<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hello Tom,<br><br></div>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.<br><br></div>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:<br><div><br><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><a href="http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16468">http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16468</a><br><br>-:-<br>This theory is principally correct. It's basically the same as this idea
from Year 1690, just three years after Newton's Principia. <br><br><a class="gmail-postlink" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%2 ... ravitation</a><br><br>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...<br><br>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 "<span style="font-style:italic">Maxwell
and Poincaré showed, inelastic collisions lead to a vaporization of
matter within fractions of a second and the suggested solutions were not
convincing.</span>"<br><a class="gmail-postlink" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#Energy">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%2 ... ion#Energy</a><br><br>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.<br><br>I've done this work in this paper;<br><a class="gmail-postlink" href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294535112_QED_explanation_for_Gravity_and_Radioactivity_Theory_of_Everything">https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Everything</a><br>And there is ie. Figures 19 and 20 on page 26-27 which clearly PROVES that Earth is under continuous PUSH. <br><br>Because you can't explain these gas stratifcation anomalies any other way. <br>And the most convincing observation to me was, that this <span style="font-style:italic">not convincing </span>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)<br>-:-<br><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">What is particularly interesting in his comment, is that he points to "<b>certain logical problem's in
thermodynamics</b>" occurring when gravity is considered to be a pushing force, with a reference to WikiPedia:<br><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#Energy">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#Energy</a><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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. <br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">My reply:<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>-:-<br>Only now do I understand your statement:<br><br><blockquote class="gmail-uncited"><div>The MAIN PROBLEM in all these theories is, that it changes the Gravitational PULL to a PUSH</div></blockquote><br><br>However, I think our theory shows that the following <span style="font-weight:bold">does</span> matter:<br><br><blockquote class="gmail-uncited"><div>It
doesnt actually matter, how the interactions are named; " ultramundane
corpuscles" "photons" or "Electromagnetic" or what ever...</div></blockquote><br><br><span style="font-weight:bold">As long as you consider gravity to be a force separate from the electric field, you will get yourself in trouble</span>, one way or the other. The Biefeld-Brown effect clearly shows there is a relation between the electric field and gravity.<br><br>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.<br><br>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 <span style="font-weight:bold">it's all just fluid dynamics</span> wherein problems with thermodynamics are non-existent AFAIK. <br><br>So, why would they occur with our model?<br>-:-<br><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best regards,<br clear="all"></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><br></div>Arend Lammertink, MScEE,<br></div>Goor, The Netherlands.<br><br></div>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:<br><br><a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 5:45 PM, <a href="mailto:carmam@tiscali.co.uk">carmam@tiscali.co.uk</a> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carmam@tiscali.co.uk" target="_blank">carmam@tiscali.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Arend, I have noted you comments and web sites and will look into it then get back to you.<div>Have you read my web page <a href="http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/carmam/Hollings.html#gravity" target="_blank">http://myweb.tiscali.co.<wbr>uk/carmam/Hollings.html#<wbr>gravity</a> where I prove that the equivalence principle is wrong?<br>
<br>Tom Hollings</div><div class="gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-h5"><div><br></div><div><br>
----Original Message----<br>From: <a href="mailto:lamare@gmail.com" target="_blank">lamare@gmail.com</a><br>Date: 14/10/2016 16:29<br>To: <<a href="mailto:dissidents@tuks.nl" target="_blank">dissidents@tuks.nl</a>><br>Subj: An exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything"<br><br>Dear fellow dissident scientist,<br><br>I have spent a lot of time analyzing the history of Maxwell's<br>equations and how those led to Relativity as well as Quantum Field<br>Theory. Based on that analysis, I found an astonishing inconsistency<br>in Maxwell's equations, which led to an incomplete model for<br>electromagnetics.<br><br>For instance, Maxwell's equations predict only one type of<br>electromagnetic waves to exist, namely transverse waves, while in<br>actual fact at least two types of waves are known to exist, namely the<br>"near" and "far" fields:<br><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr>Near_and_far_field</a><br><br>By correcting this inconsistency, we can come to a Unified model in an<br>elegant, consistent and natural way. Please find my abstract below.<br><br>You can read the full article at my personal website:<br><br><a href="http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegantTheoryOfEverything" target="_blank">http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.<wbr>php/Main/<wbr>AnExceptionallyElegantTheoryOf<wbr>Everything</a><br><br>I hope you are able and willing to consider my proposal and let me<br>know what you think about it. To me, it contains the answer I believe<br>science has been looking for, but of course you may differ in opinion.<br><br>Kindest regards,<br><br>Arend Lammertink, MScEE,<br>Goor, The Netherlands.<br><br>P.S. I found your email address at:<br><a href="http://editionsassailly.com/livres/climont%20full%20list%20htm.htm" target="_blank">http://editionsassailly.com/<wbr>livres/climont%20full%20list%<wbr>20htm.htm</a><br><br>----<br><br>Abstract<br><br>In a previous article, we stated that all currently known areas of<br>Physics' theories converge naturally into one Unified Theory of<br>Everything once we make one fundamental change to Maxwell's aether<br>model. In that article, we explored the history of Maxwell's equations<br>and considered a number of reasons for the need to revise Maxwell's<br>equations. In this article, we will make the mathematical case that<br>there is a hole in Maxwell's equations which should not be there,<br>given that we started with the same basic hypothesis as Maxwell did:<br><br>A physical, fluid-like medium called "aether" exists.<br><br>Maxwell did not explicitly use this underlying hypothesis, but<br>abstracted it away. This leads to a mathematically inconsistent model<br>wherein, for example, units of measurements do not match in his<br>definition for the electric potential field. By correcting this<br>obvious flaw in the model and extending it with a definition for the<br>gravity field, we obtain a simple, elegant, complete and<br>mathematically consistent "theory of everything" without "gauge<br>freedom", the fundamental theoretical basis for Quantum Weirdness<br>which we must therefore reject.<br><br>[...]<br><br>Conclusions<br><br>By working out standard textbook fluid dynamic vector theory for an<br>ideal, compressible, non-viscous Newtonian fluid, we have established<br>that Maxwell's equations are mathematically inconsistent, given that<br>these are supposed to describe the electromagnetic field from the<br>aether hypothesis. Since our effort is a direct extension of Paul<br>Stowe and Barry Mingst' aether model, we have come to a complete<br>mathematically consistent "field theory of everything". And we found<br>"Maxwell's hole" to be the original flaw in the standard model that<br>led to both relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which should thus both<br>be rejected.<br><br>----<br><br><br><br>
</div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>