speed of light in vacuum must be fixed.

So, IMHO Thornhill is right and Einsteins general relativity should go down the drain.

However, that has some far stretching consequences, because all our measurements of the location and speed of stars are based on the assumption that the speed of light is fixed. So, these are unreliable, which means that the floor drops underneath the whole big bang idea. And that might be a bit too much for the mainstream to swallow…..

[nueview]

i think this all needs a point for perspective if i am standing on a high voltage transmission line and it is my ground any voltage readings are mute as to time and wave occurance and values and any circuit will only have some reference to itself.
in short i am not connected to the bigger picture of all that is occuring.

this is the state of our connection to the globe so it would have to be considered first before any actions could even be considered.

in short it is all a part fo the understanding we need to come to.

even in so many scope displays i have seen the effects of this background field effect and they are never spoken of.
such as why do hairpin circuits seem to fade at times is it because we are acting with some other field we are connecting with like two magnetic fields out of phase with each other or is it charges displaced by our circuit that changes the local value and in some way tunes to the phase action of these fields as they pass by either from the sun or from somewhere else in space.

i have seen something lately i cannot explain and it is really bothering me because it is an occurance where power grows in effect by octave levels and at the same time is suppressing the magnetic making it smaller by note levels and i have no math that is making sense of this.


Martin