There are huge holes in the theory of gravity, the main one is forces going in opposite directions when you "drop" an object ( bouancy ) but also there is no evidence of acceleration when objects supposedly fall. Check an accelerometer on your phone when you drop it. If it is moving downwards, it needs to accelerate.
The fundamental force is the earth moving upwards. The opposite is inertia. Without the motion, we have no up down, sense of direction or weight.
Gravity is both explained and demonstrable through this framework though. They just need to do combine certain aspects of what they are saying so It is easier to understand.
The original definition of inertia is energy at rest, the aether. Loss of that inertia (the dielectric field - inertia and acceleration) manifests or terminates into magnetism, which is what creates 'space' and gives everything volume in this world. Magnetism is force in motion. Once you introduce a temporal variable (time) you have electricity.
Gravity is incoherent mutual mass acceleration, while magnetism is point source acceleration (incorrectly called attraction). The effect of gravity is an attribute of electrostatics, all of which relates to magnetic fields.
How is it demonstrated? Gravity postulates that objects fall or more precisely - being "pulled" to the ground. There is no such thing as a "pulling" force. There is only a "push" force.
When you "pull" a door open, where is the pressure applied and what direction is the force? 😉
Without showing proof of downward acceleration, there is no "gravity". It is the earth that is moving upward. There is an upward vector.
Also, you are wrong about magnetism. It isn't force in motion. Magnetism is magnetism. But a force = motion. To have a force you need motion.
That concludes my Tedtalk today.
"magnetism is magnetism" isn't a definition. That's not defining anything. So define it with specificity. I'm not wrong nor am I the one proposing this, it is all built on the work of Tesla, Maxwell, Steinmetz, Faraday, Russell, etc.
You're telling me why modern physics calls gravity. I don't agree with their definition. They postulate it is the bending and warping of spacetime. I'm explaining that it's an emergent phenomenon that occurs due to electrostatics.
It is demonstrated with experiments by adjusting electrostatic charge where you can make objects float up or down.
Take your framework and then explain how it can be practicality applied into something useable.
I'm not making any claims about magnetism, you are. Can you demonstrate those claims in reality or is it all just magical woo woo existing in your head?
You can't even define magnetism, how can you explain what it is if it you're unable to define it?
Yes, it's easily demonstrated:
https://video.nostr.build/65b81728c7b0095c6ff349def4b447997de96e6bcd213ded3cc2559d4d81c01c.mp4
In your video it says you need to believe in gravity, I am asking you to demonstrate the force gravity. Show me evidence that it is pulling objects down. Can you show the force or not?
Define magnetism.
You can use Google. You need to prove your claim that magnetism is gravity. Your obfuscation is already evidence that you cannot backup your claim when confronted with real world evidence.
Bruh Google doesn't define magnetism and neither can you. Start there before we can continue.
I don't need a description, SHOW me your claim that magnetism is gravity.
The video shows that the movement of objects can be manipulated with electrostatic charges to go up instead of down.
Even now your saying magnetism is gravity. Where are you getting this from?
No one is disputing objects can be manipulated by electrostatic chrages. You claim there is a downward force - demonstrate it.
It doesn't matter if the earth is moving upwards or rotating or still in this context, it's about what you can do with this information. You're becoming emotional over a belief that is inconsequential because it doesn't lead to anything that will practically benefit anyone. Turn your understanding of the physics into a practical application.
If you don't understand what magnetism is then you can't understand the effects. This is a demonstration of manipulation of electrostatics to make objects move upwards against "gravity", because it is all electrostatic forces at play.
I would love to hear how your framework goes on to explain the workings of zero point energy, i.e. coherent field arrays.
So you can't demonstrate this force? It's just a theory.
You're diverting the conversation to only worry about gravity, which is just one small aspect of what's being discussed here.
You need to understand magnetism first and foremost, which you clearly haven't done because you cannot even define it. Just like Feynman couldn't define it.
So you can't demonstrate your claim. Understood. You are either a retarded NPC or at it.
The claim is demonstrated in the video I shared and you're sitting there ignoring it. I may be retarded, but at least I have taken the time to understand magnetism which is why I can and have defined it, and you can't, and instead resort to ad homs.
I'm not mad, but your belief system won't result in anything tangible because there is no basis for it. Let's say the earth was moving upwards, how do you turn this into something actionable like ZPE?
How can the earth move upwards in all directions at the same time?
The earth is moving upwards only, not all directions.
If it’s moving upward for me how can it be moving upward for some on the other side of the globe?
Who says we live on a globe?
The upward vector is observable and easily demonstrated, just use a accelerometer in your phone and see!
The flat earthers who went to the South Pole and observed the 24hrs sun.
Anyone who’s ever been into space.
Eratosthenes
What has the sun got to do with the shape of the earth? Or people who claim to have been in space?
The earth is a level plane (level indicating orientation) and is moving upward. This is observable and demonstrable by everyone.
Flat earth is just absurd, the earth is clearly not flat everywhere.
You have lost me.
If it’s not flat how can we all be moving ‘up’ at the same time.
It's level, which indicates orientation
Level is not a shape
That's what I've said, it's an orientation. You do know what that means don't you?
I understand orientation.
I’m asking you to explain to me how the world can be moving ‘up’ for everyone at the same time unless it’s flat.
As an extreme example, how can it be moving ‘up’ for someone on the North Pole and someone on the South Pole at the same time.
Just to avoid confusion I do not think the earth is flat, it’s demonstrably a sphere and I can’t tally that with your assertion that when you drop something it doesn’t fall down but the earth moves ‘up’ to meet it.
If you understand orientation, and as I have said, the earth is moving upwards. Then because of the motion, regardless of where you are on the earth, regardless of the shape of the earth, you would all have an upward vector caused by the motion of the earth. The upward vector allows you to know up and down, gives you weight (in freefall you are weightless).
Check the video I shared again, this is real world physics and a repeatable experiment you can do yourself - I am not making claims - I have SHOWN you actual reality and you can demonstrate/repeat the experiment yourself.
I do not make any claims to know the shape of the earth, but if you know and can demonstrate it, along with some proof objects are falling, happy to review.
Here is a great animation showing what's happening
Another practical demonstration that there is no evidence showing objects falling. Once released from the reference frame (movement), they show no signs of acceleration downwards but lose weight , buoyancy and density (which are caused by motion).
So are you saying that when something ‘falls’ towards the earth it does not accelerate?
I did an experiment at school when I was 13 using wooden cars, ticker tape and weights to demonstrate that acceleration due to gravity is not affected by mass but they all did still accelerate.
I’m not trying to be a troll but you are going to have to explain in much simpler terms what it is that I don’t understand here.
Yes, it's clearly demonstrated in this experiment. You can do the same experiment with water. There is an upward vector caused by motion of the earth.
My reply to this would be what does the flame do if it’s not in a sealed jar? Not what we are seeing here.
Do you deny what the experiment shows? Is there a downward force? If so, please demonstrate
If I push a candle in a direction and it’s not in a closed container the flame will not move in the direction of the force. Anyone who has ever carried anything with a flame on it will tell you that is true.
This phenomenon is caused by the flame being in the sealed container. From the candles point of view the earth is accelerating towards it. From the earths point of view the candle (+the jar and air inside) is accelerating towards it. The physics that explain both are the same. Therefore we have to look at other factors to decide which is actually happening. Is the earth moving up to meet the container or is the container moving down to meet the earth. Since we know from many observations that the earth is a sphere, unless it is expanding it cannot be moving ‘up’ in every direction at the same time. If the earth was expanding it would be observable and measurable, and this has neither been observed or measured therefore it’s reasonable to conclude that it is no the earth moving to meet the container but the container moving to meet the earth.
I downloaded an accelerometer, when I drop my phone it shows that it’s accelerating.
When you let go, your phone goes into freefall and shows 0 acceleration until it reaches the floor and then is accelerated again.
Everything you said here is shockingly wrong. Please go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 sats.
AI agrees with me, so either a huge amount of the worlds computing power is wrong or you don't know how to think. I know what m money is on.
