Yes I think the misunderstanding here is that I'm talking about an electric field, which has the properties I described, while you're talking about a magnetic field đ
"A negative electric charge will attract positive charges from all directions. From the left, right, front, back, top, bottom and all directions in between."
Perhaps I'm not understanding you. The field on either side of a magnet is 180 degrees, not 360, because they are separated by the inertial plane. One side is lines of centrifugal divergence while the opposing side is lines of centripetal convergence.
Since you claim that fields can be spherical, do you have any experiments to demonstrate this?
Fields cannot be anything other than toroidal in terms of their geometric expression, no matter what shape a magnet is.
There are countless demonstrations that prove this, here are just a couple, along with some explanations:
Discussion
What's the difference?
Electricity is dielectricity and magnetism + space and time (frequency and the rate).
I think you're still stuck in the paradigm of what we were taught these things are, rather than what they actually are.
There is only the dielectric field. Everything else is an expression of it.
But opposite charges still attract, yes? By coulombs law? Because that's all it needs for my argument
Hang on though. I have been talking about electromagnetism as the alternative explanation to gravity, not electricity.
The position of gravity is illogical on its face because its very definition is to apply physical properties to concepts. Gravity is not a force. It is described as the mass of objects warping spacetime.
Space is the absence of something. Time is a concept. Neither of these things have physical properties. Gravity in its current form is never explained, is it description of the effect using mathematical formulas. Math doesn't explain anything. The predictions of Eisensteinian gravity failed on a cosmological scale, resulting in theories of dark matter - which cannot be observed or measured.
The entire theory is reification, fallaciously proposing new theories which inherently cannot be disproven or experimentally validated because they are entirely belief based.
Well granted you weren't specific, but the guy I spoke to was clear that static electric attraction of opposite charges was the explanation for objects falling to earth - and I've seen that stated elsewhere too. Do you have a different explanation?
And fwiw I'm not currently interested in disproving gravity (though it might be an interesting thing for future) but to understand the FE explanation for bodies falling to earth.
The current description (which is never even explained) isn't valid, neither in a globe nor a flat earth model. It's interesting that people 'require' these explanations from flerfs, yet gravity as most believe it has never been explained.
I believe that Ken Wheeler's explanation (again, not a flat-earther, he would certainly disavow) is coherent and applicable to both models, so instead of trying to re-write all of it I will put one of his papers in below.
I will add that this is a deep topic, I have spent dozens of hours reading and listening to understand it so far, and I probably have hundreds more ahead of me to full grasp all of it (the entire topic, not just 'gravity', but these are intricately tied together).
Fundamentally, this hinges on the understanding that the Aether is real, that being pure potential, inertia or energy at rest, and fields are modalities (excited or disturbed states) of the Aether.
Science today denies the existence of the Aether, which was not only proven through the MMX experiment and other interferometric measurements, but also what all the 'fathers' of field-theory understood to be true and based all of their work on. Without their work and understanding of this fundamental truth, we wouldn't have any of the technology we have today.
In a grossly simplified explanation, nature demands an equilibrium. Magnetic attraction is dielectric acceleration towards counterspace. In the same way nature seeks to equalize pressure, it is a propensity to induce its natural state - a state of rest. As with two magnets accelerating toward eachother, towards counterspace, when objects fall to the ground, it is the same phenomenon - nature seeking a state of rest. 'What goes up, must come down'.
----
GRAVITY DEFINED
Copyright Oct. 2021 Ken L. Wheeler
1. Gravity is not a force, rather the acceleration to the homeostasis of highest inertia, or lowest Aether torsion. The phenomena called gravity is the reaction of the Aether, the medium, to the ultra high-energy light dynamos, simplex or accumulated, corresponding to what is conventionally called matter.
2. Gravity is an anti-field, but incorrectly assumed a field due to acceleration and mutual mass interactions & observations of
same. A field by definition is an Aether perturbation modality; the dielectric being the Aether under stress & torsion, the magnetic being the dielectric under the state of loss of energy/inertia to the medium (or field) system as manifesting the fundamental centrifugal toroidal force vector of expanding magnitude and its corresponding attributes (space, time, mass etc.).
3. Matter & masses do not accelerate towards one another; gravity is not a property of either matter, or the masses composed of compounded matter. All matter, be it simplex or compounded, is ultra high-energy light and as such ultra high-energy dielectric dynamos that necessitatively induce current in the Aether, or Medium as such. This induction circuit inherent to the nature of matter generates the attributional impulse current of the Aether and movement of matter, or the phenomena called gravity.
4. All light rebounds in its coaxial circuit, manifesting and de-manifesting as the perturbation propagates itself in its own medium, the Aether, as such. Matter as such being ultra high-energy light mutually accelerates towards the lowest null pressure in counterspace, just as the EMR circuit of light rebounds in its cycle (or frequency) at the force dissipation of the magneto-dielectric geometry as lights circuit is cycled and exhausted as such over & over again, as meaning the frequency of the circuit field compound phenomena so deemed âlightâ. Matter, being ultra high-energy light as such, rebounds mutually towards counterspace due to its generation of an impulse current in the Aether and its resultant strain-phenomena, or torsion as such. This can be conventionally called the induction towards inertia homeostasis.
5. The phenomena called gravity is neither the warping of space (an impossible, likewise deemed same by Tesla) or the curvature of space & or time. This illogical absurdity was birthed by Atomists & Relativists as a necessary resultant to create a new medium after the dismissal of the Natural-Order of the only actual medium of Nature, that being the Aether.
6. The phenomena called gravity is entirely identical to the phenomena incorrectly deemed âmagnetic attractionâ and likewise identical to the phenomena deemed âelectrostatic clingâ. These phenomena are only individuated in and by lesser minds & resultant to these having the attributional nuances of being either point-source (magnet) or non-point-source, i.e. incoherent induction to the Aether-Inertia homeostasis, as in the case of conventional matterâs mutual acceleration.
7. Charge disparity in the case of âstatic clingâ is a spatial disparity of charge polarization, likewise too, mutual magnet acceleration (incorrectly called âmagnetic attractionâ, which is not magnetism whatsoever) is a spatial disparity of charge polarization or Aether impulse current torsion, in that case being point source polarization and therefore a compounded multiplicative order of power over that of âstatic clingâ and the phenomena called gravity relational to conventional matter.
8. Just as light[n]ing is not a ground to cloud or cloud to ground energy phenomena, rather a lateral discharge into counterspace,
so too the phenomena called gravity is the impulse current of the Aether by simplex or compounded matter, these ultra high-
energy dielectric dynamos in their motions (anti-spatial) towards counterspace that are induced and impelled by the Aether.
This movement of matter is not mutually induced by the matter itself rather by the Aether, the mediumâs induction towards
inertia-homeostasis.
9. The impulse current between matter is the property of the Aether, the medium, not the matter itself, which explains away all
confusions on and about the phenomena called gravity, these ultra high-energy dynamos, being ultra high-energy light as such, create the impulse current of the Aether in response and the mutual acceleration towards counterspace. The phenomena called gravity is the acceleration-erasure of the curvilinear or toroidal torsion of any and all magnetic effects of inertia-rarefaction, which magnetism is by definition. This fact was proven by Oliver Heaviside as to the role of magnetism in the phenomena called gravity in his obscure article âA Gravitational and Electromagnetic Analogyâ.
10. It has been said that Nature abhors a vacuum, rather correctly it should be said that Nature abhors Aether/Inertia-rarefaction, which generates the magneto-toroidal disparity and resultant impulse current, which drives the mutual masses towards counterspace and inertia homeostasis. The final resultant of gravity is the zero-sum gain in the homeostasis of inertia/Aether-potential, increasing said potential to a net-zero anti-vector (i.e. inertia stasis), or a total Aether torsion-null, as meant a total absence of force & motion.
"In a grossly simplified explanation, nature demands an equilibrium. Magnetic attraction is dielectric acceleration towards counterspace. In the same way nature seeks to equalize pressure, it is a propensity to induce its natural state - a state of rest. As with two magnets accelerating toward eachother, towards counterspace, when objects fall to the ground, it is the same phenomenon - nature seeking a state of rest. 'What goes up, must come down'."
You are saying an object falls to ground because of "pressure" to find equilibrium. I can broadly accept that but you still need a motive force to create the pressure and define the equilibrium. Otherwise the object would stay where it is.
You use magnetic attraction as an analogy but its clearly not the force responsible.
So what is the force that is responsible for objects falling to earth?
No, I'm was describing the nature of this system is to seek equilibrium, be it through pressure mediation or dielectricity accelerating towards counterspace. When you open a pressured container it instantly equalizes with the environment. Vacuums don't exist in nature. It was Aristotle who said 'nature abhors a vacuum', suggesting nature cannot tolerate a void or empty space. And I would say he was correct, we don't observe vacuums in nature, only Hollywood fiction and imagination.
I'm not sure you read all of what I last posted. I understand the terms are technical. I'm not trying to hide behind technical jargon. I have had to read and listen to the same things over and over to build a mental model and understanding. I clearly stated that magnetic attraction doesn't exist. It sounds like a distinction without a difference, but what we call magnetic attraction is dielectric acceleration. This is a very important difference. There is no force involved. It is the same as a pressured container equalizing once open. There is no force involved in that, either. It is the system equalizing to it's natural state of rest and equilibrium. Forget forces, not even gravity is claimed to be a force.
'If you want to understand the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration' - Tesla
What he was getting at here is all matter is energy at varying high frequencies. All matter induces current in the Aether. That means all matter is dielectric in nature. You, me, that desk, a car. Everything.
Electricity, magnetism, and gravity are all expressions of dielectricity. Any object falling to the ground is the result of dielectricity seeking its null point, accelerating towards counterspace, or a state of rest. It really is that simple, but understanding it isn't quite as simple because we have to throw out the indoctrinated assumptions we make based on fallacies we believe to be true, and there are a lot of prerequisites we need to grasp for that understanding to fall into place.
Just like light doesn't actually travel, it is the rate of induction of the Aether and it has a speed limit depending on the density of the medium is it being perceived through. The rate of induction is inversely proportional to the density of the medium. The satisfactorily explains why light is perceived to be travelling at different rates through different mediums, otherwise, one would have to explain where light gets the energy to speed up again once it exists a material object such as a glass.
Even if the Earth was a spinning ball, this would still be the best explanation for what gravity is.
I also appreciate you challenging and questioning this. Every time I attempt to explain it, it improves my understanding that much more.
OK, thanks.
"Any object falling to the ground is the result of dielectricity seeking its null point, accelerating towards counterspace"
This gives me the explanation I'm after.
But you have used 2 words that I have not heard before -"dielectricity" and "counterspace". Nor can I find any generally accepted definitions of these - at least none which make sense to me in the context you've used them.
Can you define or explain them please? (Even better would be to put this in the context of the greater explanation of the object falling).
Many thanks!
So I think to grasp that you have to get into what magnetism is. I will try summarize as best I can.
Aether: energy at rest, [the original definition of] inertia, pure potential, the default state of energy, counterspace
Counterspace: unmanifested energy, the state of rest, zero point energy
Fields: modalities of the Aether, different states of excitation
Gravity: an anti-field
Dielectricity: the engine of electric fields. Not electricity, not magnetism and not gravity.
Electricity: the combination of magnetism and dielectricity
Magnetism: the expression of the dielectric field AND the loss of inertia (losing the state of rest). In other words, going from the default state of rest (Aether) into expressing dielectricity as a magnetic field.
Light: a disturbance of the Aether. Tesla defined it as a sound wave in the Aether.
Waves: an action, not a 'thing'. When a light is 'waving', it is the frequency and amplitude of the Aether disturbance that results in this effect. No different than the ripples 'waving' through water when disturbed. When light stops waving, it is no longer disturbing the medium and therefore no longer perceptible.
Modalities: different states. Ice, water and steam are all modalities of the same thing, affected or mediated by pressure and temperature, just like fields are all modalities of the same thing - the Aether.
Imagine a donut with a tube or rod passing through the middle, almost like a washer on a bolt. The bolt is the dielectric field, and that is what powers the magnetic field (the washer). These oscillate back and forth as 'lines' of interference always represented in the same toroidal pattern, creating the phenomenon of what we call a magnetic field. The dielectric field 'flows' from north to south, driving the magnetic field to diverge from the bottom of a magnet, looping back around to converge over the top and back into the center, creating the toroidal pattern continuously. You can actually tell where the north and south 'poles' of a magnet are under a ferrocell by the red and blue fringe shift - each 'pole' tends to one or the other. As I have learned, magnets don't actually have poles, they have the inverse of counterspace, or the opposite of the state of rest as defined above. The dielectric field is the inverse of a magnetic field, ying/Yang if you will, but they are inherent to eachother and cannot exist in isolation.
In order to magnetize an object, it requires a combination of elements that exhibit high capacitance, or how capable a material is of storing electric charge. A neodymium permanent magnet is a combination of mostly neodymium, iron and boron, which are high capacitance elements. When you magnetize these elements, you would typically hit it with a high voltage electric current. What happens in the process is that the electricity (as defined above) loses its dielectric component, resulting in a permanent magnetic charge which is stored in these highly capacitive elements.
If matter is high frequency light, then everything is inherently electric (in the broad sense of the term) and matter is physically manifested energy. Funny enough, even an apple manifests in a similar pattern as a magnetic field, which is fitting when Newton considered the apple falling to the ground. As I currently understand it, we cannot perceive the vibrations because they are such a high frequency that they appear static. Although an apple isn't magnetic, since it has little or no capacitance, it is still electric, just like everything material. And, like all matter, it is therefore subject to the same phenomenon of falling, or returning back to a default state of rest. This is the acceleration towards counterspace, or acceleration back to the inertial plane, or colloquially, falling down to the ground, which would be the inertial plane or where matter is at rest. It is nature trending towards the state it favours most, back to default, also also why magnets accelerate towards eachother, they are trending towards counterspace or back to the default state of rest.
In understanding the nature of magnetism, Tesla created the AC motor by inverting the magnetic field. I believe the correct field array is the key to discovering things like 'unlimited' energy.
Tesla's quote about energy frequency and vibration is really quite genius. All matter is energy, vibration and the rate at which something vibrates (frequency) coupled with its elemental makeup is what creates the reality we live in. In that sense, it is totally possible that it is a holographic simulation. Another off topic curiousity is how we can get a glimpse of this through altering our perception with psychedelics or meditation, where we can observe these geometric patterns that aren't otherwise perceptible.
Simple, yet complicated, but in my opinion, accurate.
Well, really I appreciate you taking the trouble to set all that out and explain your view. However if I'm honest I find it impossible to follow with the effort I'm willing to put into it. There are many concepts that have no meaning to me, and statements that I cannot connect to my understanding of reality without doing more work than I'm willing to at this point (also I have no particular beef with the mainstream account of gravity and such). I hope you don't feel it's been wasted - maybe I'll return to this someday.
To pick up something else you said (about living in a simulation), one reason I would not be inclined to devote a lot of energy to this stuff is that I don't really see any point in taking one view rather than another. The entirety of scientific enquiry reaches a dead end when you ask the question: "how do I know what I'm seeing is real". There is no answer to that - at least none which can be reached with the scientific method, which relies on the notion of objective truth, which can easily be shown not to have any logical meaning.
So where I got to with science is that basically there is my consciousness - essentially just a viewpoint from which I perceive things, including my own body and feelings - and that's all that can be proven to me using science.
The interesting stuff is then what describes or explains my consciousness, as defined. I'm interested now by ideas of whether consciousness is inextricably connected to my physical body or not - and, if not, what context it exists in, and whether other consciousnesses are connected by that context.
Things like near-death experiences could be taken to suggest that consciousness is NOT limited to the physical body, and does not terminate at death.
My hypothesis for this is that there is, let's call it, a 5th dimension (speaking extremely loosely) on which consciousness exists. It connects in some way to physical bodies but the connection is not strictly necessary or permanent. And perhaps consciousnesses can interact directly when they are not connected to physical bodies.
All of that seems consistent with the science I know - and cannot be disproven. Nor is it provable, or falsifiable, but I've been down to the bottom of physics and it seems to me that isn't either! So if you're going to carry around a non-falsifiable view of existence it might as well be a mind-expanding one that allows life beyond physical existence, and communication between consciousnesses on a non-physical plane.. ..and which seems to be roughly shared by the majority of humans who have been born!
I totally understand - it is a lot to gather, and it takes a bit of effort to first and foremost understand all the terminology, and then how it fits together. Definitely not time wasted, because writing it out helps me develop my understanding, too.
A lot of this actually ties together with the field of metaphysics, which is partly what led me down the rabbit hole. Ken actually talks about that too, he is a meta-physicist. I don't believe in the idea that we die, because I think that this reality is a temporary experience for the soul, and the body is a way for us to interface with this world.
Near-death experiences, out of body experiences, countless accounts of people remembering past lives... I think there is a good amount of evidence to support the idea.
"So if you're going to carry around a non-falsifiable view of existence it might as well be a mind-expanding one that allows life beyond physical existence, and communication between consciousnesses on a non-physical plane.. ..and which seems to be roughly shared by the majority of humans who have been born!"
Yup, I'm on board with this way of thinking and looking at it. It drew me away from an atheistic perspective of the world, and geocentrism definitely contributes to that too, from my perspective and current understanding.
Ah, thank you so much for taking the time for this discussion, I feel it's a wonderful journey we're all on!
Oh sorry, I see that you have explained "dielectric acceleration" as being synonymous with "magnetic attraction".
But surely that would apply only to magnetic objects and not, for example, an apple?
Your thread broke Nostr :) I've never read such a long thread. Interesting, a lot way over my head. Is there a site or a book that covers your equilibrium thesis?