[Physics] Equivalence principle proven wrong? Pushing or pulling gravity?

Thu Oct 20 23:21:30 CEST 2016

Hello Tom,

I've just read it now and I think you have a point. After all, in "thought
experiments" there is no objection against working with a "miniature black
hole". I cc-ed the physics discussion list, perhaps there are others who
will comment, too.

However, my/Stowe's model predicts gravity to be a pushing force, since
predicted to be caused by standing longitudinal "Tesla" waves. In the
discussion over at Thunderbolts.info,  JouniJokela brought forth some
interesting information regarding pushing/pulling gravity:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16468

-:-
This theory is principally correct. It's basically the same as this idea
from Year 1690, just three years after Newton's Principia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%2 ... ravitation
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation>

This doesn't mean the theory is wrong. -It's correct. Totally correct. It
doesnt actually matter, how the interactions are named; " ultramundane
corpuscles" "photons" or "Electromagnetic" or what ever...

The MAIN PROBLEM in all these theories is, that it changes the
Gravitational PULL to a PUSH. And this causes certain logical problem's in
thermodynamics. Like allready "Maxwell and Poincaré showed, inelastic
collisions lead to a vaporization of matter within fractions of a second
and the suggested solutions were not convincing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%2 ... ion#Energy
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#Energy>

But "not convincing" doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means that if we want
to produce a "Theory of everything", we need to work an answer to these
issues, which the claim "it's push and not Pull" brings.

I've done this work in this paper;
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Everything
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294535112_QED_explanation_for_Gravity_and_Radioactivity_Theory_of_Everything>
And there is ie. Figures 19 and 20 on page 26-27 which clearly PROVES that
Earth is under continuous PUSH.

Because you can't explain these gas stratifcation anomalies any other way.
And the most convincing observation to me was, that this not convincing HEAT,
is there. And the current explanation for this heat (Solar XUV radiation)
is not even close of the correct order-range. (4.2.2. page 23 in m paper)
-:-

What is particularly interesting in his comment, is that he points to "*certain
logical problem's in thermodynamics*" occurring when gravity is considered
to be a pushing force, with a reference to WikiPedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#Energy

However, since our model is just a simple fluid dynamics model, wherein we
linked gravity to an ordinary longitudinal standing wave, we should not
have these kinds of problems with our model.

My reply:

-:-
Only now do I understand your statement:

The MAIN PROBLEM in all these theories is, that it changes the
Gravitational PULL to a PUSH

However, I think our theory shows that the following does matter:

It doesnt actually matter, how the interactions are named; " ultramundane
corpuscles" "photons" or "Electromagnetic" or what ever...

As long as you consider gravity to be a force separate from the electric
field, you will get yourself in trouble, one way or the other. The
Biefeld-Brown effect clearly shows there is a relation between the electric
field and gravity.

Our model defines gravity (in differential notation) as the gradient of the
divergence of the electric field E, while the electric field is predicted
to consist of longitudinal sound-like waves.

So, gravity is an effect caused by the presence of interfering longitudinal
waves, which therefore need to be taken into consideration when modelling
and describing gravity. I would fully expect problems like "certain logical
problem's in thermodynamics" to just vanish when considered from our simple
and elegant proposal, because it's all just fluid dynamics wherein problems
with thermodynamics are non-existent AFAIK.

So, why would they occur with our model?
-:-

Best regards,

Arend Lammertink, MScEE,
Goor, The Netherlands.

Please note that I'm currently overwhelmed with e-mails. If you're
interested in discussing science and/or physics, please consider
subscribing to the mailing list I created for that purpose:

http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 5:45 PM, carmam at tiscali.co.uk <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:

> Hi Arend, I have noted you comments and web sites and will look into it
> then get back to you.
> Have you read my web page http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/carmam/Hollings.html#
> gravity  where I prove that the equivalence principle is wrong?
>
> Tom Hollings
>
>
> ----Original Message----
> From: lamare at gmail.com
> Date: 14/10/2016 16:29
> To: <dissidents at tuks.nl>
> Subj: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"
>
> Dear fellow dissident scientist,
>
> I have spent a lot of time analyzing the history of Maxwell's
> equations and how those led to Relativity as well as Quantum Field
> Theory. Based on that analysis, I found an astonishing inconsistency
> in Maxwell's equations, which led to an incomplete model for
> electromagnetics.
>
> For instance, Maxwell's equations predict only one type of
> electromagnetic waves to exist, namely transverse waves, while in
> actual fact at least two types of waves are known to exist, namely the
> "near" and "far" fields:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
>
> By correcting this inconsistency, we can come to a Unified model in an
> elegant, consistent and natural way. Please find my abstract below.
>
> You can read the full article at my personal website:
>
> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegantTheoryOf
> Everything
>
> I hope you are able and willing to consider my proposal and let me
> know what you think about it. To me, it contains the answer I believe
> science has been looking for, but of course you may differ in opinion.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Arend Lammertink, MScEE,
> Goor, The Netherlands.
>
> P.S. I found your email address at:
> http://editionsassailly.com/livres/climont%20full%20list%20htm.htm
>
> ----
>
> Abstract
>
> In a previous article, we stated that all currently known areas of
> Physics' theories converge naturally into one Unified Theory of
> Everything once we make one fundamental change to Maxwell's aether
> model. In that article, we explored the history of Maxwell's equations
> and considered a number of reasons for the need to revise Maxwell's
> equations. In this article, we will make the mathematical case that
> there is a hole in Maxwell's equations which should not be there,
> given that we started with the same basic hypothesis as Maxwell did:
>
> A physical, fluid-like medium called "aether" exists.
>
> Maxwell did not explicitly use this underlying hypothesis, but
> abstracted it away. This leads to a mathematically inconsistent model
> wherein, for example, units of measurements do not match in his
> definition for the electric potential field. By correcting this
> obvious flaw in the model and extending it with a definition for the
> gravity field, we obtain a simple, elegant, complete and
> mathematically consistent "theory of everything" without "gauge
> freedom", the fundamental theoretical basis for Quantum Weirdness
> which we must therefore reject.
>
> [...]
>
> Conclusions
>
> By working out standard textbook fluid dynamic vector theory for an
> ideal, compressible, non-viscous Newtonian fluid, we have established
> that Maxwell's equations are mathematically inconsistent, given that
> these are supposed to describe the electromagnetic field from the
> aether hypothesis. Since our effort is a direct extension of Paul
> Stowe and Barry Mingst' aether model, we have come to a complete
> mathematically consistent "field theory of everything". And we found
> "Maxwell's hole" to be the original flaw in the standard model that
> led to both relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which should thus both
> be rejected.
>
> ----
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161020/909e1d2b/attachment-0001.html>